‘One Syllable of Civility’

I’ve long been amazed at the consistency which Republicans will refer to the “Democrat Party.” It’s not a new phenomenon — in fact, it dates back about six decades — but it seems that the GOP has used it the last few years with increased frequency. And glee.

Part of this is strategic; Republicans don’t want to reinforce the notion that one party is “democratic.” But for the most part, this is simply childish — Republicans think it’s annoying, so like a child hoping to get a rise out of someone he or she is teasing, they repeat it ad nauseum. In still other instances, it seems conservatives have simply forgotten that they’re wrong. Indeed, the president, whose memory is often a little off, used the phrase during his post-election press conference five times — and that was Bush trying to be conciliatory.

The WaPo’s Ruth Marcus suggested today that it’s time for Republicans to give it up.

If he wanted to, President Bush could change the tone in Washington with a single syllable: He could just say “ic.” That is, he could stop referring to the opposition as the “Democrat Party” and call the other side, as it prefers, the Democratic Party. […]

Democrat-as-epithet has seen its fullest flowering — on talk radio, among congressional leaders and, more than with any of his predecessors, from the president himself — during the recent Republican heyday. As Hendrik Hertzberg pointed out in the New Yorker in August, the conservative Web site NewsMax.com takes pains to scrub Associated Press copy “to de-‘ic’ references” to the party. […]

[A]s a matter of simple politeness — something the Bush family is famously good at — it’s rude to call people by a term that makes them bristle, even a seemingly innocuous one.

I think Marcus is largely right about this, but I’d add another point.

It’s not just about what Democrats “prefers,” nor is it about whether the name is “innocuous” or not. It’s about grammar in the English language. “Democrat” is a noun; “democratic” is an adjective. There is no “Democrat Party” because it doesn’t make any sense grammatically. Republicans have two choices — the “Democratic Party” or the “Democrats’ party.” One is accurate, but both are at least consistent with rules of English. If they’re feeling particularly casual, they could also go with “Dems” — as I do — as an inoffensive shorthand.

Marcus suggested that if “the president wants to do more than pay lip service to the notion of a new tone in Washington, he could start by just paying lip service.” That’s largely true. Democrats are annoyed every time the president or one of his allies uses the wrong name of the party. We’re setting the bar awfully low, but I suppose Dems would feel slightly better if Republicans could bring themselves to start using the name of the party that’s existed for over 200 years.

But more than that, the GOP should want to stop using the nonsensical “Democrat Party” because they sound like idiots. For all their talk about English as the official national language, Republicans have no real incentive to intentionally mar our grammatical rules simply to make some kind of foolish attempt at being annoying.

Well is they keep it up, when they pass a law making English the official language, we can point out that they no longer qualify for office because they are incapable of speaking the official language. 😉

It is annoying. It’s amazing that the children who run the Republican’t party think that’s the best use of their time annoying other people. It’s that just a tax on the economy of ideas?

  • I keep hoping some talking head will interrupt them and accuse them of being ignorant, but I’m not holding my breath.

  • Their use of Democrat Party is the canary in the coal mine. As long as they do that then we know they’re still assholes.

  • You expect pResident Nukular to give a rat’s ass about mispronouncing things? He’s the decider, and he will decide how to speak, thank you very much. And yes, clearly he and his ilk do indeed think it’s the best use of their time annoying people. They are so in your face about almost everything that it’s absolutely pathetic. The examples are too numerous to mention—and there’s so much I’m trying to forget…

  • Of course Bush and his fellow Republicans are being childish and nongrammatical by referring to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party,” but it is to be expected: They can’t agree to have grown-up, civil debates on real issues but insist on dredging up wedge nonissues because they know they have no real counterproposals to offer. That emphasizes their callous, nonresponsive approach to substantive issues affecting average Americans and their insistence on pandering to their narrow base.

  • Maybe we can start calling the Republican Party or the Grand Old Party (GOP), the BoFA (Bunch of F**King A**Holes) Party. That pretty much sums up my sentiment towards them.

  • I wrote a letter to NPR when I heard Tom Brokaw say “Democrat Party”. It sounds stupid enough when Stupid says it, but Tom Brokaw should be able to speak grammatically correct English.

  • I think Mr. Somerby said it best:

    “As it prefers?” Ruthie! The Democratic Party doesn’t “prefer” to be called the Democratic Party—that’s the actual name of the party! Doubters can even confirm what we say. The name appears on this group’s letter head—and you can even check it out here, right at the Dem Party’s web site.

    To argue semantics is to open the debate up, if only a little bit.

  • Having grown up in the hog-breeding state of Indiana, “Democrat” party was something one occasionally heard from old , rural partisian Republicans. I saw it as much as sign as the ignorance of the speaker as an intent to mispronounce or use the improper appellation.

    I recall one-time Republican Chairman and failed gubenatorial candiate Rex Early use the term occasionally. I considered it just one more of his comically folksy attempts to connect with rural Lincoln Day dinner party hacks.

  • Jesus Christ, give it up. Just a bit less important than global warming. This absolutely does not mean shit.

  • In the recent election, I worked at the polls with a Republican election judge. Among the items he brought to the polls were sign-up sheets for people interested in active in either the Republican party and the Democrat party. I didn’t call him on it because it was obvious by his every other action he’s a decent guy and that he meant no offense. I had previously assumed that anyone who used “Democrat party” intended to annoy, but I’m having to rethink that assumption.

