I just expressed a similar thought to someone who said Dems lost because of identity politics. My counter was that it's Republicans who bring up the subject most often, leaving Democrats having to respond and, voila!, a GOP "ain't-they-woke?" soundbite.
"Either our leaders aren’t strong enough communicators, or they haven’t figured out how to break through in this media environment."
In my mind the media environment is the be-all and end-all of this problem. There is simply nothing on the left nearly as effective as Fox et al. Until there is, imo, no Democrat will be able to break through. (Though atm Newsom is coming close.)
That’s exactly right. And we have a legacy/mainstream/corporate whatever you want to call it media that carries the GOP’s water amplifying their message, while bashing Dems themselves. The NYT normalizes everything Trump does. The editorial yesterday about the raid on Bolton’s house wasn’t full of outrage. It was ho hum he got his revenge now who’s next? Yet this same paper called for Joe Biden to step out of the race last year. But not Trump. The Times still sets the tone for much of the reporting that does trickle down even to those who don’t pay attention to the news. It is infuriating.
And existential threat is woke? I guess the word “existential” is too smart.
Finally, somebody said it. I think the reason Tim Walz struck such a positive chord with voters was his plain talk about kindness. He was too little too late, but while he was on the national stage he was hard to ignore and drew both excitement and hope of what Dems wanted the world to see more than any other politician since Jimmy Carter. That’s what we need.
And it doesn’t hurt to put politicians in the forefront who are clearly in politics to serve instead of take. That needs to be the defining message. The GOP politicians are in it for themselves, and will lie to you to get what they want. The dems are trying to fix what they broke and are continuing to try to break (ie, take back what they are stealing from us through lies, bad laws, and capitulation). We can’t let them.
True and well said, but please note that Tim Walz's style and approach is more than a little the product of a long term Minnesota-wide development of messaging among DFL politicians and activists. He uses "Lakoff" theory (framing) as well as RCN theory, which was partly invented here in order to get us past the evil "Marriage Amendment." But he is a plain talker, and we all agree that using hauty-tauty academic language all the time is ... well ... uffda!
It angers me to no end when Democrats say we need to stop focusing on or talking about "social issues" and get back to the kitchen table issues people care about. It's Republicans who bring up the most extreme, absurd issues to back Dems into a corner. And politicians like Rahm Emanuel or Elissa Slotkin never address what to do when Republicans force those issues into the forefront. The Dems problem is never knowing how to pivot. They should just bring everything back to core, fundamental principles of human rights, kindness, and freedom and then ask why Republicans spend ninety percent of their time focusing on social issues and very little time addressing the most pressing needs of most Americans around the economy and jobs. Dems always let the Republicans control the narrative. And on subjects like crime, illegal immigration, and inflation, Dems argue incessantly over numbers and statistics and definitions instead of just saying yes all those things are bad now let's talk about how to fix it. We are always on the defense and Dems need training on how to pivot to offense.
If only more Democratic politicians and pundits could get it through their heads that there's no chasm between "social issues" and "kitchen table issues"! Black people tend to get this: their day-to-day existence makes it pretty clear. White working people used to get it -- before Nixon's racist "southern strategy," the conservative backlash against women's rights, and eventually the Reagan administration drove a wedge into the working and middle classes. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy got this. I can't begin to reckon what the nation lost when they were silenced.
Lots of issues in society that don’t get discussed at anyone’s kitchen table. But that in itself is a hackneyed phrase originated 90 years ago by FDR’s campaign. Instead, let’s discuss the issues themselves.
You advert to the GOP's cleverest ruse near the end of your piece, i.e., the ability to extrapolate from a stray comment by an insignificant left-of-center person a whole "woke" trend to hang around the Dems' neck. This allows them to both-sider the most monstrous verbal eruptions of Trump and his cabal. I wish I knew what we should do about this. Perhaps Gavin is showing the way.
