Crawling Out of the Ivory Tower: Democrats Finally Admit Their 'Woke' Words Are Nonsense

 

Democrats are finally being told to drop the circus of ‘woke’ words—like calling a pregnant woman a “birthing person” or a criminal an “incarcerated person.” At last, they’re crawling out of the ivory tower and starting to sound like normal people.

For years, I have watched the Democratic Party wrap itself in a cocoon of words so detached from reality that even the people they claim to represent couldn’t recognize themselves in the descriptions. They seemed convinced that the right concoction of syllables—words like “birthing person” instead of pregnant woman or “incarcerated people” instead of criminals—would magically fix their political mess. But now, at long last, a memo has landed on their desks, bluntly telling them to cut it out. And for the first time in a long while, they’re beginning to crawl down from the ivory tower and speak like normal human beings again.

The memo circulating among Democrats lists forty-five words and phrases that should be banished from their vocabulary. It wasn’t written to mock them but to save them. These terms, the memo explains, put a wall between the party and everyday Americans. They are the kind of expressions you’d expect to hear in a college seminar where the walls are covered in posters about “systems of oppression” and “radical transparency.” But when spoken in the real world, they clang like a broken bell. Ordinary people do not walk around asking their neighbors if they’ve experienced “environmental violence” or accusing them of “subverting norms.” They do not look at a homeless man on the street and think “the unhoused.” They say homeless, plain and simple. And they certainly don’t look at a mother-to-be and call her a “birthing person,” as though she were a machine in a maternity factory.

The absurdity is not just in the words themselves, but in the arrogance behind them. Democrats have long acted like linguistic referees, blowing whistles at the rest of us for using everyday speech. Say “woman” and you’re told you should say “cisgender female.” Say “prisoner” and they insist on “justice-involved individual.” It reminds me of an old proverb: a man who insists on polishing the clouds forgets the dirt on his own shoes. Democrats have been polishing clouds for too long, convinced that changing language would change reality. Yet crime still spikes, families still struggle, and communities still feel unsafe, no matter how pretty the new terms sound.

The memo itself admits that in trying to please a few, Democrats have alienated the many. That is the beating heart of the problem. They have been speaking to one another in echo chambers, congratulating themselves for sounding enlightened, while the rest of the country listened with confusion, irritation, or outright laughter. Even comedians, who usually lean their way, have joined in mocking how ridiculous they sound. When late-night jokes about your vocabulary land harder than your campaign speeches, you know the ship is sinking.

Take a look at some of the words blacklisted by the memo. “Microaggression.” “Othering.” “Dialoguing.” “Holding space.” These phrases may impress in a graduate classroom, but they leave ordinary Americans scratching their heads. “Food insecurity” instead of hunger. “Housing insecurity” instead of homelessness. “The unhoused” instead of homeless people. The Democrats’ obsession with these terms has made them sound like robots programmed to avoid offense at all costs. But as the saying goes, a knife that fears to cut will never chop firewood. Politics requires clarity, not cowardice.

Nothing exposes the absurdity more than the phrase “birthing person.” In one swoop, Democrats managed to strip away the beauty of motherhood, replacing it with cold, mechanical jargon. My grandmother, who raised ten children, would laugh herself to tears if someone had ever called her that. The word “mother” carries generations of meaning, love, and sacrifice. Replacing it with “birthing person” doesn’t expand dignity—it erases it. It turns a woman into a process, not a person.

Then there’s “incarcerated people.” Of course criminals are still people. Nobody disputes that. But the phrase blurs the moral line, softens accountability, and suggests that society is at fault rather than the individuals who commit crimes. When a man robs a store, assaults a woman, or takes a life, he is not simply “justice-involved.” He is a criminal. By refusing to say it, Democrats sound less like leaders and more like lawyers rehearsing excuses. And the public notices. As one observer of the memo pointed out, the very communities these terms are meant to protect don’t even use them. Prisoners call themselves prisoners. Families of convicts call them inmates. The only people insisting on this bizarre terminology are politicians desperate to sound progressive.

This is why the memo strikes such a nerve. It’s not only about language. It’s about trust. When a politician can’t say something in plain words, people begin to suspect they can’t say the truth either. A voter who hears about “existential threats” and “stakeholders” may wonder what problem is really being described. A citizen who hears about “cultural appropriation” instead of cultural exchange feels accused rather than inspired. Every fancy word widens the gap between the politician and the people they want to lead.

The memo urges Democrats to stop speaking as though every sentence is a landmine, waiting to offend someone. And it is right. A political party that cannot say things clearly will never win the trust of a majority. That is why the document calls on Democrats to talk in ways that welcome voters rather than repel them. Words should be bridges, not barricades. The fact that it took forty-five banned terms for them to see this truth shows just how far gone the party’s language has become.

Of course, Democrats claim they are not trying to police speech. They say they only want clarity. But the irony is glaring: they have been policing speech for years, branding anyone who didn’t adopt their new vocabulary as backwards or hateful. Now they are the ones being told to change. It is poetic justice, a taste of their own medicine. The hunters of words have become the hunted.

The truth is simple: Americans don’t need therapy-speak from their leaders. They don’t need “dialoguing” or “holding space.” They want leaders who can talk about jobs, safety, family, and freedom without sounding like they swallowed a sociology textbook. They want plain words that reflect plain truths. As the proverb goes, a bird that forgets how to sing will not be heard in the forest. If Democrats forget how to speak the language of ordinary people, they will not be heard at the ballot box.

Now the question is whether they will listen. Some within their ranks—figures like Andy Beshear and Pete Buttigieg—are trying to steer the party toward normal speech again. They are admitting that even progressive causes can be defended in plain English. But whether the rest of the party will follow is uncertain. For now, at least, Democrats are being forced to confront a truth they have long resisted: their words have become their worst enemies.

The memo doesn’t solve their deeper problems—policy failures, voter distrust, and cultural divides—but it shines a spotlight on their greatest self-inflicted wound. By turning language into a carnival of absurdities, they pushed ordinary Americans away. And now, like circus performers finally stepping off the tightrope, they are being told to put down the juggling pins, take off the clown paint, and talk like normal people. If they fail, no amount of “radical transparency” or “allyship” will save them from political oblivion.

Because at the end of the day, Americans know one thing: you cannot cook soup with words alone. You need substance. And until Democrats learn to serve that substance in plain, honest language, their words—no matter how carefully chosen—will continue to sound like noise from a tower nobody lives in anymore.