    None of that means that the term has somehow become correct through repeated use.

  • Well, let’s extend some bipartisan goodwill here…Democrats get to be members of the Democratic party, and Republicans get to be members of the Republicanatic party. Now, everyone is happy.

  • The Republicans are all obnoxious all the time. It’s part of their Rovian thoroughness. But Rove’s The Grammar is no more accurate than his The Math.

  • 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) or they see national politics as a way to get back at them (Rove).

  • I recall from several years ago some polling which showed that “Democrat party” polled substantially more negatively than “Democratic party” (i.e., somebody described as belonging to the “Democrat party” was seen more negatively than someone described as belonging to the “Democratic party”) — there was some speculation as to connecting them to “Rats,” as I recall. See this “Rats” controversy from the 2000 election: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/12/bush.ad/

    Anyway, although I agree with the argument that they like to just poke that stick in Democrats’ eyes, I think there is actually something even more sinister and meaningful to it.

  • A telling analogy (which Marcus mentions in her OpEd) is the use of “Jew” in place of “Jewish,” e.g., “the Jew boy” vs. “the Jewish boy.”

  • I think it’s a great way to point out that the Republicans are simply the party of partisan hackery. Only a juvenile or someone who was out of ammo would think that it would be useful to call their oponent a name during a serious debate, and they should be called on this every time they act like the overgrown juveniles they are.

    Bring it on, Republicans. Calling the Democratic party “the Democrat party” just underlines how seriously you take your responsibilities.

  • This tactic is intentional. Someone at the RNC made a decision to rename the opposition party. The Republicans use and manipulation of political language is incredible.

    They start by using a new term one day and never acknowledging the change. Ever. It confuses some people, enrages others and fools evem more. People hear the name change and think, “Boy, that guy refers to the ‘Democrat Party’ with such conviction. He must know the proper way to refer to the Democratic Party.” The media starts to use the new term they’ve heard from the power-elites. Over time, people forget that the name has changed. The goal is to make your opponent represent something repellant to your followers. It’s not about what the Democrats actually believe. It’s about what the Republicans say the Democrats believe.

    Thankfully, the GOP has lost some of its power to control the message. They’ll have a harder time defining the Democrats when the Democrats start speaking for themselves. It’s about visibility. The Republican Party is run by some frighteningly amoral thugs, so we’ll always have to be on high-alert for “innocent” changes in language.

  • Why don’t we just refer to them as the “Republic party”? Yes, its grammatically incorrect. Yes, its petty. Yes, its annoying. But, if a talking head calls someone on it, they get to say:

    “we’ll start using their correct name when they start using ours–it’s the Democratic Party, sir. Not anything else.”

  • I also wish that democratic politicians, at least, would correct those who say “Democrat party”. Howard Dean at the very least. However, re J Bean and Scott: this has permeated the society because of talk radio and other media sources. I heard Russert used it just before the election.

    I believe the most recent use of this slur goes back to Newt’s pre/post ’94 “revolution” rhetorical talking points, along with the death tax and others. I saw a list of the things that Newt instructed republicans to use not too long ago on the web. Now I can’t find it. Anyone have it or know where it is? Anyone know how to get the democrats to counter this BS somehow? Just asking or urging them to correct it’s use isn’t enough.

  • I was just listening to BBC and they mention the Democrat party in th US and then they mentioned the Christian Democrat party in the Netherlands.

    The ‘publicans have been so effective that they managed to change the English name of a foreign political party.

  • You expect a gaggle of permanent-12 year old playground bullies to stop being permanent playground bullies? When doing so would imply they have brains (a fact very definitely not in evidence)???

    Let the little turds continue to be little turds. Doing so keeps us just angry enough to want to kick them hard, which is what we need to do.

  • If he wanted to, President Bush could change the tone in Washington with a single syllable: He could just say “ic.” — Marcus, via CB.

    Nah, “ick” is *their* party; ours smells as good under any name.

    the GOP should want to stop using the nonsensical “Democrat Party” because they sound like idiots. — CB

    I’ll let you on a little secret: they sound like idiots, because… they are.

    sorry, i meant republican’ts — rimone, @13

    Republicants, Republican’ts… Either way is accurate, so no need to apologise 🙂

  • Not the Republic party, nor the Republicanatic party, nor any of the other choices. The ‘Publican party, for people who spend like drunken sailors.

  • I keep hoping some talking head will interrupt them and accuse them of being ignorant, but I’m not holding my breath.

    Comment by Ugh — 11/22/2006 @ 1:41 pm
    ***************************************************
    Chris Matthews did this a couple days ago. Made the Republicaic guy get all sulky.

  • RE #26

    No, actually, it is the Christian Democrat (s) party. The Dutch version is a plural noun Christen Democraten, but in English, a party is singular and takes a singular noun. So they are the Christian Democrats of the Christian Democrat party.

  • libra: sorry, i meant republican’ts — rimone, @13

    Republicants, Republican’ts… Either way is accurate, so no need to apologise 🙂

    thanks, libra. i call ’em thieving lying scumsucking moneyhungry dickwads (and much much worse on my site) but i wouldn’t wanna sully CB’s here. oh wait.

    sorry, CB. feel free to delete this &c.

  • As long as we’re interested in accuracy, can we stop calling the Republicans the Grand Old Party? The Democratic Party is 50 years older.
    It says a lot about an organization when it’s nickname is a lie.

  • Comments are closed.