I don’t think Third Way was saying that avoiding these words will fix the problem. I think they were saying this artificial language (which makes politicians sound like they just landed from Mars and are discussing a species completely foreign to them) is ONE of our problems.
It’s a valid point. This ridiculous vocabulary many elected Dems use routinely has painted a picture of Dems. MAGA thus finds it easy to take every response they bait us into and dab a bit more color onto that picture. So glad we make it easy on them.
Also good to find out it was intentional — that Dems were paying someone for this advice. While our supposedly stupid foes were pulling off project REDMAP, shoring iup Fox, starting NewsMax and OAN.
Words are not the problem, but words ARE magic, and how we use them, when, etc. does matter. Great speeches promulgate great ideas, idiotic live mike yammerings end careers, etc.
In defense of Lakoff/framing etc, as a long time critic AND practitioner of these ideas (google it) I'll say this: I've rarely seen formal training or discussion of framing that did not inspire and improve SOMEBODY's communication skills, but at the same time, in those settings, most people either never quite get what they are seeing beyond Messaging 101, and/or lost it all before they get very far down the street after the seminar. So it is not the idea, but the fact that getting people on board is a little like training surgeons. It takes time and effort and you'll only get a few -- very useful but very rare -- surgeons at the end.
I think the bigger picture is one I've learned from Pfeiffer (and some others) but that needs to be developed even further. Our messaging challenge is not finding THE message, but understanding that in the fractured media environment, we need an equally fractured approach.
We need to NOT lament the fracturing, but exploit it. Fractured does not mean broke or useless (who picked that word, "fractured," anyway!) It means that there are multiple staring and ending points within an interconnected complex whole (or maybe hole). We need multiple ways into it, to identify the multiple (and changing) end points, and deliver multiple hopefully well crafted and expertly targeted messages (or at least numerous messages that would then be subject to natural selection to get the best one).
I don't think there is anything wrong with a list of words that might be unhelpful, or that might be especially helpful, but that is not the solution in and of itself.
I think of the crowds at Indivisible organized street-side protests. If you critique the signs people are holding up, they are mostly bad messaging by standard messaging (including framing, RCN, etc standards). But those signs are not the message. The actual message is the angry mob holding signs, and that is an effective message.
Words matter and they are magic, but sometimes their magical effect comes from there just being a lot of them being shouted by a lot of people. (Not that that along is the answer either... remember: interconnected complex whole.)
Please. Enough with the media excuses. So weak and helpless. Our new excuse for failing.
Look around, folks. There’s a whole industry who has long since found a way to communicate with every human in the country. Effectively. Their whole industry relies solely on this skill, and they are deadly serious about it.
Advertising. Somehow they find a way so that every upper middle class mom, every Latino accountant, and every plumber both know about a product they may buy.
Let’s get a grip. And quit blaming a media system whose product most of us take for free while freely criticizing everything they do.
Apple predominantly uses product placement. They make sure actors, athletes and more are seen using (or at least holding) their products. 30 second TV ads and billboards are post-sale advertising to reassure customers that Apple shares their values. Especially the Apple ads about data security and recycling.
Bravo, Dan... one of your best analyses ever. The right-wing media landscape is formidable, and pervasive. The MSM doesn't help with its tendency to repeat right-wing talking points and focus on understanding and reporting the views of MAGA while ignoring (or even disparaging) progressive views.
As a retired psychologist who has always had a special interest in human development, I see other reasons why the GOP has become dominant, and unfortunately they relate to human nature itself. To wit:
1. It is easier to get people to fear those who are different than to get them to embrace or even accept difference. It's easier to get people to fear 'crime' than to believe that the vast majority of people around them are benign.
2. Humanity has always had -- and continues to have -- a bias toward viewing the male as superior to the female.
3. Those who have been harmed by a person or persons with more power tend to take their anger or frustration out on those who are weaker. (Even SF writer Robert Heinlein saw this, decades ago... it was Valentine Smith's 'big insight' into humanity in the book 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.)
