Progressives are faced with many real challenges during Trump 2.0, but lose voters because we are sounding like academic robots should not be part of it. The Washington Post Just highlighted A growing reaction among the Democrats who are fed up with a jargon that alienates voters more than he persuades them.
Maybe he uses the word “oligarchs” instead of rich people. Or referring to “people who experience food insecurity” rather than the Americans who are hungry. Or “equity” in place of “equality” or “populations involving justice” instead of prisoners.
While the Democrats fight with whom to be in the era of President Donald Trump, an increasing group of party members – in particular centrists – revives the argument that Democrats need to rethink the words they use to speak with the voters they need to regain confidence.
The progressives have developed a jargon that looks like an absolute nonsense for most people. The “privilege” is used to describe those who have inherent advantages; “Credit” supervises almost all cultural exchanges as theft; THE “To move back“The movement unrealistic suggests that stolen lands should be returned to the natives;” lgbtiqcapgngfnba “is a real acronym; and pronounce the sentence “colonialism of the colonistsIt is guaranteed to trigger a fight. Inside the circles of activists, this language could resonate. Apart from them, she doesn’t only fail to persuade – she actively alienates people.
Democratic senator Ruben Gallego de l’Arizona is not a centrist – but he speaks like a human.
“Some words are only terms tested in Ivy,” Gallego told Washington Post. “I’m going to piss some people by saying this, but” social capital “- why do we say that? Why don’t we say, “We want you to have a very chance”?
Gallego and I have agreed on this subject beforeWhen it was the use of asinin and self -destructive “Latinx” term as an attempt to create a non -sexist label for Latinos.
We make fun of President Donald Trump to Speaking at a fourth year levelThe lowest of the last 15 presidents. But hey, he won despite one of the worst first terms of any president of history. There is something to say to speak the language of everyday people and not be sucked in an exclusion language which only plays well inside radified bubbles.
“Democrats are stampening on themselves to try to say exactly the right thing,” a rhetorical teacher at Washington Post told. “Republicans may not be so anxious to say exactly the right thing, so it may seem more authentic for some voters.”
In 2024, Kamala Harris won the Latinos 55-42 Arizona while Ruben Gallego won the demographic group 61-37-the same margin as Biden said in 2020.
Harris did not even say “Latin”, but she was labeled with the worst parts of So-called awakened culture. Gallego avoided the label, and it worked.
And one way or another –either way—Trump won the Latin votes in 2024 despite the insults constantly. It is not their fault. The blame lies in our messaging failure.
Related |What went wrong: Part 1
As indicated in the Washington Post article, most politicians avoid this kind of language, and even those who do not evolve, such as Senator Bernie Sanders.
“We have a nation which is now led by a handful of gourmet billionaires,” the Vermont legislator told a recent Idaho gathering. “I was talking about the oligarchy and people say,” What is he talking about? ” Everyone knows what I’m talking about this evening.
But it is not only politicians who mark a movement: it is the activists themselves. It is one thing to use our internal jargon with each other, but it is different when we loudly demand that others play. Now that Latinx has fortunately dead and buried, certain segments of academic Latin activists require that we use “Latin. “It’s not as stupid as Latinx, but it’s close.
The vast majority of Latinos are perfectly comfortable with the words “Hispanic” and “Latino”. Likewise, non -political Americans (which means that most of them) do not appreciate that words do not mean what they are commonly known. They understand “poor”, while hearing people described as “economically disadvantaged” leaves them confused and annoyed. Ditto with the “homeless” against “housing. “”
I mean, do we really need to say “a person with lived experience” by referring to someone who has difficulty? Simply say: “This guy deals with shit”, and no one thinks that we are strange robots or extraterrestrials. The latter will earn you votes; The first will lose them.
Yes, some of these terms seek to avoid stigma and to repair otherly certain injustices anchored in our language, but it is a distinction that is lost for most people. The intention is noble, but the result is disastrous for those who are supposed to be protected by these linguistic contortions.
This shit is not difficult. Talk like a human and earn more voters.
Related | What the Republicans really mean when they say “awake”
Campaign action
