While last month’s presidential election is creating nightmare scenarios for a lot of people, I’d like to spend the next couple of weeks talking about some potential positives that could come from it.
This week, that focus will be on a hope that we as a nation and society can get back to talking to each other like normal people. In the self-flagellation conducted by Democrats since Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss, members of Congress, high-ranking party officials, podcasters, and even the four people that headed up the campaign itself have come to the realization that those on the left do not speak the same “language” as those whose votes they court.
What does it mean to “not speak the same language”? Well consider this:
The Vice President did not start all of her campaign rallies with a “land acknowledgement”–a statement that claims the land we use now was “stolen” from Native Americans by European “colonizers”–but many voters will hear one before their local school board or city council begins their meetings. Harris did not call Latino voters “Latinx” during her speeches or in her last-minute “opportunity economy plans” that were tailored to individual minority groups–but the “community organizers” that came to Spanish-speaking communities and churches looking to register people to vote (for Democrats) certainly did. The Vice President didn’t use terms like “birthing person”, “person with a prostate”, or “chestfeeding” when addressing questions about medical issues–but those going to their local clinics or community health centers would have seen them on printed materials from the National Institutes on Health. The Vice President never encouraged educators to hide a serious mental health issue like gender dysphoria in a student from that child’s parents–but those parents’ local school district likely has that policy on the books.
She never called American Jews that support Israel’s right to defend itself from Iranian proxy groups in its surrounding countries “Zionists” or claim that Palestine should exist “from the river to the sea” (obliterating Israel as a nation)–but the nightly parade of college students on TV and the internet taking part in the campus encampments last spring did, loudly. When asked about “the homeless” or “the homeless problem” she did not immediately correct that reporter or potential voter that the “proper” term is “persons experiencing housing insecurity”.
In the Bible, the story of the Tower of Babel helped those who backed the belief that all of humanity descended from just two people explain why there were so many languages used around the world. For those not familiar, in the book of Genesis, the descendants of Noah decided to build a tower so tall that it would allow them to access Heaven and see God. To prevent that (and show the lowly humans who was in charge), God caused everyone working on the project to suddenly start speaking different languages–making it impossible to communicate and work together.
America is increasingly suffering that same fate.
Much of the problem stems from the world of academia. The language of education is becoming more and more insular–creating a wider and wider gap between those engaged in it, and those excluded from the ivory towers. To listen to a school board meeting or a presentation on economics in a community now is to hear a continuous steam of dense terminology intentionally designed to be non-specific, “non-offensive”, and irrationally positive. The end result, however, is that the non-academics elected to these school boards, city councils, or county boards are forced to ask for multiple clarifications about the information they were just presented, while the administrators struggle to put it into “real world terms”–mostly because they fear offending someone with plain speak.
Poor kids went from being “low-income” to “qualified for free and reduced lunch” and now to “economically disadvantaged”. All other kids are grouped into being “non-economically disadvantaged”–making it sound like being poor is the “norm”, and not being poor is “abnormal”.
Or take the term “neurodivergent”, which is growing in popularity to replace “autistic”, “on the spectrum”, or “mentally disabled”. A quick check of the Cleveland Clinic website finds the term means “people whose brain differences affect how their brain works. That means they have different strengths and challenges from people whose brains don’t have those differences. The possible differences include medical disorders, learning disabilities and other conditions.” But a few sentences later, the site mentions this is not a term actually used in medicine, it’s instead a way to avoid having to use the term “abnormal” to describe brain function because there is no “normal brain function”.
You also may have noticed the use of the term “challenges” in the previous definition. In the world of academics, that has replaced “failures” or “poor performances”. While “success” is now a “celebration”. For instance, continued poor performance of Black students in local school districts is a “challenge”–while improved white student performance due to changed standards in what is considered “proficient” this year is a “celebration”.
No greater example can be found than the Congressional committee hearings involving university presidents pertaining to the aforementioned encampments and antisemitic activities on campuses. Some of the smartest and most-accomplished people in our society were totally incapable of stating anything beyond carefully-parsed, prepared statements to any and all questions asked of them–even those that required just a simple yes-or-no answer.
So as the last couple of generations come out of their academic years, they have brought that language with them. And for many, that has been mixed into the language of therapy as well. If you haven’t noticed, for a growing number of people everything that is the least bit annoying or inconvenient is now “traumatic”. People still claim to be “triggered” by the slightest mis-statement by someone else, or an expression of belief that differs from one’s own. Since I was a kid, being told that you are “self-centered” meant that you were egotistical and selfish. Now, you hear from growing numbers of “self help gurus” on the internet about the importance of “centering one’s self”–which literally makes everything going on in the world about yourself. And where better to center one’s self than in a “safe space” that must be guarded at all times by control of the language you hear?
All of this has those within all parts of the Democratic party wondering how they can once again “figure out” how to communicate with the non-college educated, non-urban, non-social media addicted, working class voters that are leaving the party in droves for a rambling fool that at least uses the language and terms they can understand and relate to. Suggestions include finding candidates that could spend three or four hours on the Joe Rogan podcast and sound like someone that doesn’t have three degrees from Harvard and who isn’t worried about using terminology that might “trigger” one person–who then shares it with everyone on social media so they can be “traumatized” by the use of a word in a podcast they didn’t even listen to.
One source of inspiration should be the so-called “Fireside Chats” by President Franklin Roosevelt. Thirty-one times over the course of 12-years, Roosevelt was heard on national radio networks talking to the country in plain, simple, and easy-to-understand terms about some of the most-difficult challenges the country has ever faced. Despite the President having degrees from both Harvard and Columbia–and being surrounded by well-heeled administrators and advisors–80% of the words included in Roosevelt’s speeches are among the most commonly used in the English language.
Could those who seek to be our leaders, those who look to teach our kids, and those who claim they want to improve our communities return to direct, open, and simple communication? I’d like to think so. Starting to talk about talking in the same language–in the same language–is a good start.
