Democrats’ Collapse: The Failure to Connect with the People

In the aftermath of the 2024 elections, the Democratic Party finds itself in crisis. Instead of confronting the real issues undermining their popularity, Democrats have decided to invest millions in finding their own version of Joe Rogan.

They are pouring resources into TikTok stars, YouTubers, and influencers, hoping that a social media personality will somehow manage to "speak to the people."

But the problem lies deeper than simply finding the right media personality. What the Democrats truly need isn’t a media figure but a return to authentic communication with the American public—something that has been sorely lacking.

The Democratic Party has lost its way because it has spent too much time in elite, insulated circles, forgetting how to engage with regular Americans. The core issue isn’t a lack of media savvy; it’s that the party has become increasingly disconnected from the very people it claims to represent.

This disconnection isn’t abstract—it's rooted in the way the party communicates, or rather, fails to communicate, with voters. Instead of focusing on pragmatic problem-solving, the Democrats have become obsessed with elite intellectualism, where sounding “correct” is more important than speaking in a way that resonates with everyday Americans.

This became apparent early on in the writer’s academic career. When they attended Brown University in 2011, the unwritten rules of campus culture became clear.

Opinions were not all equal—some opinions mattered more than others. Students quickly learned that speaking out of line, saying the wrong thing, or expressing the wrong opinions in the wrong way would have lasting consequences, particularly outside the classroom.

A defining moment was the 2013 Ray Kelly incident, where protesters disrupted Kelly’s speech on “proactive policing.” While many students were prepared to challenge Kelly with well-thought-out questions during the Q&A section, the protestors’ actions shut down the event before it even started, citing concerns over “framing” the talk in a way that made them uncomfortable.

This incident revealed a deeper issue: the tension between creating space for marginalized voices and silencing anyone whose opinion didn’t fit the narrow, ideologically driven narrative.

Over time, the writer sympathized with the campus movement to protect marginalized voices but began to see the trade-off: those who didn’t adhere to the preferred ideological framework were often silenced, regardless of the merit of their arguments.

It wasn’t just about diversity of opinion—it was about who got to speak and who had the power to shut down conversations. This experience highlighted the growing intolerance for ideas that didn’t fit the prevailing academic and progressive norms.

The writer’s journey continued through Yale and then Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School of Government. At these prestigious institutions, they encountered a more formalized version of academic progressivism.

It was here that the “inverted pyramid” theory—the idea that those furthest from power should speak first and loudest—became a prominent part of the intellectual framework.

While this approach to amplifying marginalized voices had merit, it also created an environment where those who didn’t follow these rules struggled to get their voices heard.

The approach emphasized person-centered language, like calling someone an “incarcerated person” instead of a “prisoner,” which sought to humanize marginalized groups. This academic structure did make the writer a stronger thinker, but it also stifled anyone who deviated from the ideological line.

Despite this, the writer continued their education and eventually took an op-ed writing and public speaking class. There, they were told to “speak like a person, not a policy memo.”

The over-polished language they had been taught to use—words carefully hedged and caveated—was not how ordinary voters communicated. Most people do not communicate in the overly intellectualized, academic way that many in the Democratic Party have adopted.

But the party, particularly those with academic backgrounds, have become fluent in this language, which resonates with other elites but alienates regular Americans.

This tendency is one of the main reasons why Vice President Kamala Harris, despite being highly educated and well-spoken, has been criticized for not connecting with voters.

Her speeches, which speak in implications rather than direct declarations, have often been dismissed as empty and unrelatable to everyday people.

The Democratic Party’s obsession with speaking in academic, polished tones has been a major factor in its growing disconnect from the voters they need to reach.

If Democrats truly had their own version of Joe Rogan, they would likely cancel him within a week. Why? Because Rogan’s style of communication doesn’t follow the "proper" academic or professional norms.

He speaks directly, asks tough questions, and refuses to adhere to the prescribed language of the progressive elite. Instead of being lauded for his authenticity and ability to connect with a broad audience, Rogan would be castigated for violating the rules of ideological purity that govern many in the Democratic Party.

This is exactly why Rogan, who is popular with a large segment of the American public, would never be embraced by the very same people who claim to represent progressive values.

The Democrats need to recognize that most of the voters they need to win over do not live in the realm of academic ivory towers or social media echo chambers.

These voters are found in barbershops, diners, and living rooms across the country, where they engage in real, imperfect conversations about the issues that matter to them.

These spaces are where people are allowed to think out loud, change their minds, and even get things wrong without fear of being ostracized. The Democratic Party must stop tone policing and allow for the messy, imperfect conversations that occur in these spaces.

Tone policing, when taken to extremes, often leads to the silencing of individuals who don’t fit within the approved ideological framework. Of course, this doesn’t mean that bigotry or hate should go unchecked.

It does, however, mean allowing people to speak without fear of being canceled or shut down simply because they haven’t fully mastered the language of progressivism.

The Democratic Party needs to stop focusing on sounding "correct" and start focusing on sounding authentic. They need to learn how to speak to the American people in a way that doesn’t alienate them or make them feel like outsiders.

It’s crucial to recognize that the majority of voters don’t live in the online world of "callout culture" or the overly sanitized language of academic discourse.

The collapse of the Democratic Party is not the result of a lack of media savvy or cleverness in social media campaigns. It’s because the party has lost touch with the real concerns of ordinary Americans.

The Democrats have allowed their obsession with language, tone, and ideological purity to drive them away from the people who need them the most. Instead of focusing on real-world concerns, they’ve become more concerned with ensuring that they speak in the “right” way and adhere to a set of rules designed to satisfy an increasingly narrow set of progressive ideals.

President Trump, on the other hand, has been able to maintain a strong connection with his base because he speaks plainly and directly to the American people.

His communication style, often criticized by the media, is grounded in authenticity and speaks to the concerns of working-class Americans. Trump has not fallen into the trap of academic or intellectual elitism.

His ability to communicate directly with voters, without worrying about sounding "correct," has helped him maintain the loyalty of a large portion of the American electorate.

His authenticity is one of the reasons why his supporters continue to rally behind him, despite the controversies and challenges he faces.

The Democratic Party’s focus on ideological purity, language policing, and tone policing has only served to alienate the very people they need to reach. The failure to engage in real, imperfect conversations with voters has led to a collapse in trust and support.

To rebuild, Democrats must stop worrying about how they sound and focus instead on what they’re saying. They need to reconnect with the American people by speaking in a way that is authentic, relatable, and grounded in the issues that matter most to everyday Americans. Only then can they hope to regain the trust of the voters they’ve lost and begin to rebuild their party for the future.