4. A significant majority of people are so willing to do what an 'authority figure' says that they will act in a way that harms another for no valid reason at all other than being told to do so. (See: Stanley Milgram experiments in 'obedience' in the 1960's.)
R's seem to have a good understanding of these aspects of human nature and have become adept at exploiting them to the fullest.
Not all humans are stuck at this level of functioning, but I would wager that the majority still are... which is why Dems are seen as 'elitist'. If we survive long enough, humanity might be able to evolve past these ways of thinking, but right now it's hard to be optimistic.
On the other hand, we DID get the New Deal with FDR... but in order to have that again, something absolutely must be done about corporate power. As long as billionaires are literally able to buy lawmakers, not much will ever be done to help or protect the vast majority of Americans.
“Meeting” an abased version of clear and coherent English language “where it lives” is a form of surrender of history and soul neither required nor recommended. The human soul aspires. Give it the wings to rise and soar. Refuse, deny, cast off, and leave behind ankle shackles of permissive degradation of aim and effort. “Woke” is the dog whistle for oppression of clarity of thought and expression.
I really wish that "think tank" had spent its time exploring something more essential than their own navals.
Democrats are too bloody polite. Our mamas have drummed it into us that we don't blow our own horns and we don't interrupt others even when they are talking whopping lies or denigrating others. We patiently wait for them to stop spewing their invective and then give a well mannered response carefully explaining why they are incorrect. Of course, the parade has moved on and the only ones listening are those who already agree. Revolutions don't wait for the polite ones to speak softly and courteously the way mama taught them. They hear only the loudest, even if the rabble rouser is dead wrong and a liar. Time to be more like Gavin Newsom and less like Miss Manners. This is not just about a carefully curated list of overintellectual words,(Mother of God), it's about passion and rising to the challenge of saving democracy. I guess some people just need something to do.
I don’t think trump thinks about the alienating effects of the words he uses. They are from a playbook, but it’s not one anyone has used in the U.S. since Father Coughlin, and I doubt trump knows who that is.
Whether he’s following a script or not (and he certainly has an internal one), people believe he is “telling it like it is” and “not being politically correct.” They perceive what they view as honesty, in whatever form they perceive his communication to be honest.
Zohran has a script, and he has his favorite words. He’s offering bold ideas and saying something honest about NYC: it’s unaffordable for the people who make it run.
Dems need to be honest. They need to be bold. And in a country where most people do not know the three branches of government, let alone understand or care how USAID (used to) exercise soft power, Dems need to speak to the people about the things that matter to them. We need a “yes we can” for a new generation.
Really? I’m disappointed that “birthing person” is on this list, because that’s a term that includes everyone who births. We use it in my industry all the time as a term that includes everyone and hurts no one. Language evolves over time and rightfully so. My hot take: this whole article is just another form of language policing. Good luck with that.
Nobody says your industry can't use it. It's the same way a bruise is a hematoma and cops love to say the incident occurred at 12:14 p.m. It's when the rest of us outside specific industries echo the words that people begin to roll their eyes.
Effective communication means not diverting your audience’s attention away from your message and into wondering what you mean by using a term that sounds odd and out of place. I would never sell anyone on one loan over another by speaking of a “subvented rate”, though it’s a perfectly accepted technical term.
No one is policing language. The article was about how not to talk like an anthropologist who just discovered a lost tribe that call themselves “Ordinary people”.
I too roll my eyes when I hear politicians use terms like birthing person or LatinX, but at the politician who believes such awkward speaking is effective. Last night I heard a reporter use the term un-alive to describe fatalities in a bus crash.
"We will never tackle those bigger challenges if we’re obsessing over words most Democrats don’t even say." When I read the Third Way article, I thought it was an effort to be relevant to the conversation by a basically irrelevant organization. Most, if not all, of those words I don't hear or read anywhere. I thought it was a silly argument/article.
