The ‘ic’ factor

In the grand scheme of things, there are probably more important matters to get worked about than whether the president can bring himself to utter the words, “Democratic Party.” But so long as it’s an issue, consider what Bush said in last week’s State of the Union address, according to the official White House transcript.

“We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies — and the wisdom to face them together.

“Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate — and I congratulate the Democrat majority.” (emphasis added)

Now, as we’ve discussed more than once, “Democrat” is a noun; “Democratic” is an adjective. To congratulate the “Democrat majority” is to use the childish, sophomoric, and grammatically incorrect name Republicans prefer because, like a dimwitted schoolyard bully, they find it amusing to get it wrong. In the context of applauding Dems’ midterm victories, it seemed like a less-than-subtle jab — Bush was mocking Democrats while appearing to be gracious.

Today, during an interview with NPR, Bush pleaded innocent. “That was an oversight,” Bush said. “I mean, I’m not trying to needle…. I meant to be saying, why don’t we show the American people we can actually work together?”

Bush concluded, “I’m not that good at pronouncing words anyway.”

I’ll gladly concede that the president’s proficiency with the language is lacking, but I have a hard time believing that the dropped “ic” in the State of the Union was “an oversight.”

The debate was the subject of a recent WaPo article.

Bush does this a lot, and while it’s hard to say if the omission was intentional in this instance, it is a semantic tactic that’s been part of Republican warfare for decades. It’s a little thing, a means of needling the opposition by purposefully mispronouncing its name, and of suggesting that the party on the left is not truly small-“d” democratic. The president’s pronunciation was all the more striking because it was apparently not what Bush was supposed to say. The prepared speech that the White House distributed beforehand retained that precious “-ic.”

The case of the missing suffix provoked an oh-no-he-di’int reaction from some Democrats. The bloggers caught it, of course. (Bloggers catch that sort of thing.) “Code word,” wrote one. “Calculated insult,” wrote another.

“We all noticed,” says Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the liberal blogging site DailyKos.com, who replayed the president’s opening words on his TiVo to make sure he’d heard what he thought he heard. “He just clearly couldn’t help himself.”

“Like nails on a chalkboard,” says John Podesta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House, and president of the Center for American Progress.

Tuesday on CNN, Democratic strategist Paul Begala noted the omission right after it happened, adding that the president was being “insulting” and “self-defeating.”

Political analyst Charlie Cook suggested the remarks were probably part of a “force of habit.” When it comes to omitting the “-ic,” Cook said Republicans “have been doing it so long that they probably don’t even realize they’re doing it.”

Maybe, maybe not. But the president is scheduled to speak to the House Democratic Caucus at its conference this weekend in Virginia. On the president’s schedule, that event is referred to as the “House Democrat Conference.”

Verbal tic?

Josh Marshall has a post on another subject regarding Dem branding. The Dems need to do a bit of branding of their own here–I don’t know who suggested it on this site, Steve or who knows, but every Dem, and every Dem talking head, should begin using the word “Republicant.” Republicant Party, Republicant Senator Trent Lott, etc. etc.

  • Or, oh, what the heck, embrace it. After all, there are plenty of nicknames out there which started out as insults, only to be claimed by the insulted- and, in that transformation, losing their impact.

    And, of course, I fully agree with calling the Republifucks by their true name (some people say refucklics, others repubfucklics, but I prefer Republifucks- it just flows better…)

  • I’ve been having a back-and-forth with the announcers on CNBC about this. They had one segment where they referred to the “Democrat-controlled Congress” and the next segment where Sen Vitter appeared and part of the discussion was why Democrats have chips on their shoulders (and they just couldn’t figure it). So I wrote in, pointed out that when referring to the Party, it’s always “Democratic” and how they misused it. Over the course of about 4 or 5 correspondences, they kept responding that they didn’t understand what the issue was, and why was I unhappy with myself being “a Democrat”. It was very classic junior high stuff – purposely pretending that “it is all so confusing” and trying to make it about me being a crank. I responded with the Post article, the treatment of the subject from Wikipedia, and Josh Marshall’s comments noting Bush’s words after the SOTU. Not once did they acknowledge that there was an issue or that it was anything more than that I had a problem. I finally told them that people watch their network for business news and there was no reason to alienate/insult half of Americans in the course of delivering their business news. So I’ve switched to Bloomberg-TV and I haven’t gone back.

    But that’s the thing – there people don’t think that there’s a problem with it.

  • Political analyst Charlie Cook suggested the remarks were probably part of a “force of habit.”

    Yeah, and you know what they call a habit that you should drop but can’t? No wonder Bush is hooked on “Democrat,” it gives him a little tickle. Not as good as coke but Dick is rationing these days.

