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.

Tying the Thread of American Social Progress

It’s incredibly moving and great to see how when one is cognizant of our nation’s history the thread of social progress is readily visible; thus, one can see how at different times, for various reasons, different communities have broadened our understanding of American citizenship and thereby expanded the universe of the phrase, “We the People.”

Van Jones, over that the HuffingtonPost.com, writes:

At this week’s "Dia Sin Inmigrantes/Day Without Immigrants" march in San Francisco, I saw a beautiful, exciting and hopeful vision of the future of this country.

I also caught a glimpse of a familiar past, fading away. And I shed a few tears for both.

From the moment I climbed aboard the BART subway cars Monday morning, I knew this May Day march and rally would differ from the Bay Area’s usual protest fare.
The trains headed into downtown San Francisco were filled with working-class Latinos, all wearing white; most had kids in tow.

A DIFFERENT KIND OF RALLY

There were few protest signs or banners. But the stars and stripes were everywhere. One tyke on my train kept trying to poke his cousin with a little American flag.

Some of the teeniest kids were wearing their older sibling’s white Tees – with their shirt hems hanging down past their knees. The children were all well-scrubbed and happy … and very proud.

So were their parents. They knew they were part of something new, and big, and promising.

The bright mood contrasted starkly with the dreary atmosphere that chokes most protests nowadays. On this march, I saw no resigned shuffling of already-defeated feet. No sea of scowls. No pierced tongues, screaming. Nor could I spy a single person dragging behind her the weighty conviction that resistance – though obligatory – was futile.

To the contrary. Beaming, brown-skinned families walked off those trains with their heads held high. Sure, they may have been poor, facing tough challenges in the near term. But they stepped like they were marching into a future of limitless promise and potential.

[...]

Deep inside, I was grieving for my own people. I wished that my beloved African-American community had managed – somehow – to retain our own sparkling sense of faith in a magnificent future. There was once a time when we, too, marched forward together – filled with utter confidence in the new day dawning. There was a time when we, too, believed that America’s tomorrow held something bright for us … and for our children.

[...]

By simply standing up for their own kids and grandparents – for their own dignity and futures – activist Latinos today are pulling the nation to a higher level of fairness and inclusion.

They are posing a simple and devastating question: should U.S. society continue to profit from the labor of 11 million people – many of whom pick our fruit, nurse our children, clean our workplaces – without embracing them fully, without honoring their work, without extending to them the same rights and respect we would want for ourselves?

Can we countenance or tolerate a Jim Crow system – in brown-face – with a shunned tier of second-class workers, enriching society but lacking legal status and protections?

Or are we willing to change our laws – and change our hearts – to embrace those upon whom our economy has come to rest? This is a simple moral challenge. The right answers are not easy, but they are obvious.

I know that there will be a backlash (there always is when people push for fairness), even coming from some Black folks. But I also know that the Latino-led struggle for justice and inclusion offers hope to all of us. A national conversation about the true meaning of dignity, equality, opportunity and fair play in the modern economy can ultimately benefit every American community.

I am confident that it will. Because during the two prior centuries, it was the African-American community that performed this service for the country. And we paid a high and awful cost in blood and martyrs. Unfortunately, we did not achieve all of our aims. But we did tear apartheid from the pages of U.S. law books.

And in the course of that struggle, we did improve the lot of all Americans – expanding social programs, democratic rights and social tolerance for all people. And our efforts opened the doors for today’s equality struggles. Our marching feet moved the whole nation forward.

The entire piece is incredibly moving, I urge you to read it and, if so inclined, leave note of appreciation over at the HuffingPost.com blog.

A Progressive’s Wish List

Here’s a brief list, er, wish list, of items I’d like to see coming from the Democratic party and their national candidates:

Policies

• National commitment to the Energy Apollo Project, to curtail, if not end, our dependence on fossil fuels — I’d also like to see more exploration on alternative energy sources
• No US forces in Iraq, no permanent basis the country
• Rebuild and regain the trust of our nation’s military after the catastrophic abuse of the past six years
• As an aside, and as someone that served in the military, I’d like to see a mandatory — yes, mandatory — military service period for every American after completing high school for a two year period. (Conscientious objectors could serve in non-combat units that are not required to undergo any direct weapons training — our nation must commit to an ideal wherein war must be a shared sacrifice, across the board, period.)
• Heavy investment in our educational system, particularly k-12
• Rekindle our national governments commitment to Social Security, so that the country knows that the systems is solvent and secure
• National healthcare
• A renewed commitment that Americans’ reproductive security and sovereignty will remain a personal matter, even as we acknowledge that abortion should be "rare, safe and legal"
• An increase in the minimum wage
• Strong support for Americans’ right to negotiate job security with their employers through our unions
• Strong incentives (patent protection and other methods) to maintain tech jobs and industry in our shores
• Reforming our nation’s revenue code to curtail payment evasion, and to shore up solvency
• Provide an avenue for undocumented immigrants to join the American mainstream, while simultaneously working with our partners in the Western Hemisphere to curtail the inflow of undocumented immigrants
• Work with Israel, Palestine and the world community to assure that the parties move rapidly towards a two state solution — negotiate a sustainable cease fire
• Recommit to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties
• A renewed commitment of America’s most sacred creed: Equal Protection for All. Yes, all, including gays — there would be no more talk of any anti-American amendments

I could list a couple more, but I want to move on to the issue of style/perception; after all, leadership and politics (as anything else, I suppose), are about substance and style, concrete policy and its veneer (by god, republicans have thought us this lesson… we best learn it). Accordingly, I’d like to see the following in my ideal candidate:

Style

• A transformational leader — someone whose party legacy, for instance, would be said to be: After their administration there were more people calling themselves Liberal than there were before. Take Ronald Reagan, he’s clearly used by conservatives to this day as their standard bearer and the conservative movement uses him to shore up their brand
• My ideal political leader will unabashedly reach to the legacy, language and vision of FDR — the greatest American president of the 20th century –, all the while seeking to build new and lasting coalitions that give shape to an America for the 21st century
• I want someone that does not shy away nor cower before the attacks from the conservative movement; rather, I would like my political leader to respond to any challenges from the right as FDR once did:

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.

• I want a leader that understands and respects that we ALL belong to the American family, no matter our ethnic group nor religion; moreover, while we belong to one single American family, the way forward is to be good neighbors within the international community — I want a leader that will seek to build collaborative relations with our partners (no more unileteralism; of course, we retain a monopoly over our national defense)
• I want a leader that will make rebuilding the Democratic and the Liberal/Progressive brand a priority