Opinion: Democrats, watch your language. Please!

It’s well known that one of Democrats’ chronic weaknesses is their use of language. The cure isn’t a host of new policies. It’s an ancient weapon, which the GOP has wielded for decades: metaphor.

“Pro-Life.” “Death Tax.” “The Wall.” Republicans use metaphor to turn unpopular policies into perky catchphrases, leaving Democrats bewildered.

Ever since Athenian democracy, politics has been a war of words, and metaphor its most potent weapon. Metaphor shapes how events are understood, often determining the outcome before the battle has even been fought.

Aristotle was the first to systematically study the power of metaphor as a rhetorical device. Metaphorá means to “transfer or carry across,” from one word to another. He argued that good metaphors set things “before the eyes.”

The Greek rhetorician Gorgias went further, arguing that speech (“logos”) has physical force, capable of moving the soul (“psyche”) much like a drug (“pharmakon”) moves the body.

Persuasive speech was the lifeblood of the Greek city-state, and it could mean the difference between life and death. Decisions on matters such as war, citizenship, exile and capital punishment were made in the assemblies and courts, where citizens heard contending speeches and voted immediately afterwards.

In the same way Greeks mastered rhetoric, so too must Democrats. Affordability is a winning frame, but it’s important for Democrats to understand why.

Afford comes from the Old English geforðian, meaning to advance, move forward, carry out a task. Over time it came to mean having enough money to bear an expense.

But making ends meet is a struggle for most people. This gave rise to a series of metaphors which portray financial strain as a physical burden, felt by weight, pressure, motion and buoyancy.

To illustrate. Weight: “Bills are piling up, weighing us down, getting too heavy to bear. We need to lighten the load.” Motion: “I try to move ahead, but I keep falling behind.” Buoyancy: “We’re just trying to stay afloat and keep our heads above water; but we’re drowning in expenses –– they’re pulling us under.” Pressure: “I’m under so much pressure, I feel squeezed from all sides. I’m at the breaking point.”

It’s no coincidence that successful Democrats have fully embraced affordability and its metaphors. Mayor Mamdani speaks of struggling New Yorkers for whom “the weight has only grown heavier.” Governor Spanberger describes Virginians who are “feeling the squeeze of high prices.” Governor Pritzker of Illinois cites working families who are “sinking under the weight of overdue bills.” Governor Moore of Maryland assails corporations padding their profits “on the backs of hardworking families.” Senate candidate James Talarico adds “too many Texans feel like they’re drowning.”

These aren’t just figures of speech. They put financial hardship “before the eyes,” the way Aristotle said the best metaphors could.

Like all effective frames, it sets a rhetorical trap for the opposition, forcing it to choose sides. “Are you for affordability or against it?” It makes the alternative unthinkable.

The speeches write themselves. “We’re drowning in bills. They’re building grand ballrooms, flying on jumbo jets, commissioning huge monuments. They’ve made billions, while raising prices on all of us. Maybe they can afford it. But we can’t.”

That’s what makes affordability a Democratic hill to die on. It’s built on the living metaphors of people’s lives.

No one proved the life-or-death power of language better than Winston Churchill, whose words turned around an entire nation to fight what seemed an unwinnable war.

“Broadly speaking, short words are best, and the old words, when short, are best of all.”

Richard Yanowitch is a Silicon Valley startup executive and brand strategist who led The Messaging Project, a Democratic communications initiative under House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Democratic Governor Association Chair Tom Vilsack. He is also a former classics student.