    But here is my own personal view of the Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective ReThuglicans:

    1. Ignoring warnings that would allow them to head off or mitigate disaster.
    2. Starting wars, just because.
    3. Failure to plan…for anything.
    4. Covering up for members break the law.
    5. Hiring incompetents for key roles in the government.
    6. Shitting on the Constitution.
    7. Dropping the ‘ic’.

    tAiO

    P.S. This made me cringe: “I’m not that good at pronouncing words anyway.” Is this the proud pusher of NCLB? What a fine example he sets for our country. “Prununciashun iz fer wimps.”

    I wonder if Tony Blair keeps talking to him just so he can laugh at this stupid waste of sperm.

  • Too bad ‘Republican’ can be a noun and an adjective. Republicans use the ‘Democrat’, ‘Democratic’ thing to their advantage. No matter how many times they’re told they’re wrong, they say, “Aw, shucks. I forgot,” and move on. Like they’re not sophisticated enough to know what they are doing.

    Democrats just need to be smarter about the Republicans’ obnoxious little habit. Point it out whenever a prominent Republican misspeaks. Once people know Republicans are doing it on purpose, they will be turned off by the pettiness of the GOP.

  • Bob Somerby’s take is that phrases like “Democrat majority” are odd but not clearly wrong, since similar noun-noun constructions are common in English.
    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012507.shtml
    But the “Democrat Party” is clearly wrong, since the name of the party is “Democratic Party”, since the 1830’s. Wikipedia article on Democratic Party (United States).
    The pejorative use is traced to the 1930’s.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
    He suggests we not sweat the arguable uses, and focus on the clearly wrong uses.

  • Yeah, force of habit. You say something often enough, and that’s what comes out. Anybody remember Jimmy Carter introducing “Hubert Horatio Hornblower”?

  • Maybe a more apt comparison might be Dick Armey’s reference during a press interview to Congressman “Barney Fag.” Oops! Slip of the tongue. Like that’s not what he always called him when the shades were drawn.

    It’s probably lucky for Bush that his pre-written speech didn’t call for him to refer to the Congressional Black Caucus.

  • Calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party,” as stupid as it is, is nothing compared to countless other presidential statements. Personally, I don’t care what the Repubs call it. The “Democrat” party is wiping the floor with them these days.

    Instead of objecting, why not quietly begin calling the Republican Party the “Republic Party?” Say it enough, and *they’ll* complain, thereby calling attention to their own “habit.”

  • Well if Bush doesn’t intend to insult Democrats, then I’m sure we’ll be hearing him use the word correctly in the future.

    But I don’t think he will, because he thinks its funny, and he can’t even resist the urge to smirk when he’s talking about the death of Americans.

    The man is a sociopath and he should be removed at the earliest possible moment.

  • Instead of objecting, why not quietly begin calling the Republican Party the “Republic Party?”

    Agreed. As much as I prefer “Republican’t”, I think its too hard to remember. But Republic party is perfect. Then when someone complains, we get to do the “ahh shucks” routine that apparently plays so well in the flyover states.

  • I don’t see what the big deal is about. If Republicans use the word Democrat, they obviously are referring to the definition of the word as: “an advocate of democracy”” and “a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.” When Bush speaks of the “Democrat majority,” it’s obvious he’s pointing out the difference between the majority who are advocates of democracy and himself. Who is not.

  • I think that if the president and his Republic cohorts were the only ones who referred to the “Democrat Party” and “Democrat Majority,” I would find this construction amusing rather than annoying. But, the wider media has taken it on. What’s more, I have heard prominent Democrats use it as well (Louise Slaughter,whom I otherwise like, does this with dismaying consistency). It is a technique of marginalization cloaked in petty politial needling. The Dems should not give in to it. They should encourage their own membership to never use the construction and ask members of the media to defend/explain each embrace of this error.

    That said, I hate getting distracted by this. Bush is such a colosal ninny. I finally found the time to read most of Thomas Ricks’ “Fiasco” this weekend. Bush’s incompetence as described in that volume (along with many others – 3 of whom were awarded a Medal of Freedom) is absolutely criminal. He needs to be pounded and held to account for the damage he has done to this country and the wider world. He loves to wrap himself in the title, “Commander in Chief.” I wish reporters would begin to relentlessly question him about what the hell – specifically – he was thinking regarding each of his obviously disasterous decisions since he entered the White House and strapped on his cod-piece enhanced flight suit. There are long lists from which to choose and this despicable moron needs to be challenged on his “strategy” of rhetoric and bromides every day.

