GOP strategists christen "Democrat [sic] Party" -- and the media comply
SUMMARY: Several media figures, including news reporters, echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to refer to things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party.
In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name. The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.
Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7 issue of The New Yorker that the word "Democrat" is a noun, arguing that its use as an adjective defies the rules of English grammar:
The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for -- indeed, makes no mention of -- "Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.
Hertzberg noted that Republicans "as far back as the Harding Administration" have referred to the "Democrat Party," including late Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), who "made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults," and former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), who "denounced 'Democrat wars' ... in his [1976] Vice-Presidential debate with [former Sen.] Walter Mondale [D-MN]."
Further, Hertzberg wrote that "among those of the Republican persuasion," the use of " 'Democrat Party' is now nearly universal" thanks to "Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,' and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz." While Hertzberg noted that Luntz "road-tested the adjectival use of 'Democrat' with a focus group in 2001" and "concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the ... Democratic Party," he also wrote that Luntz had told him recently that "[t]hose two letters ['ic'] actually do matter," and that Luntz "recently finished writing a book ... entitled 'Words That Work.' "
Notwithstanding its partisan pedigree and grammatical awkwardness, a Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database for the last three months found a number of examples of media figures, including news reporters, using the word "Democrat" as an adjective. For instance, on the August 13 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, guest host and CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley used "Democrat" as an adjective four times, referring to both the "Democrat Party" and the "Democrat primary," during an interview with Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont.
Additionally, Media Matters' review found similar use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective by the following reporters and media figures:
- CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, on the August 8 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.
- CNN national correspondent Bob Franken, on the May 26 edition of CNN's American Morning.
- New York Times senior writer Robin Toner, in a May 31 article.
- Wall Street Journal reporter Theo Francis, in an August 11 article (subscription required).
- Chicago Tribune business columnist Bill Barnhart, in an August 15 column.
- AP writer Peter Jackson, in a May 16 article.
- AP writer Tom Raum, in a June 16 article.
*(democrat party or democrat primary or democrat candidate or democrat strategy or democrat strategist or democrat response or democrat lawmaker or democrat congress! or democrat representative or democrat senat! or democrat member or democrat caucus or democrat house or democrat proposal or democrat bill or democrat politic! or democrat plan or democrat legislat! or democrat tactic or democrat ploy or democrat statement or democrat press or democrat release or democrat claim or democrat agenda or democrat talking point or democrat nomin!) and date(geq (5/16/06) and leq (8/16/06))
From the August 13 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation:
PELLEY: On Tuesday, it looked like a pretty good idea to run against the war in a Democrat primary; then, Wednesday, the plot came up that was revealed of the bombing of -- potential bombing of airliners into the United States.
[...]
PELLEY: I should mention that we invited Senator [Joseph I.] Lieberman to be on the broadcast. Even though you defeated him in the Democrat primary, he's decided to run as an independent in the general election, but Senator Lieberman is attending the wedding of his daughter this weekend, and it's undoubtedly a more pleasant thing to do than be on Face the Nation.
[...]
PELLEY: Our CBS News polling in your race showed that among Democrats in Connecticut, more than 80 percent said the war was important to them in -- in their vote. Now, that's one state, and just the Democrat Party. The question is: Do you think an anti-war candidate can win the presidency in 2008?
[...]
PELLEY: Running as a -- as an anti-war candidate in Connecticut, in the Democrat primary -- again, a very small slice of the national pie -- what lesson should the Democratic Party take from your victory when looking at the nation as a whole?
From the August 8 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
ANDERSON COOPER (host): Candy Crowley joins me now from Connecticut, also Amy Walter, the senior editor of The Cook Political Report.
Candy, let me start off with you. If that's true, if there are a lot of people in Connecticut feeling that Joe Lieberman had sort of focused too much on the national effort -- no longer represented their interests -- that does not bode well for him running as an independent.
CROWLEY: Well, it doesn't, except for that they've made this choice very deliberately. They looked at the numbers, and what they saw was that there is huge support among Connecticut Republicans and independents. And remember that independents, those that are not affiliated with either Democrat or Republican parties -- this is the largest party in Connecticut.
So, they looked at those numbers. They saw how he polled with those people, and they made a very deliberate choice a couple of weeks ago, knowing that this was going to be his best route to return to the U.S. Senate.