What I think would be a better conversation is for Democrats (office holders and candidates) to meet people where they are and listen to their concerns, not rely on focus groups, polls and big contributors (with their big egos). If they hear (not just "listen"), they will learn the language (words) people use and the issues they are most concerned about. This would include better social media interaction (read the comments on the posts).
One becomes more "authentic" by being more authentic. And, do not bring a knife to a gun fight.
I agree with much of what you say. But Third Way is also correct that some elected Dems use cringe-inducing terms in public: Latinx, holding space, safe spaces, folks, hardworking families, marginalized voices, optics, etc. (Note to Dan: these are all heard on the unscripted Terminally online show).
A lot of these words become cringe not because they’re bad concepts, but because repetition, vagueness, and consultant-polish make them feel hollow — especially compared to plain speech. Could you imagine your plumber talking about the optics of a situation? Or a mechanic sharing a narrative?
"Too woke" is saying the "n" word. It's the racism. It's the misogyny. We are a racist misogynist people who will take direction and "leadership" from a demented old fuck because the magic negro we elected in 2008 didn't fix everything.
So glad you’re reality checking these pundits who are tugging on politicians around engaging on shallow polarity performance rather than authentically on the issues. Voters will not favor politicians who slavishly follow this kind of “advice” over politicians who stand strong and independently apply their values to issues, no matter what words they’re using. It’s the weakness that turns voters off, not the wokeness.
I agree that Democrats should stop using words that only they understand. But I would point out that Republicans use a lot of code words that we don't understand and that seems to be fine. The real problem seems to be that the two cultures have two very different sets of values. Until we figure out how to live together, nothing else will matter.
1000% (apologies to mathematicians)
I just expressed a similar thought to someone who said Dems lost because of identity politics. My counter was that it's Republicans who bring up the subject most often, leaving Democrats having to respond and, voila!, a GOP "ain't-they-woke?" soundbite.
"Either our leaders aren’t strong enough communicators, or they haven’t figured out how to break through in this media environment."
In my mind the media environment is the be-all and end-all of this problem. There is simply nothing on the left nearly as effective as Fox et al. Until there is, imo, no Democrat will be able to break through. (Though atm Newsom is coming close.)
That’s exactly right. And we have a legacy/mainstream/corporate whatever you want to call it media that carries the GOP’s water amplifying their message, while bashing Dems themselves. The NYT normalizes everything Trump does. The editorial yesterday about the raid on Bolton’s house wasn’t full of outrage. It was ho hum he got his revenge now who’s next? Yet this same paper called for Joe Biden to step out of the race last year. But not Trump. The Times still sets the tone for much of the reporting that does trickle down even to those who don’t pay attention to the news. It is infuriating.
And existential threat is woke? I guess the word “existential” is too smart.
Finally, somebody said it. I think the reason Tim Walz struck such a positive chord with voters was his plain talk about kindness. He was too little too late, but while he was on the national stage he was hard to ignore and drew both excitement and hope of what Dems wanted the world to see more than any other politician since Jimmy Carter. That’s what we need.
And it doesn’t hurt to put politicians in the forefront who are clearly in politics to serve instead of take. That needs to be the defining message. The GOP politicians are in it for themselves, and will lie to you to get what they want. The dems are trying to fix what they broke and are continuing to try to break (ie, take back what they are stealing from us through lies, bad laws, and capitulation). We can’t let them.
True and well said, but please note that Tim Walz's style and approach is more than a little the product of a long term Minnesota-wide development of messaging among DFL politicians and activists. He uses "Lakoff" theory (framing) as well as RCN theory, which was partly invented here in order to get us past the evil "Marriage Amendment." But he is a plain talker, and we all agree that using hauty-tauty academic language all the time is ... well ... uffda!
"And it doesn’t hurt to put politicians in the forefront who are clearly in politics to serve instead of take."
Spot on, and reason number bizillion why candidate recruitment and primaries are just as important as the general.
