To answer Spencer "Democrat Party" is a slur just because it's wrong. Calling Spencer "Spencer" is appropriate. Calling me "Spencer" is insulting. Not because "Spencer" is an insult but because it's insulting to repeatedly call someone by the wrong name.
« "Democrat Party" | Main | Power Rankings »
More "Democrat"
30 Jan 2007 10:52 am
Comments (71)
It really is a lot more like called Spencer "Spence".
And if he made a huge deal out of that he would just seem silly.
It's sort of like making a big deal out of a 20-year old holding a glass of wine....at a time when other 20-year olds are being sent off to die in a pointless war.........
Seriously, this is just bullying. Anybody who's been on either side of bullying understands this.
Older folks might recall that the Right did this repeatedly with Muhammad Ali in the 1960s, refusing to recognize that he had legally changed his name from Cassius Clay, and insisting on calling him Cassius Clay. The denial of a group or an individual's chosen form of appellation is, fundamentally, the denial of their identity, and their equal relationship to the interlocutor. To the "namer" goes the power to define, control, and, when needed, diminish discourse.
Shut up, Spenser. The problem about complain about stuff like this is that it makes Democrats sound like whiners. Exactly how hard is it to bully some fucking Red back?
Someone else made this point on another blog- the way to think about it is whether Matt is a Jewish blogger or a Jew blogger. Both technically accurate, but one sounds much worse, doesn't it?
well, file this under "no duh!"
aimai
My understanding is that this dates back to the era of Nixon's Southern Strategy. The idea was to claim that Democrats no longer represented the small-d democratic will of the people, because they had cruelly and viciously imposed racial desegregation upon the American public against its wishes.
So it's not just petty bullying. It is actually the historical legacy of a very ugly chapter in Republican Party politics.
That said, I don't think the proper response is to act all hurt and violated and make a big deal out of it. They do it to get a rise out of us. Just ignore them.
Matt is right. Neil, however, is wrong: it really doesn't matter waht "Democrat" sounds like.
"Democrat Party" is a slur just because it's wrong.
So "nuclear" weapons should feel slighted?
I think you're holding this President to too high a standard.
I wonder about the vast majority of people who don't understand that it's not the right name, though. Is the insult lost on them?
There's a Wikipedia entry on this if you're interested.
Quick summary:
1. First used in 1890; regularly (albeit periodically) used by GOP since the New Deal.
2. It is not ungrammatical.
3. It is inaccurate, and almost certainly intended to be demeaning.
That said -- so what? It's like calling you the "Poo-poo Head Party." So what's the better response -- wounded outrage, or dismissive contempt?
I know what I'd do on the schoolyard...
Well, I don't think it matters too much how Bush pronounces it. He won't be around much longer, and people already know he's an idiot who can't pronounce things well.
It does matter how other people pronounce it, though, and there has been a concerted effort to use "Democrat", which is offensive both because its wrong and because it sounds bad (sort of like bureaucrat).
" So what's the better response -- wounded outrage, or dismissive contempt?
Jeebus. Neither--you hurl slurs back at them. You take it as license to say things about them that aren't really fair.
I think you're holding this President to too high a standard.
The president's people have carefully cultivated this message. Oops! The president didn't mean to call his opponents traitors and idiots, he's just awkward with words, you know how he is. Every words out of the man's mouth has a extra layer of deniability--because we've let him (and his people) get away with this shit.
We should just respond by calling them the Publican Party (you know, the party of tavernkeepers) until they stop.
Since many people for some reason fail to grasp the distinction, calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" isn't a mispronunciation, it's just using a different (and wrong) word.
I'm waiting for the day when there is a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator side by side on Meet the Press, and the Democrat walks off the set when the Republican uses this slur. Every time I hear it it sets my teeth on edge. Or maybe Democrats should start calling the other party "Repubelicans." Hey, it's just pronunciation, right?
The president's people have carefully cultivated this message.
It would be nice if the fact that the Bush's people have carefully cultivated the message that their boss is an idiot would be something that could be, I don't know, used against him/them.
DJ Moonbat-- No, people would like to have a beer with the tavern-keeper. Apparently, if you ask Joe Klein, this means folks would rather vote for the Publican than for some prissy know-it-all who can find the Middle East on a map. So that won't work.
It's a self-conscious, Newt Gingrich inspired thing.