From the May 26 edition of CNN's American Morning:
FRANKEN: The plot really thickens on this one. This has to do with the uproar of congressional leaders over an FBI raid into a Democrat Congressman, William Jefferson [LA], who has been implicated in the scandal -- one of the scandals that's been going on on Capitol Hill. They're saying that this is a violation of the constitution.
And what [House Speaker J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] is saying is, is that the leaks about his being part of another investigation are really part, to quote his interview with WGN Radio in Chicago: "This is one of the leaks," he says, "that come out to try to intimidate people and we're just not going to be intimidated on it."
From Toner's May 31 New York Times article:
One reason for Democratic optimism here is the possibility of a wounded Republican nominee emerging from a bitter (and relatively late) primary. Mr. Ford's major opponent in the Democrat primary withdrew recently, giving him the luxury of running a general election campaign -- raising money and running advertising, most recently on the price of gasoline.
From Francis' August 11 Wall Street Journal article:
During the bidding, political tensions are mostly muted, though in 1998 Ms. Harris dubbed the baby possum she won for $100 "Sandra" after her opponent for secretary of state, Sandra Mortham. This year, Republican and Democrat candidates stood together as the auction approached, eyeing the nearby cage of possums, including a big, one-eyed male that the handlers called "fierce."
From Barnhart's August 15 Chicago Tribune article:
The prospect of a Democrat Party takeover of the U.S. House in the fall election bothers conservatives; the thought of more than two more years of George W. Bush depresses liberals.
From Raum's June 16 AP article:
One set of numbers Bush will not give and which Democrats and some Republicans are pressing for the hardest is the timing and size of a U.S. troop withdrawal. Telegraphing such a timetable would be "bad policy," Bush says.
Democrat Party chief Howard Dean, however, says, "The reality is that our troops and their families still have no strategy from this president to get the job done in Iraq and get them home."
From Jackson's May 16 AP article:
The Republican and Democrat candidates for Pennsylvania governor Republican former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann and Gov. Ed Rendell, respectively are unopposed in the primary. If elected, Swann would become the state's first black governor.
Just shows the media hasn't learned a thing - or they're conciously complicit - about enabling republicans & conservatives to control not just the debate, but the very language.
rrrrrrg.
Heaven help us if people start calling us Democrats! Calling a member of the democratic part ....a democrat doesn't sound any less "democratic". If you look back at some older news coverage, I'm sure you'll find many people using the term "Democrat" to describe everything to do with the party...or anything on the left for that matter!
The party is called the “Democratic Party” and not the “Democrat Party.” Would you like someone to distort your name for some petty reason? The republicans figured out years ago that when people here the word “Democratic” they immediately think of democracy. The republicans couldn’t allow that to continue so they purposefully altered the party’s name. Personally, it irritates me when someone uses “Democrat” when they should be using “Democratic.”
Does anyone actually think that if republicans and the odd media figure starts calling the democratic party, the "Democrat party" that this will influence even ONE vote come 2006, and 2008?
When this issue is placed beside the issue of conservative leaders and MANY media figures constantly refering to the Democratic Party or the left as "weak on terror" or "the al queda candidate/party" or "cut and runners", it seems insignificant to say the least.
The republicans have stepped on our toe, and here we are crying murder while more heinous crimes go on uncontested.
Newt and other republic party strategists must think it has an effect or they wouldn't have consciously changed their usage.
This by itself would be insignifigant, but it is part of a larger strategy to control the language of the debate and when given inches they take miles.
...that the other reason they say "Democrat" party is also because of the word "rat". ...thus subtley associating the Democrats with rats.
Personally, I think the Dems should respond in full and start calling Republicans "Repuglicans". It's simple, subtle, effective and a hell of a lot more appropriate for the Repuglican party.
It brings to mind the shiny black jackboots they love to lick.
- billo said on 8/15 that the democrats have NO plan on iraq, but then today said that we need a new plan for iraq, admitting that the republican plan was a failure.
- fox news has brought back the TERROR ALERT scroll just in time for the midterm elections. It should be noted that it has been absent since the 2004 election.
If the republicans spent half their time attending to real issues instead of holding focus groups to see what gets a rise out of who this country would be a lot better off. The fact that they have an organized campaign to denigrate the name DEMOCRATIC tells me they ought to find more lofty pursuits -- like the deficit, the war, gas prices...
And no Fox never stopped running the terror alert. Although this latest one is larger than before.
