How One Writer’s Language Choices Challenge Corporate Think Tank Messaging While Fostering Cultural Inclusion and Understanding
New York, N.Y. — Funded by corporate interest, Democratic think tank Third Way released a blunt memo Friday urging the party to abandon “therapy-speak” and “seminar room language” that alienates voters.
But while political consultants scramble to sanitize progressive vocabulary, Democratic writers such as myself face a different challenge: how do we write authentically without abandoning inclusive language that respects human dignity?
Third Way says Democrats shouldn’t use words such as “birthing person,” “cisgender,” “the unhoused” and “Latinx,” saying they make people “fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR.” Yet for writers committed to equity and accuracy, the question isn’t whether to use inclusive language — it’s how to make such language accessible without sacrificing its core purpose.
The Think Tank’s Warning Shot
The recent memo represents more than political strategy; it reflects a broader cultural tension between precision in language and populist accessibility.
Democrats should speak more “like normal people” and examine their language, “moderate” think tank Third Way said in a memo.
But this raises uncomfortable questions: whose definition of “normal” are we accepting? And what happens to marginalized communities when their preferred terminology gets labeled as alienating jargon?
The memo’s timing, coming after significant electoral losses, suggests that language itself has become a political liability.
“Democrats are often viewed as judgmental, out-of-touch, and dismissive of those without elite education or progressive views,” the documents read. “This makes the party seem disconnected from everyday people.”
A Writer’s Different Path
My approach diverges from Third Way’s recommendations not out of political calculation, but from journalistic principle. Where they see “privilege” as a word that alienates, I use it specifically when discussing my own advantages — acknowledging rather than hiding the reality of unearned benefits. This isn’t virtue signaling; it’s transparency.
Consider the alternatives I’ve adopted: “person of color” instead of “minority,” “flight attendant” rather than “stewardess,” “administrative assistant” not “secretary.” These choices aren’t academic abstractions — they reflect real people’s preferences about how they wish to be identified and understood.
The Butterfly Effect of Language
Language operates like chaos theory’s butterfly wings: small changes in how we describe the world can create massive shifts in cultural understanding.
When writers consistently use “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide,” we gradually remove the stigma of criminality from mental health crises. When we write “person with a disability” rather than “disabled person,” we center humanity before condition.
These linguistic choices ripple outward. Readers internalize new frameworks. Children grow up with different assumptions. Marginalized communities feel seen rather than erased. The cumulative effect transcends any single article or story.
Beyond Political Calculations
The challenge for journalists isn’t choosing between accessibility and inclusion — it’s achieving both simultaneously. This requires what I call “explanatory inclusion”: using precise, respectful language while providing context that makes it accessible to all readers.
For instance, rather than avoiding “LGBTQ+” as potentially alienating, I use it while ensuring my reporting explains diverse experiences within that community.
Instead of defaulting to “foreign food,” I specify “ethnic cuisine” and describe particular culinary traditions. These choices don’t distance readers; they invite them into broader understanding.
The Corporate Memo Mindset
Third Way’s approach reflects a corporate communications strategy: identify problematic language, eliminate it, problem solved.
But public writing requires more nuanced thinking. Our responsibility isn’t to political parties or electoral success — it’s to truth, accuracy, and fairness.
In a new memo, shared exclusively with POLITICO, the centrist think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid using, alleging the terms put “a wall between us and everyday people of all races, religions, and ethnicities.”
Yet many of these supposedly problematic terms originated from the very communities they describe — people seeking more accurate, respectful language to describe their own experiences.
Cultural Impact Through Individual Choice
Every writer makes hundreds of word choices daily. These micro-decisions, multiplied across thousands of journalists, shape cultural discourse.
When we consistently choose inclusive language, we normalize respect. When we default to outdated terms, we reinforce old hierarchies.
My style guide isn’t political positioning — it’s professional ethics applied to language.
Using “mail carrier” instead of “postman” doesn’t alienate anyone; it simply acknowledges that people of all genders deliver mail. Writing “business person” rather than “businessman” doesn’t create barriers; it removes them.
The Authentic Voice Question
Third Way frames this as an authenticity issue, suggesting that inclusive language sounds artificial or forced.
But authenticity isn’t about using language that avoids offense — it’s about using language that accurately reflects reality.
When writers describe the world precisely, including the diversity of human experience, we’re being more authentic, not less.
The real artificiality comes from deliberately avoiding accurate terminology because focus groups find it challenging.
That approach prioritizes comfort over truth, political strategy over journalistic integrity.
Moving Forward With Purpose
The path forward requires courage: courage to use language that respects all readers while remaining accessible to everyone. This means explaining rather than avoiding, contextualizing rather than sanitizing, and trusting readers’ capacity to learn and grow.
My word choices aren’t rebellion for its own sake — they’re commitments to accuracy, respect, and hope.
In a fractured media landscape, journalists have the opportunity to model inclusive communication that brings people together rather than driving them apart.
Every article becomes a small experiment in cultural bridge-building. Every respectful word choice plants seeds for broader understanding.
Every explanatory phrase invites readers into larger conversations about who we are as a society and who we might become.
The butterfly wings of language beat strongest when they carry both precision and compassion — creating ripples that transform not just political discourse, but human understanding itself.
Butterfly Effect of Language: A Writer’s Rebellion Against Elite Speak (Aug. 23, 2025)
Summary
While political consultants advise abandoning inclusive language as elitist, this journalist argues for maintaining respectful terminology that accurately reflects human diversity. Rather than avoiding precise language, writers should explain it accessibly, using their platform to model inclusive communication. Every word choice ripples through culture, creating opportunities to build bridges rather than walls. The challenge isn’t choosing between accessibility and inclusion, but achieving both through explanatory journalism that trusts readers’ capacity to learn and grow while respecting all communities.
#InclusiveLanguage #JournalismEthics #CulturalChange #WordsMatter
#MediaResponsibility #LanguageEvolution #ButterflyEffect #WritingForAll
TAGS: journalism, inclusive language, cultural impact, media ethics, word choice, accessibility, Third Way memo,
political communication, language evolution, butterfly effect, authentic voice, professional responsibility, writer
