Lost in Translation: How “Latinx” Alienated Latino Voters and Boosted Trump
Wokeism is finally dying—one absolutely ridiculous term at a time.
*This blog post is not an endorsement for either Party or candidate.
While watching the results of the election, at first I was surprised by the huge Latino turnout for Trump. But then I remembered a single word that seemed to capture the disconnect between the Democratic Party and many Latinos: “Latinx.” Suddenly, it clicked—this asinine term, popularized by liberals a few years ago, might have been the very thing that undid the assumed support of this must-win voting bloc.
A Quick Lesson in Wokeguistics
“Latinx” is, for many, near the peak of woke overreach. It’s a term that emerged in progressive circles, aiming to break down gender binaries and signal inclusivity. But for most Latinos, it doesn’t resonate—in fact, it often backfires. A 2020 Pew Research Center study found that only 3% of U.S. Latinos use “Latinx,” and a striking 76% had never even heard of it. For those familiar with the term, it’s often viewed negatively: in a 2021 survey by Bendixen & Amandi International, 40% of respondents found it offensive, and 30% said they’d be less likely to support a politician who used it. An October 2024 study from a Harvard and Georgetown professor went even further and found that the label is so insulting that it may actively push Latinos to the Republican party:
“Our evidence shows when Democratic politicians—who are usually more pro-LGBTQ+ than their Republican political opponents—use gender neutral group labels like “Latinx,” they experience backlash from Latinos who would have otherwise supported Democratic party politicians but are negatively predisposed against LGBTQ+ people.”
The data is clear: a word meant to be inclusive has instead alienated many Latinos, a disconnect that’s symbolic of a larger cultural divide.
“Latinx” felt like something imposed from the outside rather than an organic reflection of their culture. Liberals assumed that just because the term is inclusive in theory, it would resonate with all Latinos. Instead, it came across as detached, even patronizing—a well-meaning but ultimately insulting attempt to speak for a community without really listening to them.
Even as “Latinx” has lost some traction, with fewer Democrats using it openly, its effects and symbolism linger. For many, “Latinx” has come to represent a Democratic party and culture that are out of touch, overly focused on identity politics, and more invested in progressive signaling than in understanding real concerns. The word has left a lasting impression—a reminder that liberals often seem more invested in labels than in listening.
A Disconnect in Priorities
Watching the Democrats try to rally Latino support, it felt all too predictable how heavily they relied on identity politics—the assumption that progressive ideals alone would naturally resonate with Latino voters. Democrats probably saw Latino support as a given, largely because Trump’s stance on illegal immigration was so hardline. They likely assumed that being on the other side of the Trump ideological wall would be enough to secure Latino loyalty.
But then Trump, who’s often branded as anti-immigrant, made massive gains with Latino voters. It’s probably not that Latino voters suddenly forgot about immigration; my guess is that many of them have nuanced views on it because, well, they’re human too, something that many progressive politicians seem to forget. I imagine that for many Latinos—and Americans broadly speaking—support for legal immigration is rooted in a respect for our nation’s laws and systems, and in frustration with those who break these rules and, in doing so, spit in the face of fairness and order. Democrats seemed to miss these sentiments entirely. Their broad-brush-stroke approach to the issue, combined with an “inclusivity at all costs” push—with “Latinx” as the crowning jewel of an out-of-touch agenda—only deepened the sense that they weren’t truly listening.
The Cost of Missing the Marco
Number 45 secured 45% of the Latino vote nationally, a 40% increase from the last election. This wasn’t just a fluke; it reflected a broader shift in states where Latino voters matter most. In Arizona, Florida, and Nevada, the numbers told a story of dissatisfaction among Latino men in particular, many of whom felt that the Democratic Party’s focus on progressive language and identity politics was out of step with their own values.
The reaction from some liberal corners was swift—and scathing. Many commentators expressed frustration, even anger, toward Latino voters, casting blame for Trump’s surprising victory. Headlines surfaced that seemed to scold Latinos for “betraying” Democratic ideals, while social media filled with accusations that the Latino vote had handed Trump the win. For some, it was easier to point fingers at Latino voters than to acknowledge the deeper issues driving this shift. And yet, this reaction only reinforced the perception that Democrats are more concerned with policing identity than with understanding real voter concerns.
Progressives may have felt that embracing terms like “Latinx” and pushing for inclusive policies is the right direction. But as I’ve watched with increasing awe and disbelief at the lack of the Party’s common sense, they don’t seem to notice when they’re pushing so hard that they leave people behind. From what I’ve heard about many Latino voters, family, faith, and tradition are core values. Identity labels imposed from the outside feel foreign, as if someone else is telling them who they should be. And for a community that values its heritage deeply, that probably feels like a giant slap in la cara.
A Lesson in Listening, Not Labeling
As an outsider to the Latino community, I can’t speak for them. But one thing seems clear to anyone paying attention: “Latinx” came to symbolize the Democrats’ reliance on out-of-touch, woke identity politics that often feel imposed rather than understood.
As Democrats now head back to the drawing board, I wonder if they’ll finally recognize that success with voters—especially minority voters—won’t come from finding the right label. It’ll come from finding the right values —values that people already hold dear and that transcend trendy rhetoric. This election made one thing painfully clear: for many Latinos, American values are Latino values—because this is a group that is American first and foremost.
So if there’s a lesson to take from this, it’s that political connection has to come from listening, not labeling. Rather than leaning into identity politics—and the broad-brush assumptions and progressive language that come with it—Democrats need to engage with what truly matters to the people they want to reach.
Or they can keep pouring resources into brainstorming new terms, while Republicans keep winning them.