Language Moments of 2023
maslansky + partners
The language experts from maslansky + partners take on the smartest, savviest, and sometimes stupidest messages in the market today. CEO Michael Maslansky and President Lee Carter bring their experience with words, communication, and behavioral science to the table — along with a colleague or client — and offer up a “lay of the language.” Their insight helps make sense of business, life, and culture, and proves over and over again that It’s Not What You Say, It’s What They Hear™.
What were those top Language Moments of 2023? As language experts, we’re always listening for those moments that change the way we view companies, politics, business… and each other. From Bidenomics to MAGAnomics, from rainbow capitalism to Barbenheimer, this year had more than its share of new language moments, and in this new episode of Hearsay, Michael Maslansky, Lee Carter, and guest Ben Feller talk through those big moments of the year that changed our view of the world around us.
Listen below or on your preferred streaming platform:
LINKS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW
Michael Maslansky’s book, The Language of Trust
Lee Carter’s book, Persuasion
maslansky + partners newsletter
TRANSCRIPT BELOW
HearSay Language Moments
Michael Maslansky:
They said, what? Welcome to HearSay, a podcast from the language strategists at Meslansky and Partners, where we give our take on the strategy behind the smartest, savviest and stupidest messages in the market today and what you can learn from them. Our philosophy is, it’s not what you say, it’s what they hear. And that’s why we call this Hear Say. I’m Michael Maslansky, CEO of Maslansky and Partners and author of The Language of Trust.
Lee Carter:
I’m Lee Carter, president and partner of Maslansky and Partners and author of a book called Persuasion. And really excited about this episode, we get together once a year to do this, focus in on the language moments of the year. And this year we’re here to talk about those top language moments of 2023. We’re joined by our partner Ben Feller, who really was the driving force behind all of this and pulled together so many of these great moments and put together the video and highlighted all this. Ben, thank you for joining us today.
Michael Maslansky:
Woohoo!
Ben Feller:
You are welcome. Hey Lee, hey Michael, looking forward to this.
Lee Carter:
So before we dig in, Ben, why don’t you tell me what a language moment is? Because I’m not sure everybody knows. And we struggle with this ourselves. Sometimes is it a language moment or is a news moment is one of our big questions. So can you tell us what a language moment is?
Ben Feller:
Sure, I would be happy to. We think about a language moment as a piece of language that really captures the public imagination and changes the way we talk about it, remember it, think about it, and that could be a person, an event, or an issue. A lot of times, the language moments that really stand out to us are the ones that we’re talking about at the end of the year and for years after that. They really resonate and make us think, make us laugh, make us feel, and that’s a real joy of the work we do is finding those moments with our clients and finding those for the video.
Lee Carter:
So this year is like many other years where there’s lots of interesting language moments, but we’ve sort of divided it up this year into a couple of different categories. So we’re going to start with the category of language in business, who’s doing it well and who’s not. we would be remiss if we didn’t talk about was the woke wars, the anti-woke wars, ESG, and all that went around that. So Michael, what for you stood out the most when it comes to that?
Michael Maslansky:
I think how the year was defined from the perspective of ESG, where this was really the year where ESG went from being kind of all forward momentum for businesses to one where that momentum was stopped and companies really needed to think about what they were doing. And the reality, for better or worse, is that the right really did an incredibly effective job at establishing this anti-woke backlash of turning ESG into woke capitalism of tagging brands with this almost negative reputation for doing things that until then had been perceived as really positive things to do. And once you were kind of identified as a woke brand, even the word woke went from kind of a positive among the people who used it to a pejorative among the right who would attack it. But it’s one example of where this term ESG, which had no meaning, nobody understood what it was because it was always just an acronym. It was very easy to demonize and frame in a negative way. And it really defined the year in a lot of ways.
Lee Carter:
I think it’s fascinating because I think there’s the one politician who probably went after the woke capitalism more than any other is Ron DeSantis. And yet didn’t go so well for him, even though I think it’s had a huge impact on how companies are navigating and communicating. Why do you think that is?
Michael Maslansky:
I think there are times when you take things too far. You know, the fact that it was one thing that he could have, that he was actually very successful with in a lot of ways. It became he became almost a one trick pony. And he took everything to its anti woke extreme to the point that it almost became a, you know, a clown show and ultimately backfired because there’s some aspects of the anti-woke backlash that a lot of the public really responds to and agrees with. At its extremes, most people don’t agree with it, even on the right, the backlash, I mean. And so it just, it became a little bit ridiculous.
Lee Carter:
We can’t talk about this section without talking about the Bud Light CAN and influencer campaign. And while in and of itself, it wasn’t necessarily a language moment, issuing a can with an influencer’s face on it isn’t by itself a language moment, I think the subsequent response and backlash is one that we really should dig into. Why do you think, of all of the woke sort of crises of the year, why do you think this is the one that sticks the most?