It's an insult because it's done self-consciously and intentionally to slight Democrats. Whoever does it is an ass. Gingrich came up with that for who knows what reason. I suppose to prove how infantile he could make political discourse. (Answer: horrifyingly infantile.)
I am with SoCal on this. The proper response is to graciously accept the President's apology and then meekly point out that it is slightly worrying that our President cannot even get the most basic civics material correct. Similar tacks for anyone who uses it online. Refuse to move off the question "Are you being intentionally offensive or are you just an idiot?"
I assumed it was because the GOP thinks the democrats were a loose alliance of interest groups and that there were Democrats but it was not a unified party.
Or maybe Democrats should start calling the other party "Repubelicans."
This, I think, is ideal. Constant variation among "Repubelican," "Repooblican," "REpubBLEEKin," and anything else mildly annoying one can think of until the whole game becomes stupid enough that they stop wanting to play.
I just saw on the news that a bunch of people heard the term "Democrat Party" on TV and said, "Oh shit, you mean they're like bureaucrats? I wish I could go back to November and vote for the republicans. At least the name of their party doesn't rhyme with bureaucrat!" This doesn't look good for us in 2008!
How 'bout the RePelican party? That's pretty silly.
Ah, yes. The "Democrat" Party, rivals of the lesser-known "Republic" Party.
Kind of like calling Pro-Lifers "Anti-Choice" and then wondering why they act offended, huh?
What would the Republicans do if the tables were reversed?
They would make a big deal of it. They would interrupt the speaker ("Joe, you've just illustrated the liberal bias that is so pervasive in the media that you probably don't even know you're wrong"). They would say "This is what comes of teaching Ebonics". George Will would write a column about the rules of grammer. Ranking Senators would decry the loss of civility in our public discourse. As we know from experience, they would make the use of that word the main, and possibly the only, issue under discussion.
Why it should be so impossible to feed the gander a little of the sauce the goose has been eating is beyond me.
If it is so utterly unimportant, meaningless, and ineffective: why then do the Radicals pound on it so often and consistently?
Cranky
This might not be as good as "Repubelican", but its another idea. How about "Repubiklan"? This would be pronounced "Repubi-KLAN". The virtue is that it sounds more like the original word.
Kind of like calling Pro-Lifers "Anti-Choice" and then wondering why they act offended, huh?
Also kind of like calling pro-choicers "Pro-Abortion", or hadn't you noticed?
The difference, though, of course, is that "Democratic Party" indicates the actual, proper, legal name of the thing. There's just no excuse for getting it wrong. 'Pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are umbrella terms for loose coalitions that have no official names, and so messing with those labels is not factual misstatement; it's framing.
I kinda like Jim W's idea although it's a little hard to say.
"We should just respond by calling them the Publican Party (you know, the party of tavernkeepers) until they stop."
The problem for the Democrats in doing this is they would lose a party elder in Ted Kennedy who would immediately change over to the "Party at the Pub".
Kind of rude on my part - but I couldn't resist.
Just start callling them the Republic party all the time...things will change. Get everyone in the party to do it until they change. Never say Republican Party again until the you stop hearing Democrat Party.
Hell, call them Nazis. As I remember, that gets em all kinds of frenzied. If they question ya, just say it was a slip.
It would be hilarious to see reactions from Republicans on TV shows when Republic party is used, as well as any objection they may raise. Once they raise the objection, the Democrats aren't whining anymore, and can point out that President Bush has been slurring them for quite some time and they're just giving it back.
Kind of like calling Pro-Lifers "Anti-Choice" and then wondering why they act offended, huh?
I don't wonder why they're offended, nor do I care; 'anti-choice' is a more accurate term for what they're trying to accomplish. But if someone calls me on it, I don't pretend it was a mistake, either.
I say let them do it, and people like us should complain about it. It works as a jerk detector.
Take this Bush speech, for example. Some naive people might think that George Bush could conceivably be looking for ways to compromise with the new Democratic majority in congress. Then, in his speech where he reaches out, he finds himself psychologically incapable of even faking decency. It is a useful analytical tool. Most of us know that Bush is lying about any plans to compromise on any issues, but this 'Democrat Party' business lets everyone know.
I wouldn't advise candidates to make an issue of it though. If they are pressed, they should dismiss it as juvenile.
