In an NPR interview, Republican strategist and co-founder of The Bulwark Sarah Longwell  shared an anecdote: “When I ask voters in focus groups if they think Donald Trump is an authoritarian, the number one response by far is, ‘What is an authoritarian?’”

I grew up intoxicated by language, the way it could wring meaning from the world, give form and shape to the unruliness of thought. It’s that love of language that made me want to be a writer and communicator. I believe deeply in the power of language to help us recognize one another’s humanity, and in turn bring about that better world we all want.

But in the same way that language can bring us closer together, it can also put up walls between us. It can make us less connected, less accessible, and less human to one another.

There are many reasons for the recent election losses, and even more lessons to draw from those losses. But if we want to start winning again, one place to start is by purging some of our worst habits as progressive communicators.

Exorcizing our language demons

For those of us who have worked for years in social or political movements, advocacy or nonprofit spaces, we often don’t recognize how the language we use can seem strange to people outside of our own professional circles. Over time, this professionalized language has bled into our public-facing communications and isolated us from the people we need to be reaching, evidenced by Trump’s gains with working-class voters.

Most of the language I’m talking about falls into one of three distinct categories:

Grasstops language:

This is the language we use in organizational or donor settings, but may feel abstract to people outside of these spaces.

Examples: vision, transform, thrive, agenda, advance, equity, empower, reimagine, align, robust, grounded, worldview, framework, capacity, infrastructure

Academic language:

This is the language that comes from studying political or left theory. The language can be alienating to people who haven’t done the same reading as us.

Examples: bloc, front, coalition, alliance, majoritarian, material, governing, neoliberal, gentrification, comrade, austerity, oligarchy, fascism, authoritarian

Organizing language:

This is the language we use in the throes of a campaign. These are terms that define our organizing practices.

Examples: mobilize, activate, engage, target, scale, field, relational, GOTV

Even if we’re aware of the alienating nature of our language, it becomes an easy fallback when rushing to complete an email, draft social media copy, or offer up a press quote.

We even use this language in job descriptions and titles. When we post listings for “Director of Transformative Organizing” or “Movement Politics Director,” our search attracts those who think and talk the same way we do. It’s not unusual for an industry to have its own terminology or jargon. But fluency in movement language shouldn’t be a barrier or precondition to participating. Otherwise, we build an insular and self-reinforcing culture.

The difference between talking to people and talking about them

Trump’s greatest strength is his ability to make people feel like they’re in on a secret.

The right has become very good at speaking to people. We, on the other hand, have a tendency to speak about people. 

So what does this look like? At its worst, messages can read like we’re anthropologists who study people rather than leaders who move people to action. 

During interviews, we fall into the trap of narrating the experiences of working people for a professional media class, instead of using these platforms to speak directly to people, as the right has done so effectively in recent years.

Our messages can read as though we’re not entirely convinced of our ability to reach working people (even as most of us are working people ourselves). But, if people are picking up what we’re putting down, we don’t need to rehash our mission statement in public messages as a way of conjuring the right audience. People will respond to messages that are meant for them.

Instead of talking about how we’re building a multi-racial movement or mobilizing the working-class electorate, we need messages that speak directly to people and show them that we have answers to the questions that keep them up at night.

Perception is reality

One of the central tensions this election was the perception gap between what we heard from the campaign and what we felt as voters. It’s hard to believe the economy is doing well when you can’t afford rent or groceries.

Faced with perception gaps around everything from economic performance, rates of crime, or levels of immigration, our natural instinct is to set the record straight. But you can’t combat feelings with data and facts.

This also applies more intimately to the way that people feel about themselves and their own circumstances. Many of us imagine ourselves as being one step away from hitting it big. Describing people as poor, vulnerable, struggling, low-income, or in search of dignity may not square with their perception of themselves and their situation. 

In politics, perception is reality. Our messages have to start at a place of recognizing how people see themselves, not as a census taker might see them.

Getting back to basics

The beautiful thing about language is its ability to reinvent itself. It’s easier to cook up a new message than, say, design a new brand identity or change your organizational mission.

However, if we truly want to fix our language, it will require buy-in and discipline at all levels of our organizations. Language and messaging can’t be seen simply as a problem for communications staff to sort out—and it can’t be a one-way street. We need to train organizers to listen to how everyday people are talking about issues, and relay that information to communications staff, with the goal of refining and strengthening our messages.

At a time when many of us are taking stock and reflecting on the disappointing election results, we should use this opportunity to get back to messaging basics and break out of some of our most self-defeating habits as communicators. 

Because if we can’t even communicate what an authoritarian is, how do we stop one from taking power?

---

---