According to Adam Wren from Politico, a potential approach involves “cycling through the notes” while advising against the use of “dems.”
So, what’s the latest? We’ve had our fair share of discussions around police interactions and language over the years. It’s a bit absurd, really. I can’t help but think about what George Carlin might say about today’s communication climate. I recall my sketch comedy series, “Comedy is a Murder,” where my co-creators are genuinely free thinkers.
Will they reclaim those checked privileges? Or do Democrats expect them to remain in check?
Way back in 1972, Carlin pointed out “Seven words you can never say on TV.” Fast forward fifty years, and that list has expanded to, well, about “7,000 words you can’t say—on TV or anywhere.” Even simple terms like “transfer” have become off-limits due to their perceived weight.
Ultimately, the so-called think tank in the center seems to be proposing a blacklist of 45 terms. This isn’t your usual token gesture of censorship; it’s almost a call for Democrats to speak more like ordinary people.
Yes, Democrats are attempting to normalize… well, I think you get the idea.
I can’t see anything here
Sarah Longwell from Bulwark seems to resonate with this approach. Alongside snaps of the banned terms, she tweeted:
Stop saying “birth.”
Stop saying “someone who has been imprisoned.”
Stop saying “unused.”
Stop calling it “breastfeeding.”
Avoid “center ring.”
Don’t say “Latinx.”
This language may lead voters to think Democrats are avoiding real issues. Just speak plainly. It’s that simple.
I see where this is headed. The aim is to make connections with voters and ultimately win elections. Not that I’m an expert navigating election tactics; the only election I emerged victorious in was back in high school when I became student body president. Looking back, it’s amusing that the coup didn’t topple us back then.
Nevertheless, it’s crucial to speak in ways that reflect your true beliefs. If you genuinely support words like “birther” or “breastfeed,” it’s only fair to express those sentiments. You can aim for “normal” as much as you want, yet that doesn’t equate to really believing in what’s deemed “normal.”
Crazy talk
It’s refreshing that Longwell and others are now using terms like “crazy” without reservation. But let’s be real: you can sound normal while still being out of touch. I actually think this could be a successful tactic for Democrats.
As noted in the third method:
We don’t need to police language or create our own brand of censorship. We’ve published content using many of those words ourselves. When policymakers are accessible, the language used should be inviting. It’s not about shutting down discussions; it’s about initiating them. Clarity is what we need, not confusion.
Some might call this a bit disingenuous. So, to win over folks, Democrats might need to engage in some fibbing. Annoying conversations are on the horizon.
As stated on the Playbook Podcast, one could assert, “To appease a small group, we’ve shoved away many, especially affecting cultural discussions where our language should be bold, proud, and unapologetic.”
Chuck your privileges
Just picture all those college graduates burdened with student loans who, let’s be honest, don’t really want to pay them off yet still opt to adopt this AWFL (Affluent White Female Liberal) language.
I would prefer Democrats drop terms like “privilege” and “system of oppression.” But what about those enlightened white allies who’ve spent a decade checking their privileges due to their status within this system of suppression?
Will they reclaim any of those checked privileges? Or will Democrats still expect them to check out? Perhaps instead of using precise terms, an eye roll would suffice. Or, bring back a vignette from 1993 and throw in a term you can’t even say. They’ve now decided to blacklist “cultural appropriation,” so that seems fine.
The third approach suggests Democrats stop using “microaggression,” but honestly, how else do you classify the act of asking someone, “Where are you from?”
What about “body shaming”? Ozempic makes it easy to gloss over that.
And regarding “Latinx”? Just because it’s off the table doesn’t mean the concept has vanished. (You might encounter the term Chupaca bra more often than Latinx, anyway.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn5opps4clm
I’d be okay with Democrats moving away from terms like “cisgender,” “death,” “heteronormative,” and “patriarchy.” (Though, regarding “Bonus hole,” I didn’t craft a blacklist; I just think it’s better terminology.)
Related: The scenario with her son in a dress and her daughter claiming to be a “boy,” all part of a status narrative.
Cunaplus M.Faba/Getty Images
“White”
If Democrats are open to suggestions, I’d advocate for eradicating “racism” as it pertains to “bias and power.” Plus, let’s consider removing “whiteness.” It’s not some “white genocide” scheme, but rather a method urging people, “Stop condemning everything happening within the ‘White Universe.'” Unlike gravity, whiteness isn’t one of nature’s fundamental forces.
In “Politics and the English Language“, George Orwell warned:
Political language, which varies across all political groups—from conservatives to anarchists—is designed to make lies seem admirable and to give solidity to vague notions.
If Orwell were out to charm voters today, he might need to add many of the above words to his blacklist. Honesty might derail an election, yet somehow, it’s a line that gives me pause—despite “loyalty” being another word to drop.