Michael Maslansky:
I mean, I think there are a number of elements to it, and I think that a lot of it is about the language, but it’s a bunch of different pieces of language. And so the first, I think what made it the most, sorry. What made Bud Light different from a lot of other companies that also did partnerships with trans influencers is that this didn’t feel authentic to Bud Light. And so when people imagined to the consumer was a Bud Light, they were not thinking that it was a trans influencer. And so people wondered why Bud Light was doing this. And then that wasn’t about the language. But then we started hearing about the VP of Marketing at the time, who I know you’ve talked about this a lot, where she started talking about the fact that Bud Light was a tired brand because it went after frat boys and that they needed to go after another audience. Rule number one in marketing is don’t bash your customer. I think that’s a pretty universal rule. And then they made it worse because then they didn’t defend the influencer that they had done a partnership with. And so they screwed it up on both sides.
Lee Carter:
I think it’s a good rule.
Michael Maslansky:
And that’s what made it such a damaging issue for them.
Lee Carter:
I think Bud Light got it wrong. We’ve seen it in the share price. But as a result of what Bud Light did, I think probably about 50% of our clients this year have had conversations with us about what it means for them and taking a stand on social issues, on ESG, when they should and shouldn’t say something, how they should say it. Tell me a little bit about how you think the world’s going to look moving forward for clients and companies that are having to navigate how to communicate about ESG.
Michael Maslansky:
I think the big thing that has come out of the ESG debate and a lot of the work that we’ve done is that when you talk about ESG, in terms that people don’t understand, it becomes very easy to demonize it when you talk about it.
Ben Feller:
I’ve got a point to make right after that one, Michael.
Michael Maslansky:
ESG is connected to non-financial factors. It sounds like it’s, you know, people are doing it for reasons other than business. And that’s a problem on both fronts. When you connect it to business, when businesses say that they are doing things because it supports their business, not just the bottom line, but customers, employees, communities, and other stakeholders, when they connect it to this idea of being a responsible business and they do it, there’s a ton of support. And so I think we’re going to see, we already have companies that talk about what they’ve done. They talk about why it impacts their business. They talk about it in language that everybody can understand. And when they do that, ESG becomes a lot less risky and the support for it becomes really broad based across the political spectrum.
Lee Carter:
So Ben, I know you’ve got some thoughts here too. I’d love to hear from you on this topic.
Ben Feller:
Yeah, Michael used the phrase, language that everybody understands. And that’s so vital to this. The Bud Light example for all of its problems, perhaps the biggest one is for people who don’t understand what we’re talking about with ESG, they look at that and say, well, that’s ESG, right? That’s what that stands for. That whole wool controversy. And for the companies that are doing this and really believe in it, that’s something they’re not talking about. The controversial, right? People don’t even understand necessarily what ESG stands for. They don’t think in terms every day of environmental social governance. That’s not how people talk. But if you were to break down the elements of any of those things and say, we as a company believe in this, this is how we’re doing, this is what we’re doing to treat our employees well, this is what we’re doing to ensure rights across our company, those things are ones that people believe in. And so I think part of the research and the thinking that Maslansky and Partners has done, led by Michael this year, has been to reveal, only one out of two have really heard of ESG, only one in 10 know that much about it. And that’s, I think, the real danger, the danger of the undefined. When you start talking about ESG, the acronym and the symbols that it creates without really unpacking in plain spoken terms, what does it mean and how is it helping and why are companies doing it, people fill in their own answers. We see that across so many of the challenges we face. And so the upside for that, the opportunity for companies, and we’re starting to see a lot of our clients do this and say, okay, how do we lean into the positive? Define what it means in plain spoken terms, show what it means, and rally support around it that way. And once you start doing that, you start to see some of the attention leave the room, and people start joining a conversation as opposed to just default taking one side or the other because they heard somebody say that’s woke.
Michael Maslansky:
There’s so much talk out there about how polarized we are as a country. And I think one of the things that people don’t often dig into is what are the implications of that polarization. And this is an example of a direct response to that polarization, where, you know, in my mind… One thing that happens when you have extreme polarization is you have this heightened sensitivity to every message, whether it’s language or other messages through actions that come out, where anytime something can be interpreted negatively, it will be. And so for companies, for politicians, really for everybody, it becomes important to kind of understand where the other side is coming from because at any moment they can flip your message, your language on its head and turn it against you.
