Democrats Biggest Problem Right Now is 'The Way They Talk', Former Obama Strategist Says (Exclusive)

When Democrats lost the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the November elections, the party was left scrambling to figure out where it erred the most. In the months that followed, lawmakers and pundits alike have pointed the finger at factors that could've played a significant role in the historic loss, from Vice President Kamala Harris' nomination to President Donald Trump's loyal base. However, one consultant from the Obama campaign believes the main answer may have been in front of the party all along— communication.

Spencer Critchley is an award-winning communication strategist and national media commentator. He previously worked for both of President Barack Obama's presidential campaigns as a communications consultant and has authored the book "Patriots of Two Nation," which discusses why the election of Donald Trump has been inevitable since the creation of the country. Critchley recently sat down with The Latin Times to discuss what he thinks are Democrats' "biggest problem."

Democrats' Biggest Problem: Communication

As President Trump has used a populist rhetoric to appeal primarily to white, uneducated, rural men across the country, Democrats over the past decade have become the party of the "educated urban elite," Critchley explained.

"The biggest problem Democrats face isn't their message, and it isn't their policies," Critchley said. "It's the way they talk— and that's going to be very hard to fix."

"[Democrats] sound like members of an alienated, educated elite, because they use the vocabulary of an alienated, educated elite, the mannerisms and even the cadences," he continued.

This, Critchley said, is evident in their public appearances, where they use legal jargon and long, winded answers to defend their ideological stances. For instance, in a recent podcast interview with comedian Jon Stewart, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refers to the Constitution's "section nine, clause seven [of] the House in particular."

In response, a confused Stewart said "Did you just section nine, clause seven me?... That's like talking to [historian] Doris Kearns Goodwin, for God's sake, throwing out clauses and articles and things," he added, criticizing the overly-technical response.

But Jeffries is but an example. In private meetings and at public events, elected Democrats appear leaderless, rudderless and divided, according to a recent report from The New York Times. They disagree over how often and how stringent their opposition to Trump should be, and they have no shared understanding of why they lost the election.

That sign is also seen on their first efforts at electing the future leaders of the party. Earlier this month, the party chose Ken Martin of Minnesota as the next chair of the Democratic National Committee. Martin said he planned a post-election review largely focused on tactics and messaging.

From Language to Ideology

Critchley, whose work spans national politics and spills into pop culture, with clients like David Bowie and Britney Spears, points out that Democrats' problems start with the exact language they use. He focuses on an example from the late 80s that should be taken by the party as they move forward.

"I often use the example of the 'Don't Mess With Texas' campaign. Anti-litter efforts had failed in Texas for years, sometimes actually causing littering to increase. Then a smart ad guy realized that Texans don't use the word 'litter'— to them it sounds snooty and, God forbid, Eastern," Critchley said.

"Texas anti-litter campaigners had been losing their audience with the first words they said, over and over. Texans do say 'mess.' And so a campaign was born that was based in the language of Texas and in Texan values like fierce pride. And suddenly littering started to decline, dramatically."

But those issues also run deeper, leading to an overall ideological confusion from the party.

Critchley explains that when Democrats get asked simply what they stand for, "rational" answers come to mind, such as a livable minimum wage or dignity for marginalized communities. But when those are the answers, two issues quickly arise.

For one, the consultant says, the party will start arguing what the order of priority is. And, on the other hand, they will fail at resonating with people's emotions and "irrational" beings, which Republicans excel at when they use words and phrases like "freedom" and "Make America Great Again."

"I think a lot of liberals can't actually answer that question in a way that is simple and resonates emotionally, and then just comes across as something they actually believe deep in their hearts and guts," he explained.

Critchley is not be the only one pointing out these issues. The New York Times recently interviewed 50 Democratic leaders, revealing a party that is struggling to define what it stands for, what issues to prioritize and how to confront a Trump administration that is carrying out its agenda with head-spinning speed. Their concerns are spilling out into public, with their most prominent leaders airing sharp disagreements over how aggressively they should oppose Trump.

"We're not going to go after every single issue," Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said in an interview. "We are picking the most important fights and lying down on the train tracks on those fights."

What Should Come Next

In the first weeks of the Trump administration, Democrats have been taunted for not having a leader, with the president himself flexing his power as the opposition seems weak and with no direction. Critchley thinks that narrative may not be so far from the truth.

When asked about who could take the mantle of the party in the years ahead, Critchley was silent, with no names being able to come to his mind. After a few seconds of pondering over the question, he thought of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, two names that have often been thrown around in early-2028 election nomination predictions. But the main issue with these two candidates? They seemingly fail to connect with the general public and fall under the same elitist trap.

But while a charismatic leader like Barack Obama could come and swoop the party, Critchley hopes internal change is more meaningful and long-lasting.

"[Change] could be done by a charismatic leader like [Obama], but I hope that it's a deeper change than that. I hope that the culture among liberals will shift so they start to realize that it is possible to expand your awareness beyond the world of rationality," Critchley reflected.