|
07 Jan 08 - 12:30 PM (#2230389) Subject: BS: It is Democratic Party not Democrat From: Alice There was a memo from Newt Gingrich in 1990 called "Language as Key Mechanism of Control" that recommended reviving the Joe McCarthy use of Democrat Party in describing the Democratic Party. It was revived and used gleefully by Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to be petty about the name of the Democratic Party. (Should we say Republic Party, Republic candidates?) It is like fingernails on a chalkboard whenever I see or hear that New McCarthyite term, and unfortunately, the media has also picked it up. Please, people! The name of the political party is Democratic, just like the other party is Republican. Their candidates are Democratic, not Democrat. I think many people picking up this McCarthyism term do not even realize they are forwarding the Gingrich agenda. Alice |
|
07 Jan 08 - 12:32 PM (#2230392) Subject: RE: BS: It is Democratic Party (an adverb) From: Donuel If Republicans insist upon sluring the name we could always retaliate and always call them the Repubic party. |
|
07 Jan 08 - 12:34 PM (#2230395) Subject: RE: BS: It is Democratic Party (an adverb) From: Alice BS: It is Democratic Party not Democrat please change title to above, Kat or Joe. I know it is an adjective and was playing around with titles for this thread!! Didn't mean to have (an adverb) included! Especially when it is an adjective! LOL |
|
07 Jan 08 - 02:14 PM (#2230473) Subject: RE: BS: It is Democratic Party (an adverb) From: McGrath of Harlow Well, you can always refer to the Republicans as being anti-Democrats, or even as "the anti-Democratic party". I suppose "enemies of Democracy" might be stretching it as bit (outside the context of November 2000 in Florida). |
|
07 Jan 08 - 03:16 PM (#2230508) Subject: RE: BS: It is Democratic Party (an adverb) From: CarolC Every conservative Republican should run screaming from anyone calling himself a Republican and a conservative, who uses that term, then. The key word in that memo is 'control'. Anyone who supports Gingrich's efforts to establish more governmental control over the populace is no conservative. |
|
07 Jan 08 - 04:54 PM (#2230592) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: Rapparee Lemme see, which party was it that said that the American people are children? Well, not exactly: Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1972 Nixon Interview "...The average American is just like the child in the family. You give him some responsibility and he is going to amount to something...He is going to do something...If, on the other hand, you make him completely dependent and pamper him and cater to him too much, you are going to make him soft, spoiled and eventually a very weak individual." |
|
07 Jan 08 - 05:14 PM (#2230610) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Richard Bridge Why is "democrat" a term of abuse? Wasn't it "democracy" that Gee Wubbya wanted to export to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Or did he want to ship all of it out so there was none left in the USA? |
|
07 Jan 08 - 06:06 PM (#2230670) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: Alice McCarthy used it as a term of abuse because he suggested it meant the Democratic party was not Democratic. An article on this from The New Yorker: |
|
07 Jan 08 - 06:07 PM (#2230672) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: Alice http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg sorry, there is the link |
|
07 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM (#2230677) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: McGrath of Harlow It also allows for wordplay about "sewer rats and Democrats and all the other kids of rats". The word Republican would allow for similar wordplay with respect to bodily functions. Political labelling is an interesting game. I was amused by the way that at a certain stage of events in the wake of the collapse of the USSR the media took to referring to the Communists as "conservatives". (Accurate enough, of course, to anyone with a dictionary handy.) ............... However I don't think the term "Democrat" can wholly be put down to Joe McCarthy. After all, how else would you refer to a member of the Democratic Party? Couldn't very well say "he/she is a Democratic". Whereas with Republican you would. And you couldn't go referring to them as "Republics". Language is curious and inconsistent. And usage isn't always just down to political manoeuvring. |
|
07 Jan 08 - 06:32 PM (#2230689) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: Alice McGrath, no one said it was wholly Joe McCarthy. Read the references linked. Democrat is a noun. He or she is a Democrat. Democratic is an adjective. He or she belongs to the Democratic party. |
|
07 Jan 08 - 08:30 PM (#2230779) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: Amos It is also an adjective (they voiced their opinions in a democratic spirit). FWIW I just re-registered from Independent to Democratic with the Registrar of Voters, solely to be able to cast a vote in the primaries. A |
|