Lee Carter:
Yeah, I think it’s really important to always understand what the other side of the argument is because we used to dismiss it. I remember we’ve been doing this together for a long time and it used to be if you’re talking about something and you had really vocal opponents, you never wanted to talk to them because you could never persuade them. But now the argument can be completely taken over by your opponent. So you need to be able to understand why are they thinking what they’re thinking, what is going on here so that you can do your best to try and neutralize it. And I think this year, 2023 in the rearview mirror is probably going to be the year that we say ESG changed into something different. And we’ve been working on this issue for a number of years whether there was a lot of CSR in years past that turned into purpose, that turned into ESG, that now is going to probably turn into something else. And that’s going to be interesting to track. But I think that the thing that really turned this is that the argument against it when they’re coming after children they’re forcing this morality on us and you found that so much of this came down to force morality you know when people were talking about how target celebrated gay pride they said one of the issues they had was where they put that LGBTQ products in the store so that you had gender fluid coffee mugs you had explained that to your child they’re coming after your child mickey mouse coming after your child how Bud Light was coming after your child, I have no idea because you’re not allowed to buy the product if you’re under 21, but somehow that happened. And so if you don’t understand the fear that’s happening, forced morality is really what’s underneath all of this. They’re coming after your kids. They’re pushing their morals on you. And if you can’t combat that, you’re going to have a real problem. So I couldn’t agree with you more. You’ve got to understand what’s going on behind it if you’re going to fight it.
Michael Maslansky:
Mm-hmm.
Lee Carter:
So our next topic, which is a really good segue because we just talked about business and the politicization of business, is there were some really big things that happened in politics this year. There’s certainly no shortage of conversation to talk about what’s happened on the right, but there’s a lot more to talk about the middle and others as well. I wanna start a little bit by talking about the Republican primary and the language of the right, which has been fascinating to watch. One of the most frequent questions I get is how is it possible that Donald Trump is ahead by 40 or 50 points in the Republican primary right now? And my response is and has been and will continue to be as long as he maintains his lead, that he’s the one that has the message that’s captured the people. What he put out there has been, he says that there’s a two-tier system of justice, the system has been rigged and I’m here to fight for you. And if you know, they’re going to come for you if I don’t fight back. And that really has come through. There’s polling that says 70% of Americans, including Democrats, believe that the system is rigged. They do believe that there’s a two-tier system of justice. He has owned the narrative. No one else has. Whether you like it or not, now there’s a lot. He’s got huge unpopularity numbers. But he’s the one that’s on the language and on the debate and the right without even being on the debate stage. And when you look at, go ahead.
Michael Maslansky:
It’s so interesting that you raised that I think so many of the observers of this and pundits say, well, he’s such a, he should be a bad messenger for that because he’s the guy who actually is not necessarily, well, he’s guilty, right? Like two tiers, three tiers, one tier, he’s done…
Lee Carter:
Hahaha
Michael Maslansky:
…these things, or at least it looks that way, and deserves to see justice as a result. But the message is something that even though he arguably should be a really bad messenger for it, the message is really resonating. And people are saying that this is the way the world feels to them, and he’s the one saying it. And so regardless of his other flaws, they’re following him. I’ve never really thought about it that way. I think it’s really insightful.
Lee Carter:
The other thing that I find so fascinating about what he’s doing here is we talk about how when a message really takes off, it often ties into one of the moral values that people hold so dear in this country. And so Jonathan Haidt wrote something called the Moral Foundations Theory. There’s all different moral values that take hold. One of those, right, is this idea of fairness. And I think Donald Trump has really, really latched on to this idea of the things that are unfair and we need to make them fair again. So the debate doesn’t necessarily become about is it fair what’s happened to him? It’s fair what’s happened to all of us. And I think many Republicans feel overlooked. They feel like they’re treated unfairly, they’re judged unfairly, and it becomes really, really hard to walk away from that for anybody else. And so for that reason, I think Trump continues to lead in the polls and will, unless something I think changes dramatically legally, which is not my area of expertise. I’m more of a messaging expert, obviously, but leave the rest to the legal experts.
Michael Maslansky:
That’s super interesting. So why do you think the others, whether it’s DeSantis or Haley, have not been able to make more of a dent in this? Is it just that he’s not vulnerable or that they haven’t gotten the message? Right? What’s, what’s your take?
