Reports indicate that Democrats are investing millions in their quest to find a figure akin to Joe Rogan, focusing on TikTok stars and YouTubers in hopes of connecting with the public more effectively.
But here’s the thing: finding our own “Joe Rogan” might not be the answer. Perhaps it’s more vital to remember how to engage in genuine conversation.
When I started at Brown University in 2011, it quickly became evident that unspoken rules governed discussions. Some opinions were apparently deemed more valuable than others, and expressing certain views in certain ways could have significant repercussions, especially outside the classroom.
A notable incident exemplifying this was the Rakeley case in 2013, when then-NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly was invited to campus to discuss police practices. The event was met with protests, leading to its cancellation, as some students deemed the framing of his talk problematic. Yet, many critics were eager to challenge Kelly directly, armed with questions for the Q&A segment.
This sparked wider conversations about who should have a platform and how to create an inclusive environment on campus—an effort that aimed to ensure all students felt safe and welcomed.
As time went on, I found myself somewhat sympathetic toward the prevailing views. After all, the aim of academic discourse should really be to reduce harm and foster robust exchanges of ideas.
Following my time at Brown, I completed a graduate program at Yale and pursued a joint degree at Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School. During that journey, I realized how progressive language can carve out space for voices that have often been sidelined in elite institutions. The idea behind the “inverse pyramid” theory—where those furthest from power should speak first—was enlightening. It opened my eyes to insights that I might have otherwise overlooked. Plus, focusing on person-centered language was significantly more effective than reducing individuals to mere data points. For instance, referring to someone as an “incarcerated person” instead of a “prisoner” adds a layer of humanity.
These frameworks ultimately helped sharpen my thinking, but I noticed there were also downsides. Those who didn’t conform to the accepted norms often seemed to be dismissed entirely, as if their views weren’t even worth considering.
As I approached graduation, I took an Op-Ed writing course and a public speaking class. My initial submissions resembled legal briefs—full of qualifiers but lacking substance.
“Just give me your opinion,” my professor urged. “Talk like a person instead of a policy memo.” My speech instructor worked hard to break the robotic tendencies we had developed through years at Harvard.
Most voters don’t communicate this way, yet it seems more common among Democrats, particularly for those of us who have spent too much time in seminar rooms trying to emulate figures like Josiah Bartlett and Barack Obama. We’ve developed a dialect that may sound impressive in academic settings but alienates the broader public.
Vice President Kamala Harris is a case in point; her communication style has drawn both admiration and criticism. She speaks in a somewhat professional liberal manner that often feels more like abstraction than clear communication.
Honestly, if Democrats did find a version of Joe Rogan, I suspect they’d end up canceling him within a week. He might make the mistake of using “I-statements” too frequently, asking the wrong questions, or even misplacing his tone—leading to backlash on social media instead of fostering open dialogue. This focus on power dynamics certainly has its place, but it doesn’t necessarily translate well into the world of electoral politics.
Democrats need to reconnect with voters who might not engage in online threads. These individuals frequent barber shops, diners, and living rooms—spaces where they ponder, share mistakes, evolve their opinions, and invite continued conversations.
The left really ought to ease up on policing tone. That’s not to say biases don’t exist; rather, it’s crucial to allow space for messy, sometimes contradictory conversations and to genuinely listen before everyone feels fluent in the latest rhetoric.
