Democratic troubles revive debate over left-wing buzzwords - Bendavid WaPo

[question everything]

Maybe it’s using the word “oligarchs” instead of rich people. Or referring to “people experiencing food insecurity” rather than Americans going hungry. Or “equity” in place of “equality,” or “justice-involved populations” instead of prisoners.

As Democrats wrestle with who to be in the era of President Donald Trump, a growing group of party members — especially centrists — is reviving the argument that Democrats need to rethink the words they use to talk with the voters whose trust they need to regain. They contend that liberal candidates too often use language from elite, highly educated circles that suggests the speakers consider themselves smart and virtuous, while casting implied judgment on those who speak more plainly — hardly a formula for winning people over, they say.

(snip)

“Some words are just too Ivy League-tested terms,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona). “I’m going to piss some people off by saying this, but ‘social equity’ — why do we say that? Why don’t we say, ‘We want you to have an even chance’?” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear — who, like Gallego, is considered a potential 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful — made a similar point.

“I believe that, over time, and probably for well-meaning reasons, Democrats have begun to speak like professors and started using advocacy-speak that was meant to reduce stigma, but also removed the meaning and emotion behind words,” Beshear said, citing such examples as using “substance abuse disorder” to refer to addiction. “It makes Democrats or candidates using this speech sounding like they’re not normal,” Beshear said. “It sounds simple, but what the Democratic Party needs to do is be normal and sound normal.”

(snip)

“Honestly, Democrats trip over themselves in an attempt to say exactly the right thing,” said Allison Prasch, who teaches rhetoric, politics and culture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “Republicans maybe aren’t so concerned about saying exactly the right thing, so it may appear more authentic to some voters.”

(snip)

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan) is another rising swing-state Democrat who contends that her party needs to use language that comes, as she puts it, from the factory line and not the faculty lounge. She recalled speaking to a roomful of skeptical Teamsters before the November election. “I just said, ‘Hey, you motherf---ers, I don’t want to hear another godd--- word about all Donald Trump has done for you,’” she said, adding: “They love it. … To me, that is a different way to enter the room.”

More..

https://wapo.st/3Z5nVm1

free

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Can't agree more - "words matter."

[Beastly Boy]

2. Why do we still use an awkwardly last century "millionaires and billioners" and "working class" instead of

Last edited Tue May 27, 2025, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

a much more to the point, inclusive and relatable "oligarchs" vs "the rest of us"?

[question everything]

3. The point is that many are not familiar with the term oligarchs. Rich is simple

[Beastly Boy]

4. I am good with "rich" I am also good with "filthy rich".

As long as "the rest of us" is part of the message. Much more inclusive and relatable than "working class", a term that excludes the middle class, where the voters are.