It angers me to no end when Democrats say we need to stop focusing on or talking about "social issues" and get back to the kitchen table issues people care about. It's Republicans who bring up the most extreme, absurd issues to back Dems into a corner. And politicians like Rahm Emanuel or Elissa Slotkin never address what to do when Republicans force those issues into the forefront. The Dems problem is never knowing how to pivot. They should just bring everything back to core, fundamental principles of human rights, kindness, and freedom and then ask why Republicans spend ninety percent of their time focusing on social issues and very little time addressing the most pressing needs of most Americans around the economy and jobs. Dems always let the Republicans control the narrative. And on subjects like crime, illegal immigration, and inflation, Dems argue incessantly over numbers and statistics and definitions instead of just saying yes all those things are bad now let's talk about how to fix it. We are always on the defense and Dems need training on how to pivot to offense.
If only more Democratic politicians and pundits could get it through their heads that there's no chasm between "social issues" and "kitchen table issues"! Black people tend to get this: their day-to-day existence makes it pretty clear. White working people used to get it -- before Nixon's racist "southern strategy," the conservative backlash against women's rights, and eventually the Reagan administration drove a wedge into the working and middle classes. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy got this. I can't begin to reckon what the nation lost when they were silenced.
Lots of issues in society that don’t get discussed at anyone’s kitchen table. But that in itself is a hackneyed phrase originated 90 years ago by FDR’s campaign. Instead, let’s discuss the issues themselves.
Republicans control their media, manipulate legacy media and fund far-left media. Democrats are completely surrounded.
You advert to the GOP's cleverest ruse near the end of your piece, i.e., the ability to extrapolate from a stray comment by an insignificant left-of-center person a whole "woke" trend to hang around the Dems' neck. This allows them to both-sider the most monstrous verbal eruptions of Trump and his cabal. I wish I knew what we should do about this. Perhaps Gavin is showing the way.
A thousand times this, it doesn’t matter what Dems say, they’ll find something to demonize.
Like Trump doesn’t use crazy terms that only make sense to his devotees every day.
he definitely is. and Tim Walz was- until the DEMS shut him down.
I would add that Bill Maher is the GOP's one-man Fifth Column on this front.
I don’t think Third Way was saying that avoiding these words will fix the problem. I think they were saying this artificial language (which makes politicians sound like they just landed from Mars and are discussing a species completely foreign to them) is ONE of our problems.
It’s a valid point. This ridiculous vocabulary many elected Dems use routinely has painted a picture of Dems. MAGA thus finds it easy to take every response they bait us into and dab a bit more color onto that picture. So glad we make it easy on them.
Also good to find out it was intentional — that Dems were paying someone for this advice. While our supposedly stupid foes were pulling off project REDMAP, shoring iup Fox, starting NewsMax and OAN.
Are we sure we’re the smart guys?
Words are not the problem, but words ARE magic, and how we use them, when, etc. does matter. Great speeches promulgate great ideas, idiotic live mike yammerings end careers, etc.
In defense of Lakoff/framing etc, as a long time critic AND practitioner of these ideas (google it) I'll say this: I've rarely seen formal training or discussion of framing that did not inspire and improve SOMEBODY's communication skills, but at the same time, in those settings, most people either never quite get what they are seeing beyond Messaging 101, and/or lost it all before they get very far down the street after the seminar. So it is not the idea, but the fact that getting people on board is a little like training surgeons. It takes time and effort and you'll only get a few -- very useful but very rare -- surgeons at the end.
I think the bigger picture is one I've learned from Pfeiffer (and some others) but that needs to be developed even further. Our messaging challenge is not finding THE message, but understanding that in the fractured media environment, we need an equally fractured approach.
We need to NOT lament the fracturing, but exploit it. Fractured does not mean broke or useless (who picked that word, "fractured," anyway!) It means that there are multiple staring and ending points within an interconnected complex whole (or maybe hole). We need multiple ways into it, to identify the multiple (and changing) end points, and deliver multiple hopefully well crafted and expertly targeted messages (or at least numerous messages that would then be subject to natural selection to get the best one).
