Who is a member of a “working family?” AI generated image not real people.

The phrase “working families” deserves more scrutiny than it gets.

It sounds warm, broad, and morally unassailable. Who could be against working families? But as political language, it is almost perfectly designed not to mean anything too precise.

Does “working families” include single people who work? Retired people who worked for forty years? Widows? Childless couples? Small-business owners? Uber drivers? Police officers? Nurses? Accountants? Corporate managers? CEOs who draw a paycheck? Or does it mean only the voters a political consultant wants us to picture when the phrase is used?

This is the problem with slogan politics. A phrase that sounds descriptive often functions as a halo. It tells voters who is supposed to be morally favored without telling them what policies are being proposed, who pays for them, what tradeoffs are involved, or who gets excluded. Definitions matter.

CIVPAC has no objection to policies that help people who work hard and struggle to get ahead. Quite the opposite. But we do object to political language that uses warm words as substitutes for serious analysis.

“Working families” is not a policy. It is branding.

Read the platforms. Then decide.