Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying. Ditto Labour?

[IwantToRetire]

For a party that spends billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters, Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying. The intent of this language is to include, broaden, empathize, accept, and embrace.

The effect of this language is to sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. To please the few, we have alienated the many—especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.

Why the tortured language? After all, many Democrats are aware that the words and phrases we use can be profoundly alienating. But they use it because plain, authentic language that voters understand often rebounds badly among many activists and advocacy organizations.

These activists and advocates may take on noble causes, but in doing so they often demand compliance with their preferred messages; that is how “birthing person” became a stand-in for mother or mom.

Full article at https://www.thirdway.org/memo/was-it-something-i-said

Raced through the article but for me the writer is on the case because of the alienating language used. They don't seem to be engaging with the substantive points. It just seems to be a rant about using more normal language but still being completely onside with the message. This is just as patronising to voters. Not much of a mea culpa. Trump won voters over on things like male bodied trans athletes in women's sports because voters thought wtf. Irrespective of whether the Democrats explained that 'twaw and belong in the female category with their cisgender sisters'. You can't put lipstick on a pig. The Democrats really are lost if they think they can dumb it down for us and then we'll understand.

I think you have missed the point entirely.

If you are a campaign group wanting to reach the widest number of people you use words that the majority will respond to.

Not virtue signal to a tiny group whose private language only has meaning for them.

Its not hard to grasp.

Just as in years gone by, politicians etc., were encourage to use plain english.

Why not try reading it properly.

I think @WorriedMutha may have got a point. At any rate, what went through my mind when I'd finished the article was "Do they actually want to be more voter friendly or just to sound more voter friendly?"

I agree with @WorriedMutha.
The writer doesn't think the Democrats have got any policies wrong. They still think they are all 'noble causes', and that the majority agree with them. They think the only mistake is in the language used to describe and advocate for those policies. No consideration that they may in fact have made some deeper mistakes.

It's true that you also need to explain your policies clearly, but that doesn't help if people disagree with the underlying aims.

I thought birthing person was bad but inseminated person! Goodness how not to get people onside.

Yep, my reaction on reading the article was exactly the same as @WorriedMutha's. The author thinks there is nothing wrong with the message, just the way it is being delivered.

At no point do they say that they support what the activists are doing.

They are in fact quite sarcastic ie saying "noble causes".

They are making the point that campaigners have been saying for years if you cant communicate your ideas you aren't going to get anywhere.

Why this need to conjure up convoluted intentions?

They say:

In this memo, we are putting a spotlight on the language we use that puts a wall between us and everyday people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. These are words that people simply do not say, yet they hear them from Democrats. Over the years we’ve conducted, read, and analyzed hours upon hours of focus groups, and we’ve yet to hear a voter volunteer any of the phrases below except as a form of derision or parody of Democrats. We’re not talking about techno-speak, like net-zero and climate resiliency. Those words put up their own Ivy League walls between policymakers and voters. Here we are focusing on the eggshell dance of political correctness which leaves the people we aim to reach cold or fearful of admonishment.

Which is exactly what any number of contributors to any number of threads on FWR have said.

And were only too happy to accuse Kamala Harris of doing.

Rubbish.

They are a think tank, somewhat leftish in US terms who are against "extremism".

I suspect they will have as much luck as trying to persuade the W&EC here that Mary Ann Stephenson isn't a terf.

They are in fact quite sarcastic ie saying "noble causes".

Sorry, OP, I'm not seeing the sarcasm.

Thanks for letting me know my view is rubbish though😘

Also agree with @WorriedMutha

Here we are focusing on the eggshell dance of political correctness which leaves the people we aim to reach cold or fearful of admonishment.

If the people you aim to reach don’t agree with your message, it doesn’t matter the language you use.
They don’t agree with it!

I think that the author is on to something however, whether they realise it or not.

Because when you start to express this stuff in clear, down to earth language, you immediately start to see that the ideas are horseshit.

Look at the whole trans conversation. As soon as you quit calling them transwomen and use the word men, it's becomes glaringly obvious what the issues are.

Which is, of course, why the fancy words are used in the first place

Exactly

I see no indication that their use of noble causes is anything other than sincere.

Agree. I was excited at the beginning of the article but by the end I felt like this was more of a strategy to get more people back on their side, not questioning what their side has embraced. People aren't stupid we know what Latinx and birthing people mean and who that language is coming from. It's not the words we're against per se it's the forced attempts at societal change that's behind them. And the fact that this writer is like "people just don't understand so use words they do and then they'll eventually agree that men can be women" is about as condescending and elitist as one can get. They're called The Third Way yet have a group photo featuring Nancy Pelosi prominently on their home page. A more polarizing, virtue-signaling Democratic figure I don't know.

I'm not sure about sarcasm, but there's a bit of ongoing tension between Democrats who want to win elections and what they call "the groups", which is the various identity-group or single-issue organisations that hold sway among Democrat activists but are really alienating to the median voter.

These guys want to appeal to the median voter, but they're only prepared to go so far as to say the jargon is offputting. They aren't questioning any party policies or the assumptions that they're built on. Or whether "the groups", which are usually made up of far-left graduates from privileged backgrounds, represent the constituencies they say they do.

Starr County in south Texas is about 98% Hispanic and has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the US. Politically, it was the longest consistently Democrat voting county in the US, usually by enormous margins. Last year it voted for Donald Trump, the first Republican candidate to win Starr since Benjamin Harrison in 1892. Going to Starr and asking voters there about their concerns might be more useful than listening to some Ivy League educated activists calling themselves the Latinx Policy Committee or similar.

Going to Starr and asking voters there about their concerns might be more useful than listening to some Ivy League educated activists calling themselves the Latinx Policy Committee or similar.

That would be the action of people who want to win however, so I'm not surprised it hasn't occurred to them.

I'm not sure it's that thy don't want to win, as such.

I think that as we see with many of the class divide issues in the US and UK, the real problem is the Latinx Policy Committee members despise those particular voters. even while maintaining their votes belong to the far left organisations that claim to represent them.

They despise them if they don't accept their role as eternal victims.

Why the tortured language? After all, many Democrats are aware that the words and phrases we use can be profoundly alienating. But they use it because plain, authentic language that voters understand often rebounds badly among many activists and advocacy organizations.

An admission that the needs of the activists and advocacy organisations have been prioritised above those of the voters. Something we can relate to in the UK

I know it's not the point you're making, but I think "Latinx" is a perfect example of the sort of language that democrats use that makes me cringe. Putting a random X on the end of anything and everything to signal... something or other. Folx. Latinx. Mx. Queerx...
It's tedioux.

Which is why the activist caste will double down. I've recently seen "Filipinx", so they aren't getting off that bandwagon anytime soon, and actual minorities hating these labels only seems to encourage them.

Yes, I really am not sure how they justify inventing these words that the people they are referring to hate. It's weird.

From the article:
In reality, most Democrats do not run or govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions. But voters would be excused to believe we do because of the words that come out of our mouths—words which sound like we are hiding behind unfamiliar phrases to mask extreme intent.

Of course they govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions! Especially in blue states. Voters believe it because they've seen it with their own eyes. This isn't the first time I've read an article by a Democrat who just refuses to get it.