They can use a different name. If someone in a position to push this really felt that advancing the cause really needed a rename they could come up with a name today, get consensus tomorrow and move on with life.

This is a non issue

This is tone policing. "Why are you being so impolite about your abuse?"

The terminology is irrelevant. Senators and judges won't deal with this because they're being paid not to, not because there's a rude word in the name.

Government itself has been enshittified, clearly and comprehensively.

Of course it has to do with appearances, hence "pompous and serious", requiring a term change just so it can be taken "seriously" because the portmanteau sounds too crass or colloquial. It's all appearances, the underlying concept if it's called "enshittification" or "rot", "decay", etc. is the exact same, it's just that "enshittification" sounds too crass for a class of people to be allowed to use in their serious business.

It's not about communication, since for communication sake it's much more easily understood by a larger cohort of people if colloquial terms are used, it's simply the need for seriously-sounding jargon to be taken seriously, which is just a play in appearances.

If you want political change you need political action, the name of concepts is just one avenue for that.

The easiest answer to your point here is "says who?"

Seriously, can you back up this claim?