When gathering with friends over drinks, a game emerges among the disheartened—a shout of "And that’s why we lost the election!" whenever someone shows disdain for mainstream tastes, like scoffing at Olive Garden or the musical *Cats*. This game reflects a deeper critique within the Democratic Party about the alienating effect of elite language on broader audiences.

A memo from the liberal think tank Third Way lists 45 terms that are deemed too arcane or elitist, suggesting that such language may deter rather than attract the average American voter. Among these are phrases categorized under therapy-speak such as "privilege" and "triggering," which may come off as condescending or over-sensitive.

Moreover, the memo criticizes seminar room jargon like "systems of oppression" and "cultural appropriation," which could be perceived as intellectual elitism. Terms that seem to prioritize ideology over individual concerns, such as "small ‘d’ democracy" and "the unhoused," are also flagged for potentially obscuring urgent social issues behind a veil of technical terminology.

The critique extends to how Democrats discuss gender and orientation, with terms like "cisgender" and "pregnant people" highlighted as examples of language that might confuse or alienate rather than include. The memo argues that while the intent behind this vocabulary is to foster inclusion and empathy, it often comes across as forced or overly academic, alienating those who are not versed in the latest progressive lexicon.

This linguistic disconnect is not just a theoretical concern—it plays out in everyday interactions and the media, with figures like JD Vance advising Democrats on national television to "stop sounding like crazy people." The implication is that the party's focus on linguistically precise but complex expressions might be costing them a broader appeal.

Contrasting with this is the straightforward, albeit controversial, rhetoric of figures like Donald Trump, whose blunt and sometimes offensive language cuts through the noise for many voters by sounding more direct and authentic, despite its often divisive content.

The challenge for Democrats, as the memo and subsequent discussions suggest, is to balance the need for respectful and inclusive language with the necessity of being relatable and understandable to the average voter. The risk of failing to do so is significant, potentially continuing to alienate voters who feel that the party does not speak their language—literally.

The ongoing debate within the party highlights a critical aspect of political communication: the need to connect genuinely and effectively with voters from all walks of life without seeming distant or detached from their everyday experiences. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the Democrats’ ability to refine their communication strategy could be key to regaining trust and winning future elections.