Ben Feller:
I think there’s a couple of things at play there. I do think Trump is remarkably vulnerable for a couple of reasons. that feeling that he tapped into that Lee mentioned is absolutely true. The rig system in fairness. The trouble is when you’re running for the highest office and you tap into that, that can get you elected, and he was, but then you own it. And I think he got kicked out of office for a lot of reasons, but one of them was that people didn’t feel that he lived up to it. So now we’re back to this empty space, who’s going to take the next opportunity. And in the absence of anything clear, of course he’s the default choice. I think partly it’s because of the history of his messaging, but also because it’s just so early and people aren’t paying attention yet. So his name recognition, in my mind, is a huge part of that 40 point lead. I think the opportunity for the others is they’ve got to find their version of that. And right now they won’t admit it, but they’re really doing trial language. You know, one of the things about our language moments video is it shows all the different ways that the Republican contenders have floated ideas of what that winning line is. And some of these folks aren’t even in the race anymore. It’s clearly not working. Some of suspended their campaigns. And so it’s a combination of that one piece of language that really taps into the voter mindset and also belief back to your earlier point, Michael, about authenticity. Okay, great. You have a great line there. But can I actually see you fighting for me? And that was the original combination that Trump put together, the right message and this believability. I think, you know, we’re sitting here in the latter part of 2023, there’s gonna be this period over the next six months where the Republican contenders are really gonna try to find their own voice. They haven’t yet. I really don’t think they have. And somebody’s gonna step forward and tap into an American sentiment of what’s really frustrating them and frustrating them perhaps about President Biden. And then we’re gonna say, oh, okay. That really works. How does that compare to what Trump is doing? I just don’t think we’re there yet.
Lee Carter:
I always say if you’re a messenger and you’re reacting and you’re not acting, you’re not leading. And it just strikes me that every candidate out there is reacting to Trump in some way, shape or form. DeSantis has this message of mission first, but he promises to be the candidate that’s Trump without the chaos. He’s putting himself as a Trump alternative. Nikki Haley calls herself a pragmatic conservative, is going to tell you the truth. She’s contrasting herself to Donald Trump. She’s not saying what she is on its own. None of these things are enough for them to stand up and make it better for me as an American who right now has never been more pessimistic about our future. And I really don’t like any of the candidates in front of me. So I think that we got a huge miss. They’re reacting instead of acting and they need to find their own lanes and they haven’t yet. And for DeSantis, I think he has, I just sometimes just want to shake that guy because his language has been such a mess and his focus has been such a mess. From my perspective, he could have run on freedom. He could have run on what he did in Florida, had a platform of freedom where people can come, live the American dream, not be told what to do, economic upside, all kinds of great stories. And what did he do? He ran on a war on wokeism and bans and boycotts. It’s antithetical to the republican language I think he’s just made a huge mistake he’s trying to fix it with his mission first relaunch it’s a mess his most recent super PAC CEO lasted nine days I don’t know if he’s gonna last nine more days the way he’s going I think he’s made some really big mistakes and Nikki Haley is having a surge but when you talk about a surge you’re talking about she’s gone from seven points to twelve points we’re not talking about anything huge here and I think because in many ways she’s shown herself to be the adult in the room on the stage but she hasn’t yet established what it means to be a Nikki Haley candidate. And when I look at all of the open end questions, we test all of the debates and we ask voters to tell us what they think of each of the candidates. And the number one open ended response that we get back is Trump alternative. That means everything’s being anchored in Trump.
Michael Maslansky:
Right. Yeah, which I mean, might be fine under some circumstances. But if to your earlier point that Trump has really captured this space in the hearts of people who feel like the system is stacked against them and he has become the voice of that, that none of these candidates have found a way to either take him down and knock him off that kind of pedestal or provide a similarly attractive view of their ability to kind of fight for, you know, fight for people. And, you know, we’ll probably get a lot of negative reactions to this, because it sounds like compliments of Trump, but he has always demonstrated an incredible kind of reptilian ability to really tap into the way that people feel. And it is shocking to me that his, personal limitations, let’s say, have not gotten in the way of his ability to be a political success. But they have. I mean, one thing I will say is that I do think that we have, that most people are nostalgic, the people who support Trump are nostalgic for the best parts of Trump that they remember and they have forgotten some of the things that really may lead them to want an alternative.
Lee Carter:
Fair enough, and that’s probably why he’s been smart not to be on the debate stage.
Ben Feller:
Yeah, and again, I think people have forgotten and part of it is by design. I mean, I think that we love the language of strategy. We love the language of politics and what persuades people to think and act. But a lot of folks don’t love this at this stage. We’re months away from the election and I think as we get closer to it, that Trump alternative dynamic Lee’s talking about is gonna become real. People are gonna start to picture, do I wanna go and vote for that guy again?
Lee Carter:
There’s a real phenomenon this year to that point that there’s a lot of people are fed up with all of it. And there’s this new language that’s come up. It’s called the NODA voter, which is the None of the Above voter, which people are saying could be upwards of 20% of Americans right now who say they don’t want Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Many people are saying that could really lead to a lane for a third party candidate, whether that is No Labels or Joe Manchin or RFK Junior, who sometimes is going upwards of 20% in the polls.
Ben Feller:
Mm-hmm.
Lee Carter:
So what do you think the language of the middle needs to do? And is there a language that can capitalize on this moment?