Calling me "Spencer" is insulting. Not because "Spencer" is an insult but because it's insulting to repeatedly call someone by the wrong name.
Don't you mean in this example calling Ezra "Spencer" or calling Spencer "Ezra"? ;)
Democrats should start saying "the war party" instead of "the Republican party." I bet they'd beg for a truce pretty quick.
It's an insult. The deliberate use of a wrong name is demeaning. Everyone in the culture understands how this works.
In Chinatown, when John Huston keeps calling Jack Nicholson "Gitts" instead of "Gittes," he's letting him know who's the boss.
It's definitely an insult, but the whole problem is how to smoothly respond to an insult without sounding whiny or defensive. There is no easy corresponding way to morph the "Republican" party name into an insult, as the efforts in this thread demonstrate. And you can't, like, punch people in the face.
It would be hilarious to see reactions from Republicans on TV shows when Republic party is used, as well as any objection they may raise.
I don't understand why so many people assume that the Republicans would throw a hissy fit in response to this kind of clumsy stunt. We didn't lose all these elections to them because they suck at politics, you know.
==Kind of like calling Pro-Lifers "Anti-Choice" and then wondering why they act offended, huh?
I don't wonder why they're offended, nor do I care;==
If your point is to offend people, then this line of reasoning doesn't apply to you.
=='anti-choice' is a more accurate term for what they're trying to accomplish.==
That's just not true. Pro-lifers as a group are far more likely to support "choice" on a variety of issues (school vouchers, smoking in bars), although not on this or many others (gay marriage). People who oppose abortion do it to protect what we regard as life, not because we hate freedom, just as Pro-Choicers seek to protect a woman's right to choose because they do not regard the fetus as a human with an independent right not to be killed, and therefore do not see life as being at stake. They're not Anti-Life. If one side deserves the right to name itself (as I agree the Democratic Party and the Pro-Choice lobby do), then so does the other.
==But if someone calls me on it, I don't pretend it was a mistake, either.
Posted by: latts on January 30, 2007 03:27 PM==
That's very nice, but you're not a public official talking about bipartisanship, or a supposedly objective reporter.
That's hilarious, Aleks. I can see Matt's headline: "Pro-life movement: Not actually opposed to choosing things".
Serial catowner, the proverbial sauce garnishes the goose or gander rather than feeds it. (The literal meaning is something along the lines of, "don't know how to prepare a gander? Just use your favorite goose recipe and you'll do fine!")
If you want to see an example of how pissed off someone can get at being continually called the wrong name on purpose, look no further than to sports pundit Jim Rome having Jim Everett on his show in 1994 (I am too tired to write the events, so this is copied from Wikipedia):
"This reputation led to Everett's infamous 1994 confrontation with then Talk2 host Jim Rome. Rome had made a habit of repeatedly mocking Everett's reputation for being averse to taking hits by referring to Everett as "Chris" Everett (a reference to female tennis star Chris Evert). Everett appeared as a guest on the show and Rome wasted no time, applying the insult twice within the first 10 seconds of introducing Everett. Everett warned Rome not to do it again, implying that physical consequences would ensue otherwise. Everett, visibly angry by this point, then went on to challenge Rome, predicting that now that the warning had been issued, Rome wouldn't dare to repeat the insult again. Rome promptly applied the insult a third time and Everett responded by physically charging Rome, overturning a table and knocking down Rome live on air before leaving the set."
publican [Lat.,=state employee], in ancient Rome, man who was employed by the state government under contract. As early as c.200 B.C. there was a class of men in Rome accustomed to undertaking contracts involving public works and tax collecting; the tax collectors made the most profit. The publicans were usually equites, or capitalists. In the Gospels—which showed the general detestation, particularly in Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, in which the publicans were held—the publicans mentioned were tax collectors. From the 1st cent. A.D. the abuses of the publicans began to be corrected, and by the end of the 2d cent. the publicans as a group had disappeared.
That's very nice, but you're not a public official talking about bipartisanship, or a supposedly objective reporter.
No, but an objective reporter really should use the term 'anti-choice,' actually, since as I pointed out, that's the correct description of the position in question. Pols trying to use concilatory language should avoid both terms, IMO, since one is true but less-than-flattering while the other is a useless, meaningless (in policy terms) PR concoction. There's politeness, and then there's enabling... I'll take accuracy over either one.
I'm partial to Goopers myself. Or maybe Gopers.