08 Jan 08 - 01:37 AM (#2230894) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Joe Offer I suppose that to some people, especially people outside the U.S., it doesn't seem like a big deal. No member of the Democratic Party will object to being called a "Democrat" - but the term "Democrat Party" is always said with disdain. It's a subtle, clever way of creating a negative response whenever people hear the term - just like they've done with the term "liberal." Does George W. ever refer to the "Democratic Party"? Did Ronald Reagan? -Joe- |
|
08 Jan 08 - 07:43 AM (#2231030) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: JohnInKansas Actually, well before the Gingrich suggestion, Democrats at their national conventions flip-flopped on this several times. The national convention at one time, I believe it was in the '50s, officially announced that their name, based on precedent from the early years of the party, would be the Democrat Party. The news media apparently missed this announcement until very late in the Convention, so there was much whining and moaning among the "leadership" that their preference was being ignored, and even more p**sing and moaning among disaffected delegates who were unhappy with having any leadership speak for them. There was less than universal acceptance among the convention delegates of the announcement by the "leadership"1 and opponents saw and used the opportunity to exploit the obvious "division" in the party by using "Democrat" (in proper sneering tones) as something pejorative, even before the "media" caught on to what was happening, so that subsequent conventions returned to the "Democratic Party" as the (mostly) uniformly used terminology. 1 Perhaps at that time there was such a thing as "a leadership" in the party, but hardly anyone remembers such a thing now, and evidence from such archaic times is not easy to find. Gingrich, in his usual astute and incisive leadership of his flock of lemmings, was just - once again and 40 years too late - beating a dead horse, jerking a dry d*** ... well you get the meaning, I'd suppose. Grammatically, a Democrat would be a member of the Democrat Party. (That was the logic of the National Democrat Convention in the 50s) A Republican is a member of the Republican Party. I suppose if the Democrat wishes to be known as a member of the DemocratIC Party, that's his/her option; but (s)he should then DEMAND that a Republican must refer to him/herself as a member of the ReplicanIST Party. With enough cream pies and a few seltzer bottles it could be filmed in the House Chambers and released on YouTube as a video of the joint party of the Democraticalists versus the Replicanizers. Equal time for equal idiocy, and it does avoid addressing anything meaningful. John |
|
08 Jan 08 - 01:53 PM (#2231293) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Donuel John, I want to know just how in the hell did you know that. It actually sounds like you were there :^} |
|
08 Jan 08 - 03:38 PM (#2231398) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Q (Frank Staplin) To be gramatically correct, wouldn't it have to be 'The Democrats' Party'?, not 'Democrat Party'? Use of 'Democrat Party' as an irritant goes back a ways- Harold Stassen, commenting on the Wilkie-Roosevelt contest, said, "In the Wilkie campaign of 1940, I emphasized that the party controlled in large measure at that time by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly Nash in Chicago should not be called a 'Democratic party.' It should be called the 'Democrat Party'...." From an old Safire column in the NY Times. |
|
08 Jan 08 - 04:10 PM (#2231427) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Stringsinger Some Republicans refer to the "Democ-rat" party with the emphasis on the last syllable. The other appellation might be: the "Theoc-rat" party of the Chuckabee camp. Frank |
|
08 Jan 08 - 04:46 PM (#2231462) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Q (Frank Staplin) Any relation to Huckabee Finn? I thought not. |
|
08 Jan 08 - 06:08 PM (#2231535) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: JohnInKansas It actually sounds like you were there I was not at the convention, but had acquaintances who were, and who returned from the convention and passed on first-hand reports about the "infighting" that had taken place - most of which was not much reported in the news media. The lack of reporting was largely because it didn't matter much then, and shouldn't really matter much now. A couple of the people making reports did indicate that there was discussion of the "historical precedents" at the convention, and that most delegates then considered it a worn out subject. Umbrage over the different terminologies is due entirely to the choice of the offended to take offense, just as the occasional troll here is successful only to the extent that someone thinks the troll deserves a "rebuttal." There are much more important things about which to be offended. Whinging about something like this merely shows that the whiney-little-brat-child who is making the complaints has no comprehension of what should be real issues. (No personal offense intended to those here who passed on the urban legend that it's an issue. That's been done for decades, and when enough people whine it's easy to get sucked in.) Of course, the above is just one opinion; but the "complaint" has been around far too long, and is much too tired, to be taken seriously. John |
|