I don't think there is anything wrong with a list of words that might be unhelpful, or that might be especially helpful, but that is not the solution in and of itself.
I think of the crowds at Indivisible organized street-side protests. If you critique the signs people are holding up, they are mostly bad messaging by standard messaging (including framing, RCN, etc standards). But those signs are not the message. The actual message is the angry mob holding signs, and that is an effective message.
Words matter and they are magic, but sometimes their magical effect comes from there just being a lot of them being shouted by a lot of people. (Not that that along is the answer either... remember: interconnected complex whole.)
I would like to think that this is what I was going to write as a oomment. Well done!
Please. Enough with the media excuses. So weak and helpless. Our new excuse for failing.
Look around, folks. There’s a whole industry who has long since found a way to communicate with every human in the country. Effectively. Their whole industry relies solely on this skill, and they are deadly serious about it.
Advertising. Somehow they find a way so that every upper middle class mom, every Latino accountant, and every plumber both know about a product they may buy.
Let’s get a grip. And quit blaming a media system whose product most of us take for free while freely criticizing everything they do.
Apple predominantly uses product placement. They make sure actors, athletes and more are seen using (or at least holding) their products. 30 second TV ads and billboards are post-sale advertising to reassure customers that Apple shares their values. Especially the Apple ads about data security and recycling.
Bravo, Dan... one of your best analyses ever. The right-wing media landscape is formidable, and pervasive. The MSM doesn't help with its tendency to repeat right-wing talking points and focus on understanding and reporting the views of MAGA while ignoring (or even disparaging) progressive views.
As a retired psychologist who has always had a special interest in human development, I see other reasons why the GOP has become dominant, and unfortunately they relate to human nature itself. To wit:
1. It is easier to get people to fear those who are different than to get them to embrace or even accept difference. It's easier to get people to fear 'crime' than to believe that the vast majority of people around them are benign.
2. Humanity has always had -- and continues to have -- a bias toward viewing the male as superior to the female.
3. Those who have been harmed by a person or persons with more power tend to take their anger or frustration out on those who are weaker. (Even SF writer Robert Heinlein saw this, decades ago... it was Valentine Smith's 'big insight' into humanity in the book 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.)
4. A significant majority of people are so willing to do what an 'authority figure' says that they will act in a way that harms another for no valid reason at all other than being told to do so. (See: Stanley Milgram experiments in 'obedience' in the 1960's.)
R's seem to have a good understanding of these aspects of human nature and have become adept at exploiting them to the fullest.
Not all humans are stuck at this level of functioning, but I would wager that the majority still are... which is why Dems are seen as 'elitist'. If we survive long enough, humanity might be able to evolve past these ways of thinking, but right now it's hard to be optimistic.
On the other hand, we DID get the New Deal with FDR... but in order to have that again, something absolutely must be done about corporate power. As long as billionaires are literally able to buy lawmakers, not much will ever be done to help or protect the vast majority of Americans.
“Meeting” an abased version of clear and coherent English language “where it lives” is a form of surrender of history and soul neither required nor recommended. The human soul aspires. Give it the wings to rise and soar. Refuse, deny, cast off, and leave behind ankle shackles of permissive degradation of aim and effort. “Woke” is the dog whistle for oppression of clarity of thought and expression.
I really wish that "think tank" had spent its time exploring something more essential than their own navals.
Democrats are too bloody polite. Our mamas have drummed it into us that we don't blow our own horns and we don't interrupt others even when they are talking whopping lies or denigrating others. We patiently wait for them to stop spewing their invective and then give a well mannered response carefully explaining why they are incorrect. Of course, the parade has moved on and the only ones listening are those who already agree. Revolutions don't wait for the polite ones to speak softly and courteously the way mama taught them. They hear only the loudest, even if the rabble rouser is dead wrong and a liar. Time to be more like Gavin Newsom and less like Miss Manners. This is not just about a carefully curated list of overintellectual words,(Mother of God), it's about passion and rising to the challenge of saving democracy. I guess some people just need something to do.