I guess that is why they are so good at winning elections and so lousy at running the country. They put their attention into winning at all costs and simply wing what comes after.
But on mine, the Fox crawl has never left.
Is there anybody here that actually has a clue what MMFA is talking about? This might possibly be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this sight. I noticed that MMFA only has five posts today, so I guess they needed to come up with something to fill up space. There must not be much conservative misinformation out there today.
This admitadly minor issue is a perfect example of how the general media and supposed "journalists" pick up right wing talking points and repeat them. It was discovered a few years back through focus groups that people responded better to the use of the adjective democratic, as in the democratic party, and they reponded less favorably to the term democrat party. The fact is that the proper adjective for a democrat is demcratic. That has never changed, it didn't all the sudden become grammatically correct to use democrat as an adjective. But, all the right wing pundits began using the term in unison and exclusively, and it is shocking how many supposed nonpartisan media figures are no also using this grammatically incorrect term solely because the repubs want them to. It is very telling.
If there had not been a concerted effort by the Republican Party and now the media to rename the Democratic Party "The Democrat Party".
Yes, we are Democrats who belong to The Democratic Party. If you want us to accept the name change, perhaps, we could suggest a few new names for the Republican Party?
The Republic Party. It has such a bad flow when you say it out loud that it almost sounds offensive.
Or maybe Republe bubbles, I kind of like that one.
The new "ProWarProLifers" Oxymoron?--sure, but PWaP for short is kinda nice.
Maybe there's something even more accurate--The Assinine, Biggoted, Crooked, Delerious, Eurohating Flunkies--ABCDEF for short.
How about the party that has "other priorities". It sounds so much nice than the Chickenhawk Party.
How about Repubic party? - I do like "the party with other priorities." Somebody get on that one.
...the Republican party comes up as fascistic. Authoritarian. Despotic.
Any one of the three adjectives above would fit nicely.
Myself, I prefer to refer to Post-Modern Republicans and NeoCons as fascists. I'm not a member of the Democratic party (DSA, in case you're wondering). Being a member of the DSA, my small party has been on the receiving end of an endless barrage of insults and name-calling from the right wing in this country. Do you think the righties are scared of something?
If you have to relabel your enemy to paint them to look worse than they really are, you're being deceitful to those who follow you. But deceit is the standard operating procedure for the Republican party nowadays.
This tactic is not new, IF the media is picking it up it should be stopped dead. Posters on this site have done this but the MEDIA should not carry water for Republicans.Its a show of disrespect. Its like calling someone named Eddie Edwina or giving people disrespectful nicknames. It diminishes them and is quite effective at doing so. YOU are fooling no one. The rightwing thinks they have a right to define the language and terms used in speaking to the public and this is unacceptable. Did you think you guys were subltle and getting away with this kind of tactic because we didnt notice?
Surely Brown could have found pencils that needed sharpened or waste baskets that were full.
Is Brock on vacation...he surely didn't authorize this fool's errand.
Saying "Democrat" infers a singular connotation, as in, party of one.
It's just another GOP tool that the used, enabling media has fallen victim to, to try and portray Democrats as "outsiders" and alone, the same as when they refer to the majority of the country as being "fringe" and "extremist".
The newsreaders and pundits do whatever they're told no matter how grammatically incorrect.
we should call them the "RepublicanS Party," the S on the end would show posession, as if it is owned by them.
The republicans have been winning not with their policies but with these focus groups and their succinct sound bites. If the republicans think this issue is serious enough to literally change the Democratic Party’s name then it should be taken seriously.
The above post is a reply to smoothmedia.
Republicans are monarchist, czarist, people who want an absolute ruler over an absolute party in a theocratic state...about as republican as Czar Nicholas II.
Democrats are tyrants, oligarchs, they detest actual democracy. Look how they have attacked the Green Party, how they still have Nader tied up in lawsuits over his last run. Minor parties are learning that Democrats are the biggest enemy to multi-party democracy in the land.
It's time to get revolutionary, think outside the talking picture box. Vote minor party and drive the stakes into the hearts of the political vampires sucking our nation dry.