08 Jan 08 - 06:16 PM (#2231541) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: GUEST,lox Perhaps the Publican party ... they'd be popular in the UK ... a publican being a pub landlord. ... oh I'm too tired to carry on with this idle ... thingy ... |
|
08 Jan 08 - 06:28 PM (#2231551) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Just to add a little to the confusion........ Are members of the Democratic Party not republicans too? It seems to me that they are all in favour of a republic, But NOT a Republican republic. Or did I miss the news of them wanting to return to a monarchy. Don T. |
|
08 Jan 08 - 08:34 PM (#2231625) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: GUEST,Nancy King at work I'm with you, Alice. This little bit of nasty needling has bugged me for many years. It never really went away between the McCarthy era and the present, but one does hear it more and more lately. Phooey! |
|
08 Jan 08 - 11:39 PM (#2231744) Subject: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party From: Genie Yes, language is inconsistent and ever-changing. And there's probably no one rule as to what makes a label a "slur" -- except that you need to consider the source. (What's wrong with "Negro," for instance? It means "black," but many people who think the latter is fine think the former is a slur. Perceptions change.) To me, calling the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party" or a Democratic party candidate "the Democrat candidate" is pretty much like calling a Jewish fraternity "a Jew fraternity" or a Jewish merchant a "Jew merchant." The Jewish people I know say "I am a Jew" and "I am Jewish," but would not say "I am a Jew musician (or teacher, or politician." Calling someone "a Democrat governor" sounds similarly like a slur." The noun (nominal?) form is appropriate in some contexts, while others call for the adjectival form. As it happens, with "Republican," we use the same word as a noun (a member of the Republican party) and as an adjective. Not so with "Democratic." The biggest reason to see the increasing use of terms like "the Democrat Party" and "the Democrat candidate" as intentional slurs can be seen in where those trends originated and who seems to be going out of their way to change our common parlance. It's almost always the Republicans -- the Rovian/Fox News/Hannity/Limbaugh/Savage branch especially -- who make a point of using the noun form, despite its historical inaccuracy, The Democrats have used "Democratic" in their party name ever since it was the "Democratic Republican Party" back in Jefferson's day. Let's not let the enemies of that party change its name by 'innocently' slipping in their preferred term. |
|
08 Jan 08 - 11:44 PM (#2231748) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Genie Oh, and Don, I think I partially answered your question. In the early days of our republic, what is now the Democratic Party was officially the Democratic Republican party. Somewhere along the line they dropped the "Republican" part (probably to save printing ink), and then around the 1840s or so some upstart new "third party" picked it up and, after Lincoln made it to the penny, the $5 bill, and having his own monument and all, they weren't about to give it back. ; ) |
|
09 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM (#2232568) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Jim Dixon Genie: the analogy "Democrat : Democratic :: Jew : Jewish" was very insightful. Thanks. It really helps clarify things. Wikipedia has an interesting article with lots of citations. Funny, it doesn't mention that 1950's convention. I wonder where you could find documentation for that? Media Matters also has some good information. |
|
09 Jan 08 - 08:56 PM (#2232614) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: Joe_F During the campaign of 1952, this usage got some attention in the newspapers, and there were proposals to retaliate with some jocular distortion of "Republican". Adlai Stevenson, however, wisely advised continuing to call the Republican Party "by the name by which it has long been known & mistrusted". |
|
10 Jan 08 - 03:31 AM (#2232762) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Party' From: Genie Good for Adlai! ; D |
|
10 Jan 08 - 08:34 AM (#2232884) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: McGrath of Harlow If parties insist on having interchangeablenames designed to make them look all nice and cuddly they shouldn't be surprised if opponents try to counter that. I mean names like Democratic and Progressive, and in the context of America, Republican. Buy "interchangeable" I mean there is no reason why the labels Republican and Democratic shouldn't be the other way roubnd, since both of them would at least claim to be both (lower case) republican and democratic. Labels like Liberal or Conservative or Socialist are better, that relate at least in theory to political positions are preferable. The cause of honesty in politics would perhaps be best served by labels such as "Bastards" and "Real Bastards". For example historical labels like Tory and Whig. |
|
10 Jan 08 - 09:35 AM (#2232921) Subject: RE: BS: It is 'Democratic Party' not 'Democrat Par From: McGrath of Harlow I mean labels given by opponents and subsequently adopted by the parties themselves. |