Democratic Party, Not Democrat Party
During one of my blog excursions I came across the following:
Can someone please explain why it matters if a winger calls us the "Democrat Party"? I understand that it’s supposed to be a slur (I don’t really see how), but how does it impact anything? Why waste your breath on an "ic"?
which prompted me to write the following in response:
I find it quite amazing that a sophisticated observer of our national politics, as I’m certain you are, would ask the question as you did, "[H]ow does [use of the term 'Democrat Party'] impact anything?"
On its face your reflexive response on to the impact of the term ‘Democrat Pary’ seems quite reasonable. However, if one but takes one step back a larger and, admittedly, more complex image emerges. The image that emerges is control of the terms of the political discourse, where even seemingly inconsequential labels matter. Just to illustrate the point, look at the contentious press conferences that Rumsfeld held on what label should be used to describe the armed Iraqi opposition following the invasion: insurgents, terrorists, ‘dead-enders,’ etc. As long as Democratic Party supporters accept the labels that the opposition places on us, we concede ideological/public perception turf in the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. And, in large part, this is what grassroots members of the Democratic Party are plain tired of: Democratic official and operatives that don’t stand up for the party and for the broad progressive principles that the party stands for. Democratic Party grassroots members simply want representatives that are willing and able to demonstrate some backbone when engaged by the opposition — even when it comes to seemingly innocuous issues such as the label of the party (which, by the way, is Democratic Party NOT Democrat Party).
Media Matters has a nice summation of the issue:
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.
…
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.’ " [URL]
And from the Hendrik Hertzberg article directly:
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be–a handy way to express contempt.
…
In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. "Democrat Party" is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com[.] [URL]
At the end of the day, it’s about who controls the terms of our national public discourse. Moreover, by using and accepting the derogatory label that the opposition bestows on the Democratic Party, we leave at the table whatever positive linguistic connotation we may gain in the public’s mind with the usage of the correct party label, Democratic Party.