Third parties are a threat to democracy because right now we have a “winner takes all” electoral system which can only work in a two party system. Third parties do nothing but take votes from either the democrat or the republican causing one of the two major parties to win with less than a majority of the vote (under 50%). If we had proportionally representation or implement instant runoff voting then this problem would be solved. But until then, we have a two party system.
see what a third party can do on a presidential level. However, if the third party came out with a longer term plan, say 20 years and built a grassroots organization, starting with local offices, working through state offfices and congressional candidates before tackling the Presidency, perhaps it would be successful in actually creating change. It would be interesting to see a third party capture several key states, denying either of the major candidates the necessary 270 electoral votes. Under this scenario, that third party by that time could control enough of congress to really throw a big wrench in the whole works.
Since when did Democrats and Repubs own our votes? You can't "take" from that that which isn't theirs. My vote is my own, they have NO right to it, nor do they deserve it in any way. My vote goes to whom I want it to, they have no right telling me they are the only options. One year I even wrote myself in for all positions on the ballot. It's a liberating sensation, to actually vote for yourself. I refuse to vote for people who bomb children for corporate profits, so no Democrat or Repub will get my vote. I stand on principle, not on propaganda.
No one said you had to vote for either major party; what I said was that when you vote for a third party candidate, you're only allowing the Democrat or the republican to win without a majority of the vote which is undemocratic.
Oh my god! What a load of HORSH*T. You obviousely want Rebublicans to continue to control this country! Well, they've done such a tremendous job during the last 6 years that they should be able to beat anybody at the poles.
So, you believe Democrats are anti democracy? I would simply point out the only time I ever heard rally cries to stop counting the votes came from the mouths of Republican's in Florida, 2000.
How does telling Lieberman not to run as an independant because Lamont will probably lose to him foster democracy?
Both sides are full of it with regards to this issue. They only want the votes that count for their candidate. Anybody that thinks one side has a higher moral ground on this issue is not thinking clearly. Both sides are for gaining power and self-preservation.
In my state, it's the Democrats who are challenging every Green Party candidacy in courts to keep them off the ballots. We have the worst ballot access laws in the country (thanks, Dems and Repubs, for caring about democracy) yet the Greens managed to raise more than enough signatures to get them on the ballots. But now we have court cases galore, all brought by the so-called Democrats, who fear us so much they have to use dirty legal tricks to keep our real liberal message from the voters.
And you're gonna sit there and tell me they care about democracy? I'm staring at them opposing it...as hard as they can!
The facts are Republicans do this for a reason. It works. It's subliminal but certain words carry certain connotations. It's significant enough to talk about. It's not the end of the world but it is important. Newt and other Republicans have focused on language because language controls the debate. It's all they have. They are true wordsmithers . They can't argue their positions on the merits so they must control language. Look at the result. These reporters are cozy with Republicans but they probably aren't willing mouth pieces. They say exactly what the GOP wants them to say because language my friends is everything and they are very very good at jingoistic phrases that even the dullest bulb can regurgitate when faced with the unpleasant truth.
Very well put, notforyou. These people are masters at propaganda, and of the major keys to their success is that when their trickery is exposed, they count on people to dismiss it or ignore it. MMFA does a nice job of showing how something so subtle and seemingly minor, but oh-so-devilishly effective at subliminally demeaning Democrats, can worm its insidious way into common media usage.
Let's refer to the GOP as the "Republic" Party . . . "Republic" connotes imperialism, colonialism, and state control vested in one person . . . which, when you think about the current admin, is a pretty accurate assessment . . .
I guess they are the Republic Party.
"Does anyone actually think that if republicans and the odd media figure starts calling the democratic party, the "Democrat party" that this will influence even ONE vote come 2006, and 2008?"
Obviousely many believe this, because it has been the marching orders of the Conservative media. They've been doing this for, oh I don't know, about SIX YEARS now. Quite frankly it is sickening, petty, childish, and everything you would expect from the Karl Rove and the "family values" party.
If it seems so unimportant, then why do they do it? You are correct, there are worse things which need to be addressed, but this thread happens to be addressing this topic. I would add, that attacking other poster's handle instead of their disagreement stirs up resentment, and solves nothing.
Other than that, Have a nice evening!
that if the media routinely "mispronounced" the name of the Republican Party, you would hear the right wing crying bloody murder. Because they repeatedly mess up the name of the DEMOCRATIC party, we are supposed to "get over it" and are told "whats the big deal?"
There is no legitimate reason to get the name of the party wrong. The only reason to do it is to denigrate one party. I couldnt care less if Republican Congressmen, Governors, Senators, Presidents etc do that- they are supposed to be partisan. The media is not.