I don't understand why so many people assume that the Republicans would throw a hissy fit in response to this kind of clumsy stunt. We didn't lose all these elections to them because they suck at politics, you know.
You must think all these guys are geniuses and guided everytime they're on television by a puppet master, but I don't.
Also, I was just kidding.
Perhaps we should just change the name of the party ourselves. Since we evidently no longer have much of an interest in politics - dealing as it does with actual demos - we could call ourselves the Technocratic Party, which the GOP could then shorten to 'Technocrat Party'. 'Technocrat', 'Bureaucrat', 'Democrat' (also 'defeatocrat') - they all go together! Then, when our opponents call us by a wrong name, we can POLITELY correct what will surely have been a 'slip of the tongue' (like 'Barney Fag' was) and all will be well. It's so great to be superior! In our hearts, we know we're right!
Chip: I have a question for you.
Lank Fruntz: Shoot, Chief.
Chip: My name's not 'Chief'.
Lank: Gotcha, Chief.
Chip: It's 'Chip'.
Lank: Oh, sorry. Whatever you say, Chippie.
Chip: I have a question.
Lank: Well, spit it out (smirk), Skippy.
Chip: It's about political appointees acting as ideological gatekeepers at Federal agencies.
Lank: Classic good government, Hoss.
Chip: My name is 'Chip', and I think it might undermine professionalism.
Lank: Well, Dip, we think reform is urgently needed in this area. We're cutting the jungle of red tape.
Chip: Uh..'Chip'.
Lank: We happen to think that faceless bureaucrats are costing the American People billions every year and intruding on their lives, Drip.
Chip: Are you hard of hearing? My name's 'Chip'.
Lank: What's that, Chief (smirk)?
Chip: Are you trying to...er..insult me or something?
Lank: Listen, Seltzer Boy, you can whine all you want, but we're trying to have a principled, dignified debate here. It's not our fault if your ideology is exhausted and you have no ideas.
etc. etc.
I really like Repubelicans, but it's a little juvenile. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying it? Calling them the "Republic" party still sounds respectable. I think the best thing would just be to call them the Publican party.
If you want to see an example of how pissed off someone can get at being continually called the wrong name on purpose, look no further than to sports pundit Jim Rome having Jim Everett on his show in 1994
Well, in fairness to Rome, anybody who was a Rams fan at the time knew Everett was kind of a pussy (there was an old joke about them refusing to go to the shotgun formation for fear that Everett would call a fair catch). And I credit Rome for having the guts to say it to his face, instead of saying it a hundred times on the radio, than making nice nice in person.
As for the Democrat thing, their playbook for the last 75 years has been to make their targets the subject of ridicule. They all but bragged about doing it to Kerry before the the 2004 election. The only way to fight it is to ridicule them back. If someone is asked about the President's alleged slip, the correct response is "I don't believe it was a slip, as it's something he's said numerous times. So either he's intentionally trying to insult his opposition, which is juvenile, or he's too stupid to pronounce a very common word correctly. Either explanation is equally plausible."
I have 2 younger brothers. Poke...Poke...Poke... The last thing the "Democrat Party" should do is go whining to Mom. We can’t let them know it even bothers us. The rule is: always initiate the insults. You get nowhere fighting against them.
"Sean, it's good to see you tonight. You're looking quite the undertaker, did you come straight from Party Headquarters?"
"The right side of the aisle was dressed all in black for the State of the Union, tonight. They must have gotten a early draft of the speech and dressed accordingly."
"The Grand Old Party really lived up to their name at the SOTU. Their leading candidate fell asleep.”
This sounds like a job for Jon Stewart. Maybe the Party should enlist him to teach a class for our guys. At a minimum, we ought to always politely and sincerely inquire into who had just died. If they reply that it's not appropriate to joke about death because of Iraq, well that's just a bonus. Republican=Death=Iraq=failure is the connection we're shooting for. We need to always remark on it.
The other thing to do is co-opt the Democrat Party name. Our guys start using it, put it up on all the boards and signs. The slur has no meaning if no one takes offense.
I prefer the Repo Party.
Don't forget the Bush campaign's RATS ad during the 2000 election.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/12/bush.ad/
I prefer to call the younger of the two major parties the Republican'ts. Why? Because they can't do anything right.