I don’t think trump thinks about the alienating effects of the words he uses. They are from a playbook, but it’s not one anyone has used in the U.S. since Father Coughlin, and I doubt trump knows who that is.
Whether he’s following a script or not (and he certainly has an internal one), people believe he is “telling it like it is” and “not being politically correct.” They perceive what they view as honesty, in whatever form they perceive his communication to be honest.
Zohran has a script, and he has his favorite words. He’s offering bold ideas and saying something honest about NYC: it’s unaffordable for the people who make it run.
Dems need to be honest. They need to be bold. And in a country where most people do not know the three branches of government, let alone understand or care how USAID (used to) exercise soft power, Dems need to speak to the people about the things that matter to them. We need a “yes we can” for a new generation.
Really? I’m disappointed that “birthing person” is on this list, because that’s a term that includes everyone who births. We use it in my industry all the time as a term that includes everyone and hurts no one. Language evolves over time and rightfully so. My hot take: this whole article is just another form of language policing. Good luck with that.
Nobody says your industry can't use it. It's the same way a bruise is a hematoma and cops love to say the incident occurred at 12:14 p.m. It's when the rest of us outside specific industries echo the words that people begin to roll their eyes.
What are you rolling your eyes at? Inclusivity?
No, never. And it's not my eyes that are rolling but copy editors everywhere.
Ah, the copy editors. Let’s please think of the copy editors! 🙄
Effective communication means not diverting your audience’s attention away from your message and into wondering what you mean by using a term that sounds odd and out of place. I would never sell anyone on one loan over another by speaking of a “subvented rate”, though it’s a perfectly accepted technical term.
No one is policing language. The article was about how not to talk like an anthropologist who just discovered a lost tribe that call themselves “Ordinary people”.
I too roll my eyes when I hear politicians use terms like birthing person or LatinX, but at the politician who believes such awkward speaking is effective. Last night I heard a reporter use the term un-alive to describe fatalities in a bus crash.
Yikes.
"We will never tackle those bigger challenges if we’re obsessing over words most Democrats don’t even say." When I read the Third Way article, I thought it was an effort to be relevant to the conversation by a basically irrelevant organization. Most, if not all, of those words I don't hear or read anywhere. I thought it was a silly argument/article.
What I think would be a better conversation is for Democrats (office holders and candidates) to meet people where they are and listen to their concerns, not rely on focus groups, polls and big contributors (with their big egos). If they hear (not just "listen"), they will learn the language (words) people use and the issues they are most concerned about. This would include better social media interaction (read the comments on the posts).
One becomes more "authentic" by being more authentic. And, do not bring a knife to a gun fight.
I agree with much of what you say. But Third Way is also correct that some elected Dems use cringe-inducing terms in public: Latinx, holding space, safe spaces, folks, hardworking families, marginalized voices, optics, etc. (Note to Dan: these are all heard on the unscripted Terminally online show).
A lot of these words become cringe not because they’re bad concepts, but because repetition, vagueness, and consultant-polish make them feel hollow — especially compared to plain speech. Could you imagine your plumber talking about the optics of a situation? Or a mechanic sharing a narrative?
"Too woke" is saying the "n" word. It's the racism. It's the misogyny. We are a racist misogynist people who will take direction and "leadership" from a demented old fuck because the magic negro we elected in 2008 didn't fix everything.
So glad you’re reality checking these pundits who are tugging on politicians around engaging on shallow polarity performance rather than authentically on the issues. Voters will not favor politicians who slavishly follow this kind of “advice” over politicians who stand strong and independently apply their values to issues, no matter what words they’re using. It’s the weakness that turns voters off, not the wokeness.
I agree that Democrats should stop using words that only they understand. But I would point out that Republicans use a lot of code words that we don't understand and that seems to be fine. The real problem seems to be that the two cultures have two very different sets of values. Until we figure out how to live together, nothing else will matter.