I cannot see why someone would think referring to the party populated by Democrats as the Democrat Party is an insult? When one refers to a certain Senator, say Ted Kennedy, as a Democrat, is that an insult? So if it is not an insult to call Kennedy a Democrat, why is it an insult to call his party, "Democrat"? Do we really have to go all the way back to President Harding to get to the root of this supposed conspiracy?
Okay, I understand it is not the name of the Party and appreciate the correction. The proper term is the Democratic Party. Fine. Glad we got that cleared up.
Now that is out of the way, I find the counter arguments to call G.O.P. the Republic Party laughable. It is a child's argument similar to, "Oh yeah? Same to you buddy!" Not exactly the Lincoln Douglas debate here.
Some of you honestly think some nefarious Republican plot to call your party the Democrat Pary has caused your side to lose elections? Oh my. Get a grip. If you stick to this, people will stop referring to the Democratic Party and start calling it the Paranoid Party.
Anyway, thanks for today's laugh.
" I find the counter arguments to call G.O.P. the Republic Party laughable."
Then you won't mind if we start doing this? I for one would like permission. That way when the Republics start whining, I can tell them AA said it was A-OK.
-Anutteramerican
AA, I think the equivalent was suggested to point out the arrogance of deciding what the other party will be called.
Sort of like the countless straw men used by rightys daily,i.e. telling the faithful that the left is "cut & run", then explaining why "cut & run " is bad policy.
But if childishness is what bothers you, how bout this;
The Re- Pubic Party- because they sure have some b*lls for a buncha d*cks and c*nts !
Now, THAT'S childish ! And I will retract nothing!
Another American,
Your post is full of disingenuousness, straw men, and B.S.
In a feeble attempt to dismiss the point, you fake that you don't understand the objection to the misuse of the word. Then you set up the straw man claim that we said the misuse led to the loss of elections.
The purpose of this item, which you comprehend but ignore or will not admit to, is to point out that this misuse has now crept into the media from Republicans with less than kind motives.
would like to be called The Party. Notforyou's observations about language manipulation are accurate. They data-mine their voters to the sub-fingernail level and spend fortunes on PsyOps. Up to their neck in convictions, they are cornered badgers. No low is too low for the Rebuttlickans.
Give me one example of a campaign sign that has stated or states "Vote John Smith, Democratic." Looking over the neighborhood on the way home this evening, I saw none, but I did see several "Vote John Smith, Democrat" as well as "Vote Jack Brown, Republican (not Republic."
Must be a slow news day in the old conservative misinformation neighborhood today.
So you purposely choose to ignore what this is about, yet you choose to spend the time to write a nobigdeal opinion.
Obviousely there will not be one sign that says "John Smith--Democratic" because that would be improper grammer. However, to refer to the Democratic party as the "Democrat Party" is also improper.
So please, if it's nitpicking, if it's no big deal, then explain why they do it?
The reason they "DO IT" is the same reason kids in a schoolyard play "name games" to try to get the goat of other kids.
If you know a kid wishes to be called "Bob", and you instead insist on calling him "Bobby" -- it's not a federal crime or even really incorrect, it's just taunting. You mean it as a petty slight and an insult, and you hope it bothers him every time you do it.
If you're lucky, it might even provoke a fight.
If you RESPECTED Bob, you'd call him Bob, as he desires and as is proper. If you're instead a petty bully and someone who deals in name-games to promote your smears and insults (the idea is that such put-downs makes you yourself "look better"), you will continue to call him "Bobby" against his wishes.
It's simple: it's a childish petty slight, meant to convey that this is a party that is due no respect, and which should be ridiculed in any way possible, and consistently.
Is it PLANNED? Absolutely! Planned, promoted, focus-group tested, and inserted with malice into every possible venue of rightwing propaganda.
Hey Oscar, do they still put party affiliation on campaign posters where you live? I live in a blue state and spend a lot of time in a red state. I've noticed that most of the signs I see on lawns and billboards in both states DON'T list the candidates party very prominently. Sometimes they have it in very small type, but a lot of the time it's not there at all. the same thing with printed material in the mail. Just curious.
campaign signs that do announce party affiliation fairly prominently and other signs and advertisements that seem to go out of their way to avoid party affiliation in any way. I remember one series of TV ads 2 years ago in which the party affiliation of one of the candidates was never mentioned. I think if you are R or D you should be delighted to admit it in a bold way in all your advertising.