Michael Maslansky:
I think it depends on what we are looking, and what the objective is. If it is to win enough votes and enough electoral votes to become president, I think it’s not, there’s not enough. There’s not enough of that not a voter or that middle voter to really make that happen. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a lot of dissatisfaction out there, that there’s not a majority of the population that is exhausted with the way that politics has evolved, that there is not a majority of the population that believes that the political parties have gotten too extreme and that they would like to see things move back to the middle. I think the challenge with a middle voter, with a moderate voter, is always how do you mobilize people who are kind of predisposed to be more rational than they are emotional, right? That’s why they’re in the middle. They believe in compromise. They believe in give and take. They believe in being reasonable and being common sense. And those are not the people that tend to yell and scream. And so how do you get them to really be motivated? I think one of the answers certainly is to show them how their voice can actually make an impact. To show them that it is not yelling into the wind, but to say that look, if you participate in this way or if you take these actions that actually you can make change happen. But it is definitely not an easy thing to do. And despite the fact that there is like this core kind of swing in the middle that doesn’t like either party or either candidate, they are still kind of relatively small when it comes to actually getting somebody elected on a national stage.
Lee Carter:
So one of the pieces of language, that is intriguing to me, and Joe Manchin has used it a little bit, and I’ve heard others talking about it, is, is there a movement that can come out of all this? I often have said it’s hard to develop a movement, but it’s easy to see once it’s already happened, but to say we’re gonna create a movement of moderates is something that’s much, much different. Tell me your reaction to the language that people are talking about this idea of a movement of moderates.
Michael Maslansky:
I think the idea is interesting. I think, again, going back to this idea that these people are reasonable or common sense oriented is that they are not necessarily movement joiners. And so the question is, is how do you get them to be part of a solution that may or may not be called a movement? So I’m not sure that the term movement is ultimately the right term for this community, this group of people who are aligned who want to talk about what they share, who want to focus on common sense and common values and common ground, but , are not necessarily the joiners that have been part of previous movements either for or against things.
Ben Feller:
The other part about that too, Lee, is I don’t think that you can decide to have a movement. And from covering politics, the movements that I’ve covered have grown organically and sometimes urgently out of an event and people responding to it or to a really dynamic leader. So I think that there was a movement in 2008 around President Obama coming off the Bush years and you saw enormous energy at those rallies and that was a change we can believe in moment. When he ran for reelection, it was not the same thing. That was a pretty close race against Mitt Romney. His whole tone was much more sober. He had been sobered by the gravity of governing. And that was a much more kind of mechanical fight. In fact, it took a long time for him to get his voice back and finally settle on the theme of a fair shot. I’m for you, Romney isn’t, and he painted that contrast. I think we’re talking a lot about the Republicans, but Biden faces the same challenge right now. He was the not-Trump guy four years ago, responsible coming out of COVID, I believe you. And when he gave his inaugural, he said, this is in my soul, right? We’re all in this together. And I think people believed in that. Now we’re four years later, his reputation, people don’t necessarily, they certainly don’t have a movement around him, right? There’s support there, but even among ardent Democrats, it’s not particularly a strong one. And his message is, they gotta finish the job. People don’t care about finish the job. That’s framed around him. Like, I’ve got four more years helping me finish the job. They care about themselves. How are you gonna help me? And I think he’s gotta find that 2024 version. I don’t think he’s gonna get a movement, but he’s gotta find something a little bit more personal.
Lee Carter:
I think he’s made an effort in two areas that I want to talk about because I think you’re right. The idea of finishing the job is very much like Hilary Zine with her. It’s all about them and not all about us. But he talks about two things. One, he talks about democracy being at stake. He talked about that last time. He’s talked about it again very recently. And it’s something that a lot of people agree with. About 52% of Democrats believe that’s what’s at stake. Interestingly enough, and I want to talk about this separately, is 47% of Republicans think that’s what it takes if Democrats win. So I think they’re talking about different things when it comes to democracy. But when he uses that argument, democracy’s at stake, what do you think what do you think that means to people? Is that a good message?
Ben Feller:
I think Biden ran on that. It was interesting when he launched his election, after all the things that he could have based a presidency on, that’s what he picked the first time, is democracy is at stake. The basic premise that if you’re American, your rights are gonna be protected, everybody gets a fair shot. You’ve got a president who upholds the law and outbreaks the law. And I think there are still people who believe that threat, but as the months have gone on and we’ve sort of settled into regular Biden. You know, you’re not following the news and reading about these egregious tweets that we saw from President Trump. So things are kind of normalized a bit. The problem with a normalized America is you lose some of the energy. So when he comes back and says, democracy’s on the ballot, democracy’s at stake, he’s gonna have to remind some folks about January 6th, right, about what happened in some of these cities where there were riots and you’ve got to take people back to a sense of, in some ways, nervousness and fear to get them there. And that’s what a lot of us have wanted to move on from. So that’s a tough challenge for them.