My name is Andrew. People call me Andy. I hate it. Especially when I'm called that by people who've known me for a long time and ought to know better by now. But you know what? Life is short, and I don't have the time. If someone wants to burn calories bitching and moaning about Republicans calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party that's fine. Just keep them away from me.
==No, but an objective reporter really should use the term 'anti-choice,' actually, since as I pointed out, that's the correct description of the position in question. Pols trying to use concilatory language should avoid both terms, IMO, since one is true but less-than-flattering while the other is a useless, meaningless (in policy terms) PR concoction. There's politeness, and then there's enabling... I'll take accuracy over either one.
Posted by: latts on January 30, 2007 06:43 PM==
You pointed it out, there's no denying that, but you didn't support it in any way. Abortion opponents try to prevent the termination of life, hence "pro-life". Abortion supporters seek to preserve the option to have an abortion, hence "pro-choice". "Democratic" is an adjective, hence the party to which Democrats belong is the Democratic Party. These are not hard concepts.
"Pro-choice" & "pro-life" aren't proper names. "Democratic Party" is. This is all of a piece with Bush's proclivity for puerile nicknames, an allied form of petty verbal aggression.
If they leave off the "ic" in "Democratic", can't we do the same and call them "Republans"?
Sorry for jumping in on this discussion so late, but I am compelled to point out that when I first heard the "Democrat Party" thing a few years ago, it was from some right-wing moron like Limbaugh or Tom Delay or someone like that, and it was very clearly explained that the reason they were using it was that the wingnuts do not believe the Democrats are in fact democratic -- i.e., they're "liberal fascists", they don't believe in democracy, they're totalitarians. In that context it's a much more serious insult than just getting someone's name wrong, don't you think? And I have no doubt in my mind that this is what Bush was thinking of when he used it in his speech.
The comments above preferring the 'Publican' party have it right. It's just snarky enough.
When a guest on a Chris Matthews uses 'Democrat Party', let the 'opposing view' guy refer to the 'Publican Party', and then dare Matthews or the other guest (in the age of Youtube') to correct him. Yeah, I know, it's the kind of thing that might have gotten you on the 'no invite' list at Matthews and his ilk in times past, but somehow now I think it might fly, even there.
Besides that, the nice touch of putting them in with those other Publicans, who were most well known (as they collaborated with the Roman Empire) for collecting taxes (recall that Matthew was a tax collector, a publican). It works.
I was a little upset at how the folks over at Wonkette joked about the Holocaust. Amazingly they linked to one of my other posts that very same day. I then read a post they did on the home that is selling where the British volunteer for Gov. Mark Warner was killed trying to protect his girlfriend in Georgetown. Well they referred to him as the "British Jew [who]was savagely murdered in the driveway". I thought it came across as a little callous so I was happy to see that today they posted that the house sold but this time referred to the home as " The one where an aspiring British politician had his throat slit in the driveway last July." (http://wonkette.com/politics/real-estate/28-million-georgetown-murder-scene-bought-by-aspiring-media-mogul-natch-230379.php) To me that reads much better. They could even have said British Jewish Activist and I wouldn't have cared. But to refer to him as the British Jew sounded a little derogatory. So thank you Wonkette for being a bit more sensitive.
I think the standard response should be: "Are you having trouble with big words today? It's Democratic Party. I knew Republicans were opposed to science, but when did they start opposing basic English grammar?"
The Repubs need at 5th grade grammar lesson about nouns and adjectives
All Repugs (oops, I mean Republicans) repeat after me
Democrat = noun "I'm a proud Democrat"
Democratic = adjective "the Democratic Party won the 2006 elections"
I think DemocRAT is vaguely related to that subliminal "RAT" commercial from 2000.
Simply start calling them RePube-licans. Force them to call you on it, think of the follow-ups!
It would be like me calling Spencer "Spence" when I know he hates being called that or calling Matthew "Matt" when I know he hates being called that.
Common courtesy [as well as the interest of accuracy] requires that one names something correctly, not incorrectly.
Comments closed February 13, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Also, 'democratic' sounds like something patriotic and all-American, while 'democrat' sounds like 'crap' or 'rat' or 'bureaucrat.' (No more than 'democratic' sounds like 'bureaucratic' but 'democratic' is a word with overriding positive associations, while 'democrat' is not.)
Posted by neil | January 30, 2007 11:01 AM