----""Vote John Smith, Democrat"----
The sign is correct. John Smith is a Democrat. John Smith is a member of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party consists of Democrats. Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
but your elementary school grammar teacher could use a good caning.
Instead of substracting them from the name of their party--let's just add two: introducing the Republicants Party. It's too perfect.
Plenty of can'ts. Plenty of cants:(definitions from The Sage dictionary software):
--cant > Hypernym: bunk, edge, hokum,meaninglessness, ..nonsense, nonsensicality
> Usage: ...bad egg, baloney, besotted, big bucks, big money, bilgewater, ...boffin, boloney, ..cockeyed, codswallop, corker, crocked....dreck, drool, drop-dead, ...grotty, guvnor, heebie-jeebies, heist, hooey, hoof, humbug, jitters...mean, megabucks...poppycock, potty, rip-off, rod, rubbish....schlock, schlockmeister, screaming meemies, shakedown, shlock, shlockmeister... stuff and nonsense, taradiddle, tarradiddle....tommyrot, tosh, trash, tripe, trumpery, twaddle
Noun > Synonym: buzzword....pious platitude > Hypernym: bunk....hokum ....meaninglessness ...nonsense, nonsensicality
Stock phrases that have become nonsense through endless repetition. > Synonym: buzzword. > Hypernym: bunk, hokum, meaninglessness, nonsense, nonsensicality.
Insincere talk about religion or morals. > Synonym: pious platitude. > Hypernym: talk, talking.
A characteristic language of a particular group (as among thieves).
While I am not surprised at all the smug pooh-poohing of this issue that I'm seeing here, it still reminds me of just how and why the Republican Party has been so successful. This is a nation steeped in anti-intellectualism, and that is on display here. The Rethuglicans (how's that one?) understand, as do some of the more enlightened commenters here, the power of language for shaping opinion. They understand that if you repeat something frequently enough (and that repitition is not challenged), a significant number of people will begin to accept it as conventional wisdom, no matter how absurd or patently false that something may be.
If the Rethuglicans are allowed to influence the debate in this manner-- even in seemingly minor ways-- without challenge, and if the corporate media (from which most of the public gets its information) play along with their little machinations, then where is the neutrality in our media? Are not the media then becoming mouthpieces for the Rethuglicans?
Democracies can't be swept away overnight. They are chiseled away and eroded tiny bit by tiny bit. Wake up, you smug jackhinds, unless you like goosestepping for Jesus.
repetition-- darn! No comment preview!
Thank god we're finally having this conversation. I've been waiting since Gingrich and the boys "stole" our name and hoping someone would stand up and take it back. I'm proud to be a Democrat -- a member of the Democratic Party!
If WE wan't to change our name that's our decision, but we've let them run with this one for way too long. I agree with Church Secretary that this is an example of say it often enough it becomes the truth. I think this one is worth fighting back for so thanks to those who've finally brought it forward.
Just a few nuggets:
- at our Georgetown County Democrat Party general and executive committee meeting...Most of you know me as the Georgetown County Democrat Party Secretary.
The Thurston County Democrats list an organizational chart titled...The Democrat Party Structure.
Cumberland Co. Democrats organization lists...Democrat Party Cumberland County Executive Committee.
----"at our Georgetown County Democrat Party"----
Their website says Georgetown County Democratic --not "Democrat" as you state-- Party.
I checked that Georgetown County Democratic Party site. They refer to themselves both ways, including this:
"On July 19, 2004 at our Georgetown County Democrat Party general and executive committee meeting, ...
"Most of you know me as the Georgetown County Democrat Party Secretary...
"For those who don’t know me, I’ve been active in the Democratic Party for over 40 years..."
I also found this site, from a county in Indiana, the Whitley County Democrat Party: [link to democrat.whitleynet.org]
My guess is you'll find this usage throughout the Midwest and the South (expanding my horizon).
There's also an interesting entry about this in Wikipedia, pointing out that the usage goes way back, is concentrated in the Midwest, and has been used by Democrats themselves in the past. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
---"I checked that Georgetown County Democratic Party site. They refer to themselves both ways, "---
The official name of the web site is Georgetown County Democratic Party.
like I said, this county Democratic Party web site, which comes out of South Carolina uses both "Democratic Party" and "Democrat Party" to refer to itself.
My point is that this is a not uncommon usage in the South and the Midwest. There's nothing insulting about it.