Michael Maslansky:
Yeah, so I think, you know, we talked a lot about this in 22 before the election, and I think it proved to be an important issue in the 2022 midterm elections. I think Ben, you’re totally right. I think people have a short memory. I think January 6 is ultimately a long time ago. I think the counterpoint to that is that it sounds like Trump is already gearing up to make authoritarianism central to his campaign. I mean, some of the things that he is saying, aside from actually saying that trying to flip this on Biden and say that Biden is a threat to democracy, I think that there is a significant potential that Trump’s campaign is about a bolder, stronger, less restrained Trump which will remind people about the risks, but Lee, I think you’re right. I mean, I think that they are talking about different things. I mean, what do you see as the difference in how Republicans and Democrats are looking at that term?
Lee Carter:
Well, I think when Democrats are talking about it, it is all about sort of the misinformation that has led to distrust in institutions that has collapsed, you know, the sort of fiber of America as we know it, sort of taken away trust in news, you go through all the systematic things and that is really dangerous. And in fact, was very much underestimated in the midterms on how important that was going to be to folks. But interestingly, and I just saw this poll this morning about Republicans, 47% of Republicans think democracy is at stake. And when they talk about it, they talk about the weaponization of the justice system, another message that Trump has put out there. They talk about the inability to count votes and have votes really count. They talk about being silenced and not heard. And so for them, their freedoms are at risk as well. And it’s a different conversation stemming from the same thing. They both believe that if the other party wins, and it’s about half and half, that democracy as we know it is done. And I think it’s interesting, Liz Cheney recently was talking about, and you talk about Trump’s authoritarianism, she was talking about Donald Trump and she said, if we’re not careful, we’re gonna be sleepwalking ourselves into another dictatorship. And I would caution Democrats in this moment about the language they use to sort of talk about this threat to democracy and authoritarianism and dictatorship because the cognitive dissonance that you’re asking a voter to make if they had supported Trump before to say that I’m going to walk away from him to say that I’m not supporting somebody because they’re a dictator, they’re evil is actually going to be really, really hard. I think if they use softer, more subtle language and showed what the alternative was and how it was better. They’d be more successful at peeling people away, because this is a really loaded. All the terms are so loaded. I think it’s hard to peel away people who had supported them in the past, because you’d have to acknowledge a fair amount of self-reflection that went on there that I think a lot of people are going to have a hard time doing.
Michael Maslansky:
I think one thing that’s going to be interesting that we’re going to see in the language, this will be a kind of a preview for the 2024 language moments, I’m sure, as we gear up for that campaign. But just as Trump is starting to turn Biden’s language on himself about being a threat to democracy, about being the most corrupt president ever, I think Biden has the opportunity to start to flip on Trump, the gaffe tendency and the fact that Trump is all of a sudden, he’s looking like he’s losing a step and that it may be easier to say that like, look, these are all signs of him going off the rails in ways that are dangerous. And so while you may have loved him, while he still had relative youth and vigor and some control over his impulses, an impulse free Trump is really a dangerous Trump. And that’s the thing that might be a reason to reconsider whether you voted.
Ben Feller:
I would just add this one other thing, Lee. I know we’re in language moments and we’ve talked a lot about politics, which we all love, but I think I saw somebody put out a comment the other day and then paraphrasing here, if this comes down to Biden Trump, which it likely will, not for sure, but it likely will. You’ve got one candidate who is currently under federal indictment for instigating a coup against the United States of America. You’ve got another guy who stumbles over his words and trip sometimes that people will be reminded, even those who voted for him, about the leader he was and what he did during that period of time. And I think that that’s okay for people to reflect on that. But that’s not just Democrats. I’m not so sure they have to be that careful in the authoritarianism and dictatorship. I’d argue that at some point they need to remind people. And if they feel like they’re going too far, they’ve got a hell of a lot of evidence to back up that point. But we’ll see how it shapes out.
Lee Carter:
Well, here’s, I’m gonna say, Ben, I gotta say, we learned in giving feedback once you go after the person’s behavior, not the person. And so, to Michael’s point, saying that he is now displaying more impulsive behaviors, and impulsive Trump is a more dangerous Trump, that is about the behavior rather than the person. And I think it would be a smarter strategy than going after the personal attacks. But that’s, let’s see how it plays.
Michael Maslansky:
I’m with you, Lee, on this one.
Ben Feller:
No, I’m with you on that. It is about the, out there, I’m talking about the behavior, right? That would lead one to think, this guy did that when he was elected. Imagine if you know that, and then you vote him back in again. There’s gonna be no race, but we’ll see.
