Not since George Carlin offered his lecture series on the “seven words” has a list had more value to its intended audience. And the need to explain this may have more humor in it than even Carlin’s famous routine.
Of late, Democrats have tried using Carlin’s list as a way to sound more ‘authentic’ to the rubes who thoughtlessly abandoned them in 2024. For some reason, dropping F-bombs in public comments has become de rigueur among the progressive cognoscenti, perhaps in hopes of connecting with younger male voters who they have essentially driven from their ranks over the last several years with talk of “toxic masculinity” and fulminations over the “patriarchy.”
Presumably not as a coincidence, the latter word lands in a new memo from the center-Left think tank Third Way. Addressed to “all who wish to stop Donald Trump and MAGA,” the group claims that Democrat policies are not the problem, but rather the obfuscatory language they use to address issues:
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.
This is, in fact, utter nonsense. The words have been chosen carefully because they hide “extreme intent,” and the extreme policies that voters soundly and broadly reject. After all, progressives controlled the Joe Biden Regency for four years of a border crisis that allowed “person[s] who immigrated” (or “undocumented citizens,” which escaped Third Way’s notice) to run across the border by the millions without consequence. Democrats not only refused to acknowledge biological reality with their language, they actively encouraged and protected pediatric sex changes, mastectomies of adolescent girls suffering from dysphoria and in many cases autism, and forcing women and girls to compete against men and boys to support “LGBTQIA+” activists. And let’s not forget all of the euphemistic language around DEI, which has not just covered for explicitly discriminatory policies but also has been used to attack critics as bigots.
We’ll get back to the “wildly out-of-touch” positions in a moment. For now, though, Third Way wants Democrats to dispense with the “seminar talk” by removing 45 words from the Democrat lexicon. Politico covers much of the list in brief:
They span six categories — from “therapy speak” to “explaining away crime” — and put in sharp relief a party that authors say makes Democrats “sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness.” In the document, titled “Was It Something I Said?” Third Way argues that to “please the few, we have alienated the many — especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant,” according to the memo.
Among the blacklisted terms: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people … involuntary confinement.
“We are doing our best to get Democrats to talk like normal people and stop talking like they’re leading a seminar at Antioch,” says Matt Bennett, Third Way’s executive vice president of public affairs.
Again, the problem isn’t that Democrats sound like extreme and elitist wokeness enforcers. It’s that they are extreme and elitist woke enforcers. This language results from their agenda and policies, and its obfuscatory nature directly relates to how voters would react if described in direct terms.
As for the list itself, it’s not bad, but one wonders how Democrats can argue for transgenderism if they dump terms like “pregnant people,” “birthing person/inseminated person,” “chest feeding,” and “heteronormative.” One glaring omission from this list is “toxic masculinity,” despite the clear impact that this obsession has had on young male voters who are fleeing to the GOP for safe harbor. “Latinx” makes the list, of course, but that’s almost a gimme these days. One promising section warns Democrats to stop euphemizing crime with words like “justice-involved” and “incarcerated people,” but one wonders how Democrats will advance progressive policies while acknowledging “criminals,” “felons,” and “habitual offenders.”
Therein lies the problem, as Ruy Teixeira warns at The Liberal Patriot today. Teixeira calls for a series of “Sista Souljah” moments to condemn the radical policies as well as the language that obfuscates them. As he points out, Democrats want to eat their cake and have it too after suffering an astounding rejection last November:
Democrats overwhelmingly would rather do anything than do what is needed: two, three many Sister Souljah moments. Consider how Democrats have handled culturally-inflected issues since their 2024 election defeat.
Trans? A few peeps, quickly slapped down by the Groups and party activists.
Immigration? Everything Trump’s doing is wrong. We’ll only cooperate with federal law enforcement when we feel like it.
Crime? Not a problem. Everything’s going great—especially in D.C.! Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries: “The crime scene in D.C. most damaging to everyday Americans is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.” Trump’s turning D.C. into a police state!
Race? DEI is wonderful and we’ll defend it to our dying breath. Same thing with racial preferences. Those who oppose these policies are racists and white supremacists.
The list could go on.
And it will, even if Democrats take the advice from Third Way. Whatever language replaces these 45 words would require just as much obfuscation, with perhaps even more torturous Orwellian twisting of words and meanings as the Third Way memo calls out. The problem isn’t really the language, but the extreme policies for which the language had provided cover until voters had to live with those policies in real life. Unless Democrats find a real new way and agenda that comes a lot closer to the national electorate, they will just issue a Newspeak edition every couple of years, as 1984 predicted, to cover up their malice and elitist power grabs.
The masks are off now, though. Perhaps some Democrats will take Teixeira’s advice, but at this point, one has to wonder whether that would take an entirely new party to form for any hope of success.