  • Should they continue to persist in the misnomer, we should insist on relabeling their party more appropriately. I suggest borrowing from classic animated history and calling them Decepticons.

  • I think that Democrats should accidentally mis-pronounce John Boehner’s name. That would be a matching middle school insult.

  • If George W. Bush gave you a nickname, would you want everyone to call you that?

    No?

    Okay, then. That’s what this is about: letting your enemies define your identity.

    And ignoring it because it’s a small deal is a common suggestion among dense Democrats, because they’ve learned to ignore the big deal insults, too, and it’s done *wonders* for their party’s image, hasn’t it?

  • If Dubya really slipped and really didn’t intend to needle Dems, he’d make every attempt to correct himself in the future. Snowballs in hell come to mind.

  • Howzabout calling them the “Republicans party”? Throw in the “s” and we are doing the same thing as them–treating a noun as an adjective…

  • Just ask those idiots that call it the ‘Democrat’ Party if they think English should be the language of the land. You can also ask them if the are against teaching ebonics or alternative grammar.

    If they do support English, then ask them why they insist on speaking it improperly by saying ‘Democrat Party’.

  • Howzabout calling them the “Republicans party”? Throw in the “s” and we are doing the same thing as them–treating a noun as an adjective…

    not a bad idea at all. Especially given the recent trend in party identification. It really makes the “they are all about power for themselves and their friends” case as well. good stuff.

  • Calling an opponenent not by their given but rather by another is just a means of demonstrating power. Repubs could pull this demeaning crap when they controlled everything, but now Dems are in the majority and Bush has no right to call them what he wants.

    During the whole Clinton blowjob mess, many Washington insiders seethed that it was not so much the sexual dalliance that was offensive, it was the lesson it passed on to our kids. Thanks George, from now on we will have a nation of kids who not only find power in calling others names meant to be demeaning, but they won’t know the difference between a noun and an adjective either.

  • I like the Republicant idea – it’s like a contraction of “Republicans can’t”

    Can’t fix the economy.
    Can’t get us out of Iraq.
    Can’t run DHS/TSA without resorting to security theater bullshit.
    Can’t keep New Orleans from drowning.
    Can’t comply with the Constitution.
    Can’t keep from shooting people in the face.

  • The New York Times did a little digging on this (or AP did) and found the following:

    “Bush plans to speak to the House Democratic Caucus at its conference this weekend in Virginia. On the president’s schedule, that event is referred to as the ”House Democrat Conference’.”

    Republicans are prics.

  • ***“Republicans party”***
    ————————-Liberal Patriot

    This one could have wonderous ramifications for Dems. By labelling the GOP as this, it automatically disenfranchises Indies, Blue-Dog Dems, and Libertarians. It’s a great big sign over the front door to a good-ol’-boys’ club that effectively tells everyone else: “This is our private party. Go away.” It’ll sell nicely on ad-spots as well—the smoke-filled “gin-hall” with a big door that keeps getting slammed in people’s faces. The poor, the elderly, the homeless, the sick, children (lest we forget NCLB), mangled veterans—the list goes ever on and on….

  • My only objection to “Republicans’ party” is from a linguist’s point of view.

    English has a marked tendency to *shorten* words — telephone became ‘phone and, ultimately, phone. The original automobile became quiant long ago (ridin’ around in my automobile). We don’t look at things closely, through a telescope, we scope things out. Etc, etc, etc.

    American English does it *in spades*– not just in speech but in spelling as well (nite, thru, etc)

    Therefore, *cutting* -ic off “Democratic” is entirely within the general trend, while *adding* -s to “Republican” is swimming against the current and not likely to take root in everyday speech.

    But. Democrats, on the whole, have better sense of humour, as well as more brains. That’s why we can throw ’em off with something new all the time — republican’ts (I think that one “belongs” to Lance), republicons, republithugs, republifucks, repubs, pubs, pubics…You name it. And each of those can serve, equally well, as a noun or as an adjective, without any stretch of grammar.

    While all they’ve been able to come up with is “democrat” as an adjective and “defeatocrat” as a noun. And the second doesn’t even bear any resemblance to the original, so you either have to be in the “in crowd”, or else guess what it is they mean.

    Let them keep stealing our -ic. They won’t know what to do with it any more than they know what to do with the rest of the language

  • How about “publicans”. Seems to fit, what with all their no-bid contracts for their buddies.
    “publicans (Latin publicanus) were public contractors, in which role they often supplied the Roman military, managed the collection of port duties, and oversaw public building projects. In addition, they served as tax collectors for the Republic (and later the Empire), bidding on contracts (from the Senate in Rome) for the collection of various types of taxes. (Wikipedia)”

  • Comments are closed.