Lee Carter:
We will see. Now the other piece of language from the left that I am fascinated with is this term, Bidenomics. So we know that consumer confidence is at all time low, that people feel worse about the economy than they have in decades. And Joe Biden has decided I’m doubling down on the economy, Bidenomics. The economy’s never been better. Smart strategy or not?
Michael Maslansky:
My take is that you own the economy either way. So you may as well own the economy. my assumption of what the Democrats should do is that where the disconnect is, it’s not a problem with the term. It’s the fact that right now the economy looks better on paper than it feels in reality. And the thing that people in politics I think I’ve forgotten because it’s been so long is that an economy that hurts because of inflation is very different than an economy that hurts because of recession or lack of jobs because you were reminded of it literally every time you go to the store. And so they’re going to own the economy. What they have to do a much better job of is explaining and helping people to feel where the economy is actually better for them. And I think, you know, there’s a reasonable chance that inflation starts to come down and relatively speaking by the election, the economy actually feels good. And then having it tagged with Bidenomics is actually a winning strategy. So I don’t see anything wrong with it at this point.
Ben Feller:
Yeah, I mean, presidents always own the economy no matter what. And, uh, and when they’re running for the white house, they always tag the other kid that it’s their fault about the economy. So I think that the key I agree with Michael is, is how it feels. How are people feeling at home? And the degree to which you can tap into that is much more important than the term in this case. I am thinking also of the way that Republicans successfully attacked President Obama on Obamacare in his first term. And all of the yes, we can energy by the midterms was gone. And, you know, he famously and his party got shellacked in those midterms. Eventually, Obama realized this is my healthcare law. It is the defining centerpiece of my presidency. I am going to own it. I do care. And he just came out and said that one day, but he clearly didn’t just come out and say it one day. They had decided that it was better to own it. And I think something in there rings true for Biden too. I’m not sure that particular term of the Biden economy is a winning one, but he knows he owns it. So he’s leaning in on that. And I think the challenge for him is going to be to show not in policy, but in emotion, how is he helping people every day.
Lee Carter:
So from my opinion, Bidenomics is a fine term. The biggest problem he made was saying the economy has never been stronger. the number one rule in crisis management is to acknowledge the truth of your audience. The truth of your audience is it hurts, it’s gotta hurt. Bill Clinton said it very famously, I feel your pain. Joe Biden would have been a lot better served to say, I feel your pain. I know it feels really bad, but stick with me. This is the way it goes. It’s going to be a cycle. We’re going to go down together, but we’re going to come back up together. That’s what this is all about, and we wouldn’t be having the same conversation.
Michael Maslansky:
I totally agree with that. I mean, it was kind of like mission accomplished before anybody thought that the mission had been accomplished, seemed to have happened for another president some time ago. And so, you’re totally right. That’s exactly where the mistake was. They could have spent the last six months going into next year, building the case, as opposed to trying to tell people that they should believe something that they weren’t seeing in their own lives.
Lee Carter:
Totally. Yeah, exactly… The next topic is a tough one It’s we’re gonna talk for just a moment about what’s happening in Israel and Palestine I think there’s been some interesting language from this and I want to focus on the language rather than focusing on the situation over there, which I know we’re all horrified by for so many different reasons, but I was watching television the other night, and there was a commercial from the ADL which said, we need to fight to protect Israelis and Palestinians from Hamas. And it struck me as such an interesting language shift from where it started, which was about fighting Hamas or just protecting Israelis or standing with Israel. It was talking about protecting Israel and Palestinian from Hamas, which changed the whole dialogue. Now we’re a united front against a terrorist organization. I thought it was a really smart language shift.
Michael Maslansky:
Yeah, I mean, I think ADL has done that on that front. They also really connected anti-Semitism to other forms of hate, going back to the beginning of this effort and trying to say that this isn’t just about Jews, it isn’t just about Israel, it isn’t just about anti-Semitism on both of these fronts, I think sadly they know that if it’s just about protecting Jews or protecting Israel, it’s probably a losing battle. And so it becomes important to broaden the context. And there’s no question that for most people, certainly from ADL’s perspective, and I agree with it, is that there is more and more information coming out about how unhappy the Palestinians are with their, with the mosque that got them into this. And so I think it’s a really smart strategy. The other side has, I think, really won the messaging war in a lot of ways. And so this is this is good to see.
Lee Carter:
But every year when we pull these together, there are moments that you just want to sit on that are really, really somber. And I think this is one of those. But along with those moments that create real sadness and horror are also moments that made us laugh and gave us a lot of joy. So culturally this year, I think there was a lot that happened that was interesting. And many people are calling this the year of the girl, which is fascinating because if you told me five years ago that there was going to be a year in 2023 that was the year of the girl, I would have thought, are you crazy? Because that’s so insulting. But somehow the term girl is not insulting this year. What do you guys think about that?
