Democrats Advised to Ditch 45 Words to Connect Better with Voters

In a provocative move, a center-left think tank has introduced a so-called “blue blacklist,” urging Democrats to abandon a collection of 45 words and phrases that they believe contribute to a perception of the party as “enforcers of wokeness.” The organization, Third Way, argues that the current lexicon of progressives, often laden with jargon, alienates potential voters and hinders authentic communication.

The memo categorizes the contentious terms into several groups, including “therapy-speak,” “organizer jargon,” and “Seminar Room Language.” Each category aims to highlight how certain expressions can unintentionally signal elitism or disconnect from the everyday language of the electorate. For instance, terms like “privilege,” “safe space,” and “body shaming” fall into the therapy-speak category. Third Way contends that such phrases imply a superiority in empathy, suggesting that speakers are more sensitive and caring than their audience.

Notably, phrases often used by prominent progressive figures, like “subverting norms” and “systems of oppression,” are categorized as Seminar Room Language. This terminology, according to Third Way, creates an impression of intellectual elitism, potentially alienating working-class voters who may not resonate with such complex expressions. Co-founder Matt Bennett emphasized this point, suggesting that these phrases are more at home in academic discussions than in everyday conversations. “Does anyone in your family around the table use words like this?” he asked rhetorically, challenging the applicability of such language in relatable contexts.

The think tank also critiques what it refers to as “organizer jargon.” This includes terms like “the unhoused” and “food insecurity,” which the group argues can come off as dehumanizing, distancing the speaker from individual stories and struggles. The recommendation is clear: Democrats should strive to communicate in a manner that feels inclusive and approachable, prioritizing clarity over complexity.

Further complicating the discourse, the memo warns against language that may inadvertently portray criminals as victims, citing terms like “justice-involved” and “involuntary confinement.” Such phrases could undermine the experiences of victims, making it essential for Democrats to convey messages that resonate with the justice-seeking sentiments of the public.

Despite the thoughtful critique from Third Way, the list has sparked mockery and backlash from various political figures and commentators. White House Deputy Secretary Abigail Jackson humorously questioned whether Democrats should refrain from speaking altogether if they were to heed the list’s advice, insinuating that the vocabulary suggested by the think tank is intrinsic to Democratic dialogue. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr took a similarly sardonic tone, suggesting that the proposed changes themselves could raise eyebrows and perpetuate the very issues they seek to address.

In a broader context, the conversation around political language emphasizes the evolving nature of communication in a polarized environment. The interplay between inclusivity and accessibility is delicate; Democrats must navigate the tightrope of being progressive while ensuring their message resonates with a diverse audience. As political discourse continues to evolve, the insights from Third Way serve as a reminder of the importance of language in shaping perceptions and fostering connections. The challenge lies in finding a balance that conveys progressive values without alienating those who might otherwise be allies.