The Democrats lost a presidential election where the biggest issue, shared by both contenders, was The Other Side Is Off-putting, Icky and Crazy.
Third Way, a think tank pushing for “moderate” policy, almost acknowledged this in a widely-shared memo: “For a party that spends billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters, Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying.”
So it’s not without reason that Third Way suggests Democrats drop the “therapy-speak,” for example — words like privilege, violence (“as in ‘environmental violence’”), othering, etc. Also to be nixed? “Seminar room language,” featuring jargon like subverting norms, systems of oppression, heuristic, etc.
Then there’s the far-out lefty nonsense, like chest-feeding and Latinx, along with the “criminal-excusing phraseology” — elaborate euphemisms like incarcerated people.
The upshot? “Communicating in authentic ways that welcome rather than drive voters away would be a good start.”
Meanwhile, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin seems to think his party failed by trying too hard to persuade.
“After six months as chair, I’ve learned that a lot of people, especially folks in DC, think they can change things by winning arguments,” Martin explained. “You know what winning the argument gets you? Maybe a nice round of applause and a few likes on Instagram. But the reality is, it doesn’t make life any better for any person. We have to stop settling on winning arguments with each other. We have to win elections.”
This is covered in an Epoch Times article that also shows the Democrat leader pressing the Too Virtuous to Win meme: “We cannot be the only party that plays by the rules anymore. We’ve gotta stand up and fight. We’re not gonna have a hand tied behind our backs anymore.”
This pose, that “our side” is too good and noble and rule-following is, of course, echoed among Republicans.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
2 replies on “Too Virtuous to Win?”
We should consider what is meant by “win” in the case of an argument.
A best case might be imagined as one that combines facts and logic in the most reasonable manner. Both Democrats and Republicans have abysmal track-records judged against such standards.
Or a best case might be imagined as one that is most persuasive to some target audience, which audience may not be particularly reasonable. Well, Democrats could not have lost elections in which, by such standards, they won the arguments.
It seems to me that, when leftists or populists or post-liberals declare that they won this-or-that argument, they are often like those twerps on Family Feud, who chant “Good answer! Good answer!” no matter how stupid the answer given by Aunt Ruth Ann or by Cousin Demetrius.
Too virtuous to win? The virtue-signaling is a turnoff. The holier than thou rhetoric is insulting. Americans want practical people with practical approaches to everyday problems. I don’t look for a savior on the ballot. Any Democrat or Republican or Independent who feels that virtuous needs to find another line of work. Self-proclaimed saints do not make good leaders.