Michael Maslansky:
I think it’s great. I feel like, in a world where people should be able to celebrate who they are and kind of what they enjoy about life, there’s something about in the most positive versions of what it means to be a girl, when, you know, girls talk about going out with other girls or being with other girls or celebrating that, it’s a really positive thing. In other ways, we talk about how often the most effective strategy in communication is to flip your weakness on its head, take something that people think is a bug and turn it into a feature. And this is a great example of that as well, where you want to criticize me for being a girl, I’m going to own it and really make the most of it. And we saw so many good examples of it that happened to converge this year that to me, it’s just a happy thing. And actually, interestingly, in the world of identity politics, we’re often labeling, even when it’s a positive label, becomes fraught in a lot of ways. Some people can use the label, other people can’t use the label. It feels like I can talk about girls in this context without fear that I’m saying something wrong. And that’s a pretty good thing too.
Lee Carter:
Hmm. I think it’s great. I have loved a couple of moments this year. One, there was an award ceremony where they were introducing George Clooney, and they introduced him as Alma Clooney’s husband, and I thought that was fabulous. And you also have now seen with the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey relationship, his getting referred to as Taylor Swift’s boyfriend and during his podcast his brother said, so it’s like how does it feel to finally put on the map, that whole thing I thought was another moment to just celebrate all the changes and shifts and what’s happening and how people are viewing women. And of course there’s the movie Barbie, there’s been all different language around girls and it’s been really fun to watch.
Ben Feller:
Yeah, I think the Language Moments video pulls together these moments that bind us. And when we look back at this year, Barbie and Abinheimer coming out at the same time and not in a coincidental way, Hollywood really played that up and there was this term, Barbinheimer, to link those two. And everybody was talking for a period of time this year, which one are you gonna see? How was it? And writers started tapping into, both those movies are really kind of the same. They deal with the issues of imagination and reality and corruptibility of society. And I’m like, I didn’t think those movies were the same at all. But the point is, you’ve got these language debates, right? Who’s going to go see Barbenheimer? And I think that’s kind of a fascinating American moment. The Travis Kelce, Taylor Swift thing, two famous people, incredibly talented, decided to start dating. And what that galvanized with this American conversation about who was more famous, who put whom on the map. The NFL is tapping into Swiftyland and vice versa.
Lee Carter:
Hahaha!
Ben Feller:
And I think all of these really fun little language moments came out of that. And I think we’ll actually be looking back on this year and remembering some of those. And that’s part of the fun of this.
Michael Maslansky:
I will just say there is no question who is more famous in that duo and it is Taylor Swift and And it’s and it’s funny to see you know guys on a lot of the videos online trying to defend that you know how famous Travis Kelsey was I? Mean come on It’s not even close, but I but I actually think it’s a it’s kind of instructive and in a really positive way They’re like you know that’s those are good
Ben Feller:
He’s a two time MVP, two time Super Bowl champ, Michael.
Michael Maslansky:
I think kind of healthy debates to have where we’ve got, you know, where you can have that discussion realized that one of them is moves economies and the other one moves the football.
Ben Feller:
Yeah, they do.
Lee Carter:
Hahaha! She also moves the ground. I mean, what was their language? Like, she’s got a swift quake. It was like, you know, when their concerts are in, just unbelievable. So, this year, I think, was filled with some great language moments, some sad language moments, but overall, I think there’s been so much to watch. Any closing thoughts? Ben, since you put this all together, I’m going to give you the final word here.
Ben Feller:
I would just say, as not necessarily the most early adopter of ChatGPT, I’m excited that we’re still talking about humans and the human moments of language moments and all of our joy and our mistakes and the ways that we try to win and the ways we try to join up together. I really hope people love the video. It was fun to put it together with the team here because what’s prompted might make for more efficient business, but what’s unprompted is what makes language moments so memorable.
Michael Maslansky:
For better or worse, nothing in this podcast was written by ChatGPT.
Ben Feller (54:39.676)
For better, for better, two votes for better.
Lee Carter:
I’m going to say it’s for better. All right, Maz, you want to bring us home?
Michael Maslansky:
All right, well thank you everyone for sticking around. You should definitely check out the video of Language Moments if you have not. Ben, you did a great job. The team, Lene, Lyana, Randy, Matt, I know that there were a whole bunch of people as well involved and so it was great to talk about it. For more language insights and to be in the loop on everything else that we’re doing, please follow us on LinkedIn at Maslansky and Partners. That’s it for now, so stay tuned for more episodes of HearSay, because when it comes to truly effective communications, it’s not what you say, it’s what they hear.