- at our Georgetown County DEMOCRAT PARTY general and executive committee meeting, I was elected to serve as interim chairperson for our party...Most of you know me as the Georgetown County DEMOCRAT PARTY Secretary - Party Chairperson, Nancy Kolman.
You have to be able to do more than read headlines and listen to sound bits.
A number of helpful Republicans have dropped by to tell us that the intentional distortion of the Democratic Party's name is no big deal, but evidently it is big enough of one for Republican operatives to make a concerted effort to get the name wrong every-single-time. They are telling us that language doesn't matter (it does) and some poor souls are even saying that because we don't call Democrats "Democratics" (not sure if these posters are being disingenuous or are merely illiterate), that this is a non-issue.
The fact that Republicans intentionally do this is par for the course but, if the Democrats don't have a death wish, they should make it very clear to the press that they will not accept it from mealy-mouthed reporters carrying water for the right. I think national Democrats have been timid about challenging this right wing construction because they are afraid of being accused of being thin-skinned, but this name game is emblematic of the Republican Party's greater success in defining the Democrats to the American people. The Democratic Party repeatedly falls into Republican hands by laying supine on this point.
The Unification Church made clear to the press years ago that they didn't care for the term "Moonies" and the press complied. (The fact that the UC is an adjunct to the GOP, or possibly vice versa, probably helped their case.) What the press does for a suspect Korean Messiah, they should be willing to do for America's oldest political party. "Democrat Party" is quite simply incorrect usage and any first year journalism student should know better than to use it.
The main body of this article mentions the Gingrich memo "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" (an Orwellian title if ever there was one). I am providing a link to this political guide for those who think that language doesn't matter.
[link to www.cwrl.utexas.edu]
Gingrich and other Republicans have been very up front about how they intentionally use the "large-D" Democrat Party appellation to distinguish the Democrats from the "small-d" concept of democracy. This tactic is a wholly calculated one; those who posit otherwise are dishonest or naive.
This is an incredibly stupid issue for anyone to spend time on. I don't think it matters one iota to anyone if people drop the "-ic" when referring to Democratic candidates. This is an insult? How so?
I read Herzberg's piece in The New Yorker. Usually, I find his stuff brilliant. But this one was pointless.
Listen, this didn't just start a few years ago. I first heard the "Democrat" usage when I moved to the Midwest about 15 years ago. I never heard it before that, living on both the East and West coasts.
But I heard a LOT of stuff for the first time when I moved to the Midwest. "My lawn needs mowed." (instead of "mowing") "Would you sign this, if you don't care?" (most people say, "if you don't mind") Or (a favorite), asking at a store if they sell, whatever, batteries or something, and if the answer is no, the clerk says with a smile, "Sure don't!" Then there was the store where I bought a bottle of soda, brought it to the cashier, and she asked "Do you want your pop in a sack?"
People - please - "Democrat Party" is a Midwest usage, nothing more and nothing less. There's no insult hidden there and it's beyond me how anyone can see one.
So Newt made the usage popular? I don't know where he's from originally, but he represented part of Georgia. Wouldn't surprise me if the usage is common there, too. Same with Bush and Texas, but of course Bush misuses a lot or words, so no surprise there.
All you have here is a phrase commonly used by many people in certain parts of the country, and it's one that sounds foreign to educated ears.
At least - that's my take on it.
I grew up in the midwest and traveled extensively through it. I will say that occasionally I would see the incorrect grammar form from both sides of the political divide.
The difference between then and now is that most educated people would actually know the difference back then. That is not the case today. Even educated people have tried to correct me with the incorrect grammar "Democrat Party".
Of course to a man, these educated people spend a lot of time listening to conservative talk radio.
I don't expect everyone to get the subtle change that has taken place here, but it demonstrates the control over language the Republicans have worked very hard to achieve.
I have absolutely no problem with being referred to by Republicans as a member of the Democrat Party…
So long as I can call their party Rebooblickcums…And Connedserfaturd Rebooblickcums at that…!
I have democratic ideals. I believe in the democratic process. I belong to the democratic party. I think in terms of democratic mores. I'm a democratic...person.
It is possible to counter their own subversive strategies. And yes I agree with one of the previous posters that they spend way too much time on focus groups, too much time figuring out how to redistribute the massive wealth of the middle class to the chosen few upperclass and the rest of the time they just wing it. Poorly I might add.
