Word Swaps Won’t Save Us
A new memo tells Democrats to cut 45 “woke words.” But without data, context, or conversation, that’s not strategy — it’s surrender.
Politico covered a memo from Third Way, a center-left think tank, telling Democrats to stop using 45 so-called “woke words.”
Annnnnnnnd…they admit it’s not based on any actual survey data. Just anecdotes. And that, right there, is why media literacy matters. The memo claims Democrats are using words that put “a wall between us and everyday people.” But remember — they never tested that claim. And swapping out words isn’t automatically strategy. It matters how you frame those words.
Plain Language in Action
Here’s what I mean using three of the memo’s own examples:
“Food Insecurity” or “Not knowing where your next meal is coming from.” “Food insecurity” sounds like a policy paper. But if I tell you a mom opens the fridge at 6 p.m. and there’s nothing there for her kids, that’s not knowing where your next meal is coming from. Most people get that and resonates.
“Systemic Oppression” or “Rules rigged against people.” “Systemic oppression” sounds like grad school talk. But if I say: you work twice as hard, and the rules are still stacked against you, like playing a game where the referee only calls fouls on your team, that’s something people feel.
“Stakeholders” or “People most affected.” “Stakeholders” makes me think of a corporate PowerPoint. But if I tell you a new highway is being built, and the people whose homes are in its path are the ones who should have a say, that’s referring to “stakeholder” without stating it; that’s your neighbor losing their house.
That’s what plain language does. It translates. It lands. It connects.
What Third Way Missed
Now, let’s go back to the bigger issue. Third Way didn’t test any of this. And worse, they didn’t give us context.
They didn’t explain why plain language lands better.
They didn’t mention tools like the Flesch-Kincaid readability scale, which tells you the grade level your words hit. If your message is written at grad school level but your audience reads at an eighth-grade level, you’ve already lost them.
They didn’t measure sentiment — how people feel when they hear a word.
They didn’t check message pull-through — whether a phrase actually sticks, gets repeated, or shows up in coverage.
No receipts. Just vibes.
It’s About Framing, Not Lists
Word lists like the one from Third Way assume that if you swap a few terms, you’ll suddenly connect better with people. But persuasion doesn’t work that way. It’s not only about which words you use; it’s about how you frame the conversation. Because framing determines whether people lean in and process deeply, or just skate across the surface.
Persuasion Theory 101
This is where the Elaboration Likelihood Model comes in. Think of it like two highways into someone’s brain:
Central Route (deep-thinking lane): Imagine me at Costco trying to pick olive oil. I’m reading labels, comparing prices, weighing ingredients, and maybe I’m even chatting with a friend who knows cooking, asking, ‘Which one do you use and why?’ That’s persuasion through evidence, reasoning, and meaningful conversation. Once I make the choice, it sticks. I’ll probably buy the same brand next time, because I know why.
Peripheral Route (shortcut): Now picture me grabbing gum at checkout because the packaging is shiny or the cashier smiled at me. No real conversation, no depth; I didn’t think about it, I just reacted. That’s persuasion through surface cues. It works in the moment, but it fades fast.
Now, apply this to politics:
Central Route: Think of Democrats rolling out a 100-page healthcare plan with charts and numbers, and then sitting down to actually walk people through it, answering questions, connecting the facts to people’s lives. That’s persuasion through evidence and meaningful conversation.
Peripheral Route: Now think of Republicans chanting ‘Build the wall!’ at a rally. There’s no real back-and-forth, no conversation, just a slogan repeated until it sticks. That’s persuasion through surface cues: it grabs attention in the moment, but it doesn’t invite dialogue or depth.
The lesson here for us all is that the words we choose are supposed to persuade. Central-route words provide people with something solid to hold onto: values, evidence, and clarity. Peripheral-route words simply sound good in the moment. And Third Way’s memo? All peripheral. Basically: “These words sound weird to some people, so cut them.”
So, Should Democrats Copy That?
You might be asking: if Republicans win with peripheral cues, shouldn’t Democrats just copy that playbook? There is nuance; peripheral persuasion can capture attention, but it doesn’t build trust or lead to durable attitude change on its own. The smart move isn’t to abandon central-route persuasion. It’s to blend the two.
Lead with clarity, evidence, and values — but deliver them in ways that are memorable and easy to recall. Think about ‘$15 Minimum Wage.’ It’s short and sticky, making it easy to chant at a rally or display on a sign. But behind those three words is a stack of economic research, policy details, and, most importantly, conversations. Workers telling their stories about living on $7.25 an hour. Organizers explaining how higher wages ripple through a community. Lawmakers hashing out trade-offs. The slogan grabs attention, but the trust and persuasion come from those conversations. That’s central and peripheral working together.
The Bigger Truth
Words land with the audience that’s primed for them. Simply changing a phrase won’t suddenly persuade Republicans to vote differently, or make someone who’s dug in lean in with curiosity. It’s not that simple. The real battle isn’t over whether we say “woke” or “aware.” The real battle is over critical thinking, policy, and law, because that’s where durable change lives.
Words matter; they shape worlds. They frame values. They tell us whose stories count. But they’re not magic spells. Language only works when it’s paired with trust, context, and action.
That’s why the battle over words is the wrong fight. If all we do is argue over vocabulary and terminology, we’ve lost the plot. The deeper work involves building trust, teaching media literacy, and advocating for policies that genuinely improve people’s lives.
So, the next time you see a memo or article making big claims, ask - Where’s the data? What’s the sample? What’s the methodology? Did they check sentiment, message pull-through, or even readability?
If not, it’s not strategy. It’s surrender.