Democrats don't have a Messaging Problem, they have a Message Problem

Some quick and dirty thoughts on the current discourse

Right now, the Democratic Party does not have a communication or messaging problem. The real issue is that its elite leadership does not want what most Americans want, because truly democratic reforms would undermine their own interests. The public wants robust institutions of self-governance—like competitive primaries that could challenge entrenched figures such as Nancy Pelosi or Jim Clyburn. But that level of internal democracy runs counter to the priorities of party elites. So the conflict isn’t about messaging; it’s about the Democratic establishment resisting the very self-governance the rank-and-file desire.

The Democrats “Messaging Problem”

You can’t blame the message if the underlying policies simply aren’t there. The truth is, they don’t have the right content, because the policies that would actually serve the public interest run counter to too many elite interests. Instead of taking responsibility for this conflict, leaders within the party point to a “messaging” issue or blame the so-called “gerontocracy.” But the problem isn’t that certain Democrats are too old; the younger ones with the same sensibilities would just reproduce the same stale, inadequate platform.

If Democrats were serious about championing genuine self-governance, they would have to undermine the very conditions of success for establishment figures like Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, or Chuck Schumer. That’s the real challenge, and it’s easier to pretend the issue lies in how ideas are communicated than to confront donors or private interests whose goals contradict the needs of democratic self-governance. This dynamic also extends to our broader media environment, which is similarly shaped by elite interests. (Which is why media elites suddenly entering Substack may not be as groundbreaking as some think or end up doing what some hope).

It’s not that they strongly believe in fundamental rights either—too often, they seem to believe in convenience and charity instead. People then lose sight of how government should function in their lives, which Democrats could clarify if they were willing to do the hard work.

Naturally, if you want to clarify the conditions of self-governance, you can’t protect the very power structures that keep establishment politicians in place. If you’re unwilling to challenge the status quo, you end up obscuring the truth, and that gets labeled a “messaging problem.” George Orwell, in his essay “Politics and the English Language,” noted how cowardice drives people to hide behind vague, abstract phrases because they’re afraid to articulate what they really mean. It’s easier to blame the communication itself than admit the content is the problem.

“Communication Problems” in Personal Relationships

You see a similar dynamic in personal relationships. When your spouse says, “We have a communication problem,” it might actually mean, “I don’t want to hear what you have to say.” That’s not about communication; it’s about one person expecting agreement and not knowing how to handle genuine disagreement. It’s the same with “hack” therapists or self-help gurus who claim everything boils down to “communication issues.” Often, the real problem is entitlement or the assumption that your partner should simply go along with your viewpoint.

Disagreement—by the way—doesn’t mean communication has failed; it might just mean one person dislikes the other’s content. If you have a deep-seated expectation that everyone should cater to your needs and opinions, no amount of rephrasing or fancy wordplay will fix that. The problem isn’t the conversation—it’s the mindset of entitlement or self-absorption. If you truly considered your partner’s perspective, you’d need fewer words, not more.

Another example: In sports, if you’re calling for the ball behind two defenders, that’s not a communication problem. It’s that you’re not thinking correctly about the situation for the person with the ball. You’re focusing on what you want, not what’s actually possible or beneficial. Again, it’s not about communication; it’s about failing to see how your behavior affects others.

How is this Relevant?

All the talk of a “messaging problem” often just covers up political cowardice. As Orwell himself observed, much unclear communication stems from fear: we’re afraid to say what we think, and after a while, that fear erodes our ability to think clearly in the first place.

It’s the same within the Democratic Party. If you’re committed to preserving figures like Jim Clyburn or Nancy Pelosi at the expense of genuine democratic reform, you cannot credibly run a campaign against the anti-democratic tendencies of the GOP. Why would voters rally for one form of unaccountable power over another? That’s why turnout suffers among the Democratic base. It’s not a marketing failure; it’s a failure of integrity and substance.

Final Thoughts

Improvement—whether in politics, relationships, or sports—depends on a willingness to consider others’ needs in addition to one’s own. This requires character, practice, and fundamental skills more than it requires brilliantly worded slogans. When the content is right, the role of communication is simple: to clarify and reinforce solid ideas rather than to hide a deeper self-interest.

Ultimately, many so-called “communication problems” conceal deeper truths about self-absorption and cowardice. We too often hide from saying what we think or from admitting the changes we need to make. Genuine progress depends on confronting those truths honestly and changing the underlying content. If the Democratic Party is beholden to its donor class, the best speechwriters in the world cannot fix that. If a soccer team’s players cannot think ahead and move for each other, yelling “Pass!” will not magically free up space. If partners in a relationship refuse to consider each other’s viewpoint, no amount of talk therapy solves their entitlement.

Beneath the frantic search for words or messaging lies the real question: Are we able to see beyond ourselves, adapt, and work toward common goals? The answer demands character, clear thinking, and fundamental skills rather than a mere shift in vocabulary.