I've been a reporter since the early 1980s, and I remember Republicans using Democrat in that way as far back as 1983. I used to laugh when I heard it because it was obviously awkward to them to not add the "ic."
just curious, where in the country did you hear this "Democrat" usage?
The more I look into this, the more I think we're just hearing a regional usage.
May I suggest "Publican" as an up-dated reference to the GOP.
In ancient Rome, a collector of public revenues, tolls, etc.
A saloonkeepr, innkeeper
" Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition" p. 1087
No, the common phrases are:
Car dealership
Dog collar
Cat litter
Republican is dual purpose, both commonly used as a noun and as an adjective. If one uses Republican the noun as an adjective, there is no way of knowing this.
The party of Republicans: The Republican Party
The party of Democrats: The Democrat Party
Sometimes the perceived offensiveness can shift the other way:
Noun-noun: Color Television, not offensive
Adjective-noun: Colored Television, uses a racist term, can be considered offensive
Missourishowme reinforces my point.
"Democrat Party" sounds right to this person from Missouri, because it's a common Midwest expression.
I suspect it's mostly Easterners who are really bothered by this.
Everyone I know in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota thinks it sounds southern.
Like the stereotypical sheriff or Marine drill instructor saying "boy".
That's why 'Democrat' as an adjective sounds offensive to us--it has the same perjorative intonation. The assumed superior talking down to those he assumes are inferior.
I believe that this issue came up long before 1983, but I haven't found the reference...possibly Truman wrote or spoke about it.
You're probably right, GLackey.
I lived in Southern Indiana for eight years, and though I always thought of that as Midwest, it's as good as Southern, especially compared to Minnesota. We were right across the river from Kentucky, and there was a lot of Southern influence. That's probably where the "Democrat Party" usage came from.
(I'll tell you how Southern it was. This was the Evansville area, right on the Ohio River. People I knew told me that even into the early '60s, there were restaurants that had a "colored entrance.")
Of course, Newt and Bush lived in the South, so that's where they got it, too. These Web sites that refer to county Democrat Party seem to be all southern or lower midwest.
These references to past usage - Harding was from Ohio, no? Hoover from Iowa. Eisenhower and Dole from Kansas. The poster from Missouri sees no problem with the usage.
I find this really interesting, but only because I work with words all the time and I'm fascinated by linguistics. But this notion that "Democrat Party" is an insult or some concerted plot by Republicans to irritate their opponents is simply absurd.
I've yet to see anyone offer a sensible explanation of why they think this expression is insulting.
Evergreen said:
I've yet to see anyone offer a sensible explanation of why they think this expression is insulting.
In the abortion rhetoric, I remember the "baby killers" saying that the "anti-choice" people were "sadistic since all they want to do is make young girls suffer".
I understand how Democrats prefer the use of the term "Democratic", but compared to the abusive language used elsewhere in politics, this is pretty tame stuff.
I also am amused at the accusation that the Republicans use focus groups to determine what words to use. OF COURSE THEY DO!
The implication is that the Democrats do not. However, I seem to remember one of their candiates say that his "plan" was better than his opponent's "risky scheme" again and again. This surely seems to be the result of focus group data, but, I do not have any evidence, just common deductive sense.
usually an insult consists of some derogatory term or the use of some phrase that casts the subject in a negative light.
I'm being silly, of course. We all know an insult when we hear one.
As many people have said in this discussion, where's the insult in "Democrat"?
All we're talking about here is bad grammar.
I also don't buy this focus group business. Does anyone actually know that the use of this term was tested in focus groups? This seems highly implausible to me.
How was it tested? "I'm going to show you a picture of a member of the Democratic Party and then a picture of someone in the Democrat Party. Which of these people do you think is more opposed to the true American values that we as Republicans hold in high esteem?"
You can tell from the multiple "concern troll" comments. They definitely don't like the idea of Luntz's wordsmithing being exposed.
Every time I see "Democrat" used as an adjective, I know I can stop reading. It's a wingnut tell.
I have noticed this and thought it was some kind of bizarre Republican stragtegy. I think we need to complain everytime we hear someone use this by pointing out that they are talking like Joseph McCarthy, starting with Scott Pelley.
I always thought of "them" as Repugnicans, Bamboozlicans, Consmearatives, the Philistines......... for those that claim to be "christians" (except alas, that one was taken a long time ago.) Sadly, to call it as I see it lowers me down to their level.