« Senate Polls: Democrats Beat the Numbers | Main | Why We Haven't Cured The Common Cold (Or Cancer Or Aging) »
November 22, 2006
"The Democrat Party"
Ruth Marcus has written a whole column on the right's affection for dropping the "ic" off "Democratic." Scoundrels though they be, this particular grievance, which bursts forth every so often, seems remarkably minor. Do we have any actual data showing that the term hurts Democrats? Particularly given that, in fact, the proper plural for Democratic people is "Democrats?" I'm not doubting that the right's intentions are malicious, but this bit of schoolyard-style word manipulation seems far below anything that will actually impinge on the electorate's preferences and sensibilities. Lakoff taught us that words matter, but surely they don't all matter enough to actually dispute?
Meanwhile, there's only one proper response to partisans so complete that they actually make a point of dropping the "ic," and it's here.
November 22, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
That cartoon is hilarious, but I agree with you. If the worst thing they can think is to refer to us Democrats as...um...Democrats, then I don't see much reason to be bothered by it. They didn't stick to that Defeat-o-crat thing for very long, did they? It was so lame that even they couldn't bring themselves to stick with it.
Posted by: Haggai | Nov 22, 2006 1:51:32 PM
"Schoolyard-style word manipulation" is right. I hesitated to post this because it sort of makes me sound petty right along with them, but when one person or group makes up a shortened nickname for another, without asking them, for no apparent reason, there’s a name for it: “high school”. Seriously, it’s all a petty little dominance game for these people. Either they were the jocks in high school (George Felix Allen, Bush) and never learned how to be anything else, or they see national politics as a way to get back at them (Rove).
Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 22, 2006 2:28:45 PM
It is about respect.
Television "news" is now about substantive issues, ideas or even events. It is about role-playing, about demonstrating the attitude that will win the water cooler debate tomorrow, and will allow some jerk to channel his resentments into political "opinion" and tribal affiliation.
It is a form of bullying, one of many such forms, which are very effective in marshalling the resentments of ill-educated white males in support of the Republican Party. Juvenile, absolutely. Unimportant, no.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Nov 22, 2006 2:46:41 PM
It is about respect.
Oh, paleeeeze.....
I guess you weren't around when the left was referring to the other side as RepubliCONS, Rethuglicans, etc.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 22, 2006 3:04:36 PM
I guess you weren't around when the left was referring to the other side as RepubliCONS, Rethuglicans, etc.
Posted by: Fred Jones
I eagerly await a link to a party leader or professional pundit saying... ZZZzzzzzz.
Drum's Law seems relevant here, Fred. It says... jhg yvuo
Whoops, I fell asleep on my keyboard. Sorry, where was I?
Well, as my failed attempts to say something witty demonstrate, your argument doesn't deserve the term. To everyone else here, it's obvious that your party's leadership acts with all the dignity and diplomacy of a high school clique or anonymous commenters online. I don't know about you, but I'd be disappointed.
The only downside of all this is that it means I probably shouldn't call you "Fed" again, which I was inspired to do by the times that you have misspelled your own name like that.
We'll all remind you of your paranoid fantasies after the election, Jimmy....Jimmy Boy....The "Jimster".....Jimatola.....Jimmy crack corn and I don't care.....
Posted by: Fed Jones | Nov 5, 2006 1:08:11 PM
Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 22, 2006 3:30:17 PM
"they were the jocks in high school (George Felix Allen, Bush)"
Does being a cheerleader count as being a jock?
Posted by: rea | Nov 22, 2006 3:37:37 PM
Drum's Law seems relevant here, Fred. It says... jhg yvuo
Whoops, I fell asleep on my keyboard. Sorry, where was I?
If you mean Kevin Drum, yeah...I also fall asleep alot.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 22, 2006 3:45:21 PM
"they were the jocks in high school (George Felix Allen, Bush)"
well, their are jocks and there are assholes. Both Allen and Bush were very likely referred to in the later category in (junior and senior) high school. And no, a cheerleader at Yale doesn't count as a jock, unless GW was wearing the football/basketball players athletic supporters over his face as he wanked. But, they certainly still are a-holes.
Derogatory words do change over time, but the asshole term seems to have lived through generational changes intact as the worst thing you can call somebody in public. The problem is that we need a word even more derogatory than a-hole for Bush, and we don't have one. But the thought of saying to his face: "GW, you're an asshole" certainly works for me in the meantime.
Fed sez we Dems are same when we use terms like "RepubliCONS or Rethuglicans", but the problem Fed doesn't understand is a large part of the GOP are Cons (as in con-men), or thugs (as in their repeated uses of so-called dirty tricks. Accurate labelling of the other side distinquishes the Dems from the con-men, corporate-cons, and theo-cons of the Repuke party.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 22, 2006 3:58:19 PM
Does being a cheerleader count as being a jock?
Well, I know he played rugby in college, but maybe I shouldn't have assumed he was in the in-crowd or local equivalent during high school.
Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 22, 2006 4:00:02 PM
Personally, I've never understood why the "-ic" was there in the first place. The word 'democratic' is an adjective that describes a form of rule by the masses. Likewise, we don't say someone is the Republicanic candidate, so why Democratic candidate? It feels like linguistic hijacking to me, and I'm a Democrat! I've always used Democrat like Republican and never with the "-ic" suffix. It's making an otherwise innocent word somehow partisan, IMHO.
Posted by: jason | Nov 22, 2006 4:08:52 PM
I've mostly switched to "Democrat" too, jason. Less confusing. But not a big deal.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 22, 2006 4:41:10 PM
Some of this may actually be culteral/regional differences rather than anything sinister.
My Grandparents from Utah, who were lifelong Democrats always called it the Democrat party. That was just the term they used. Certainly they didn't intend any offense by it.
Of course they also watched the 'carn' grow and liked to ride 'harses.'
Posted by: Dave Justus | Nov 22, 2006 4:43:59 PM
Here is a new yorker article on this:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
I don't see it as a big deal.
Posted by: Joe O | Nov 22, 2006 5:16:06 PM
Until the democrat :p (just kidding) author on cspan today I always attributed the term to be part of Bush's innate lack of English skills. I was unaware that it was a more widespread phenomenon.
..in his case it still remains to be proven however that my original theory isnt correct, even if other Repubs are using it.
Posted by: david b | Nov 22, 2006 5:54:19 PM
not to interject polling- but as I remember it was tested by luntz or someone on the GOP's side to see what impact it would have, and apparently as I remember Democrat has less appeal than democratic. yes, they are that petty. hence, why fred's here.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 22, 2006 8:15:34 PM
Luntz may have polled it, but I personally associate it with Bob Dole and its regretable run for Vice President in 1976. Those who think of ol' Bob with some justification as the last principled Republican missed something in the younger, cruder, sneering, hostile incarnation.
Posted by: Gene O'Grady | Nov 22, 2006 8:45:41 PM
I would prefer that Republicans not change their practice. When the rubes pose as "concern trolls" they frequently forget to use the proper form and instead use "Democrat" as an adjective. That tends to out them pretty quickly as Bush-following trolls, and the thread dies right then and there, as it should.
If English is ever made the official language of the United States, that will come back to bite the Republicans in the ass, as they'll be forced to learn the difference between adjectives and nouns in this case.
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 22, 2006 10:40:51 PM
If English is ever made the official language of the United States, that will come back to bite the Republicans in the ass, as they'll be forced to learn the difference between adjectives and nouns in this case.
And the hoodies will have to learn to conjugate verbs.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 22, 2006 11:03:01 PM
'I would prefer that Republicans not change their practice. When the rubes pose as "concern trolls" they frequently forget to use the proper form and instead use "Democrat" as an adjective.'
It isn't just rubes. TV pundits slip up and demonstrate that they are willing to toe the line the Republican party lays down for them, no matter how petty it makes them seem. I find that useful.
BTW, Republican is both a noun and an adjective. That is why it is not the Republicanic party (or the Greenic Party, or the Libertarianic Party). Almost every other political party is signified by a word that is both a noun and adjective. We Democrats just happen to be exceptional.
Posted by: Njorl | Nov 24, 2006 4:27:55 PM
Ruth Marcus beat me to the punch. The "ic" in "Democratic Party" is on my list of blog topics to address. Its omission has always irked me no end, although I know it's not the biggest thing in the world. Joe McCarthy used this schoolyard cant in the 1950s and Bob Dole used it during his hatchetman period in the 1976 campaign. Rush uses it all the time, even altering direct quotes in order to conform to the extremist stylebook.
The use of the term "Democrat Party" is a sure sign that the speaker is no friend of mine, so to that degree it's a useful indicator.
Posted by: Zeno | Nov 24, 2006 10:03:11 PM
It should be "Democrat Party" ! Do we call them "Democratics"? If they want to be called "Democrats" they would be called the "Democrat Party"
Posted by: Neo-Con | Dec 15, 2006 11:04:35 PM
The aged people who have lost their virility after falling in the grip of erectile dysfunction can gain it back through levitra. This anti-impotency cure is definitely cheaper than all other erectile dysfunction medicines discovered so far and as such been termed as cheap levitra.You can order levitra from the comfort of your home through levitra online. After the drug Levitra is administered to the penis, it increases the flow of blood to the penis and consequently the penis becomes engorged with blood and sets off erections necessary for satisfactory physical intercourse. Levitra has a proven track record of curing erectile dysfunction in people across the world and so you can uninhibitedly buy levitra. Buy Levitra online and make your way out of male impotency.
Posted by: levitra | Dec 17, 2006 10:58:01 PM
Great blog! I've had a good time reading it. Keep up the good work. It just happens that i love posts just like this one you've just added! debt consolidation
Posted by: debt consolidation | Mar 23, 2007 2:05:07 PM
qcvlgs gevfclor emlakdyvq zfneydsc qdwoh gymvpods cyjqinz
Posted by: ipzkhlgtr bfnkqavg | Aug 29, 2007 10:27:00 AM
juzspivf bdgcxifzk muetdw fqnmxr xqfhbrge xvhznp kyxemid http://www.sznofg.kmld.com
Posted by: tsjvf uokyat | Aug 29, 2007 10:27:08 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
