Joe Biden has advised his aides to avoid academic or elitist language when sharing ideas, but what stands out is how he told them to do it.
According to the New York Times, here is what he had to say: “Pick up your phone, call your mother, read her what you just told me. If she understands, we can keep talking.”
It’s surprising advice coming from a man married to a woman with a doctorate, who is also a mom. Mothers can speak in elitist or academic language just as much as anyone else.
Without really trying, Biden is engaging in sexist behavior.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that in the pantheon of chauvinist sins, Biden’s advice pales in comparison to some of the daily utterances of his predecessor.
But such advice diminishes presidential discourse. The language is being dumbed down so that it no longer uplifts, but condescends.
Imagine if Abraham Lincoln took this approach with the Gettysburg Address.
“Four score and seven,” would become “87 years.” I guess they mean the same thing but the poetry and majesty of the words have been stripped away.  
Biden’s “Read it to your mother,” advice has been issued by journalism professors and editors to young reporters for generations. The idea is to get people to write the way ordinary people talk.
One editor I worked with switched it around and would say, “Is this something you would say to your dad?”
Decades ago, that editor didn’t like my use of the word “linchpin” in one of my stories.  I’d quoted someone saying a particular clause was the “linchpin” of the U.S. Constitution.
She said, “You wouldn’t say a sentence with “linchpin” in it to your dad would you?”
My response, “Well, yeah, I would.”
With a flick of the wrist she replied, “Well, your dad is really well educated. Come up with a different word.”
My Dad was a farmer. We used linchpins every day to hook wagons and other farm implements to tractors. It was part of my agrarian lexicon. (Farm vocabulary.)
But I figured I’d dug a deep enough hole for myself that day and didn’t need to add that to my argument.

This desire to write like the common Joe or Jane is rooted in a desire of politicians and news outlets to be approachable and down-to-earth.
But like anything, it can be taken to an extreme.
Instead of using a word like “infrastructure,” I’ve advised young reporters to use words like “roads,” “bridges” or “sewers.” The only COLA allowed in the newsrooms where I’ve worked came out of the pop machines. We used phrases like “pay raise” or “fatter paycheck” rather than “cost of living adjustment.”
I hate letting jargon infiltrate (seep in) my news stories.
Back when I was a rookie reporter in Galveston, Texas, and I was writing a story about corporal punishment (spanking) in schools, the school superintendent (Big Cheese) said the word “paddle” was too harsh a word for the device used to whack kids’ backsides.
So, I rechristened it “an instrument of flagellation.” My editor glowered (gave me a bad look) and changed it back to “paddle.”
She made a point of informing me that reporters shouldn’t let know-it-all sources dictate what words we use.
There was another time when I was an intern at the Galesburg Register-Mail that I really took this advice to heart. I wanted to rewrite obituaries and change “cremate” to “incinerate.”
The editor said in this instance funeral-home jargon was just fine, thank you very much.
I roll my eyes when folks talk about the “media elite” or the “political elite.” I’ve spent most of my professional career around politicians and journalists. I know how they write. I know how they talk.
Both groups have a host (a whole bunch) of faults. But more than any other group they try to communicate in an approachable manner.
It’s difficult to fault them for their efforts.
But it’s quite natural to wish life were as simple as the language they use.

Scott Reeder is a veteran statehouse journalist and a freelance reporter. ScottReeder1965@gmail.com.