In a Daily Wire commentary, Xi Van Fleet and Sasha Gong — both survivors of Mao’s Cultural Revolution — argue that some Democrats’ recent use of profanity is a deliberate political style that echoes revolutionary rhetoric in Maoist China. They warn that such language risks trapping voters in a “linguistic ghetto” rather than elevating discourse.
The Daily Wire opinion essay, published October 31, 2025, is the fourth installment in the series “American Maoists: Warnings From The Cultural Revolution.” It was written by Xi Van Fleet and Sasha Gong, who are described by the outlet as activists, scholars, and survivors of Mao’s communist era. (dailywire.com)
The authors contend that, after Democrats’ 2024 loss, party figures blamed communication failures — especially with working‑class and minority men — and concluded that Donald Trump’s appeal owed partly to blunt, sometimes profane rhetoric. As evidence of a post‑election shift, they point to Democrats deploying frank language in recent months. Reporting from Politico also described Senate Democrats experimenting with a direct‑to‑camera rebuttal that used the phrase “shit that ain’t true,” and quoted Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D‑Texas) using explicit language in a media interview after Trump’s March 2025 address to Congress; broader postelection analyses from Pew Research found Democrats underperformed with younger voters and nonwhite men compared with 2020. (politico.com)
The column argues most Democrats sound awkward adopting profanity, making an exception for Texas congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, whom they say moves fluidly between formal and colloquial registers. Crockett is a Democratic U.S. representative from Texas. These characterizations are the authors’ opinions. (dailywire.com)
To draw historical parallels, the essay cites Mao Zedong’s launch of the Cultural Revolution. For accuracy: Mao’s pivotal text was his August 5, 1966 big‑character poster “Bombard the Headquarters – My First Big‑Character Poster,” which declared of certain officials, “They have puffed up the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and deflated the morale of the proletariat… How poisonous!” The poster — later discussed and praised in People’s Daily — became a rhetorical touchstone of the movement. (marxists.org)
Scholars note that Red Guard discourse and big‑character posters often used coarse insults and violent imagery to signal proletarian authenticity while branding opponents as “bourgeois,” a style the authors say today’s American profanity echoes. (fairbank.fas.harvard.edu)
The authors further assert that such language went hand in glove with Cultural Revolution violence, citing smashed classrooms, beatings, and public humiliations. Contemporary histories record Red Guard attacks on teachers and officials, mass “struggle sessions,” and lethal episodes including the 1966 “Red August” in Beijing. The upheaval is generally dated from 1966 to 1976. (britannica.com)
As an example of modern‑day authoritarian rhetoric, the column points to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s 2019 warning in Nepal that anyone seeking to split China would face “crushed bodies and shattered bones,” a phrase widely reported at the time and commonly linked to the idiom fen shen sui gu. (cnbc.com)
Ultimately, Van Fleet and Gong argue Democrats misread Trump’s appeal — which they describe as candor on jobs, borders, and national pride — and that imitating coarseness demeans voters rather than lifting them up. To illustrate their counterpoint, they invoke George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion (later adapted as My Fair Lady) to suggest refined speech can open doors. These are the authors’ interpretations and prescriptions, presented as opinion. (dailywire.com)
