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.

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.

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

In The Second Bill of Rights, Cass Sunstein writes:

During his last year, Roosevelt concluded that America’s system of political parties needed to be fundamentally altered. He told his principle speechwriter, Samuel Rosenman, that "the time has come for the Democratic party to get rid of its reactionary elements in the South, and to attract to it the Liberals in the Republican party… We ought to have two real parties — one liberal and one conservative." To this end, Roosevelt started negotiations with Wendell Wilkie, the 1940 Republican presidential candidate, stating that with "the liberals of both parties Wilkie and I together can form a new, really liberal party in America." Wilkie responded quite favorably, saying that he was "ready to devote almost full time to this." But both men were dead within the year, and the project was orphaned. [page 16]

Just imagine if their vision had been pursued.

As an observer of politics, to me is quite interesting how Republicans build and build on their brand and figures, while we, Democrats, run away from ours. Republicans have and will continue to spend a lot energy into building shrines for Reagan, because they know that he represents an extension of their brand, a way to reach out and to convert. We, in the other hand, have nearly forgotten the legacy of Roosevelt and how it was during that period that the Democratic party enjoyed its greatest electoral success. Sure, there’s the issue of "big government," "entitlements," "social security reform," and how removed we now are from Roosevelt’s era. The "ideas" that Roosevelt articulated in his Second Bill of Rights still resonate:

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

In the 80s and 90s the Democratic party choose to abandon its storied legacy and, in stead, embraced the corporatist DLC messaging/agenda as the "third way," which they presented as the way forward for the Democratic party. Now, after witnessing how this so-called third way has utterly failed to capture the imagination and hearts of the American people, I would hope that we start to look at the Democratic champions of the past that managed to govern successfully, AND that also managed to build broad-movement coalitions under the party’s banner.

Ever imagine what it might be like to live in a place that voted to thoroughly criminalize abortion? A place that sent abortion providers to jail? That policed hospitals? That investigated a woman’s uterus? Welcome to 21st-century El Salvador, the state of anti-abortion.

This is how a New York Times photo gallery introduces us to a series of dramatic black and white shots, with equally dramatic and even more moving captions. For example:

The Incarcerated: Carla Herrara, 11, clutches pictures of her mother, Carmen Climaco, who was given 30 years for an abortion that was ruled a homicide.

The photo gallery is part of an NY Times Magazine piece on how abortion was criminalized in El Salvador, and how that small Central American country is at the “vanguard” of a movement against abortion:

In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don’t apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990′s, in a period after the country’s long civil war ended. The country’s penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.

It goes without say that the abortion issue, that is, whether women and couples should have control over their reproductive futures, or whether such control should be placed in the hands of the state, is a central question in today’s political landscape in our own country. On the progressive side there are many that contend that: 1. Because it would be political suicide for republicans to end access to abortion, that therefore it is unlikely that they’ll criminalize the procedure; 2. Even if abortion is criminalized at the federal level, such an unlikely eventuality may bring with it some pragmatic and political advantages, because it would create an opportunity at the state level to “experiment” with local solutions; and, 3. Presently, Democratic candidates must be afforded wide latitude on the abortion question by their constituents, because elected Democrats must find some way of neutralizing the issue come national/presidential elections.

Now, while it may appear as a truism that over the long term criminalizing abortion would result in political suicide for republicans, that does not necessarily preclude them from inadvertently succeeding in criminalizing the procedure over the short term. After all, sometimes events get ahead of one’s ability to effectively manage and react to them — I present exhibit A., the Iraq invasion: clearly the situation in Iraq has gotten ahead of the Bush Administration’s ability to contain events and, therefore, is now merely reacting to events on the ground. With some pieces of the puzzle already in place (i.e., Roberts & Alito, et al; a religious right movement that’s confident of its ability to influence the republican party and, thereby, the terms of our national debate; and, too, a Democratic Party establishment that’s been forced to take on a defensive posture on abortion), it’s not difficult to imagine how, over the short term, abortion may be inadvertently criminalized if a certain tipping point is reached — even if it comes at the expense of long term electoral loses for the republican party. The risk, once that tipping point is reached towards criminalization, is that it may be years — if not decades — before our nation and the political establishment are once again ready to reverse course. After all, it’s taken 30-plus years for abortion opponents to come as close as they are to steering our nation back to a time when the right to privacy was not thought to be a constitutional guarantee.

If abortion is criminalized at the federal level it’ll be left up to the states to formulate their own local approaches. Accordingly, rather than waging a one front campaign, if one can think of the federal abortion issue as a single front, we’ll be forced to mount a 50 front wide campaign in defense of reproductive sovereignty. Clearly, some front lines will be easier to hold, while others will be deemed too deep in hostile territory to hold on to, thus sacrificeable. Accordingly, as with all wars, whether hot or merely ideological, there’ll be some collateral damage, primarily inside of those territories thought to be sacrificeable. The question thus becomes, as with all wars, what level of so-called collateral damage are WE willing to tolerate? Understandably, the vast majority of the collateral damage will be suffered by the poor (women and couples), the less educated, and by those living in rural areas. However, aside from the tangible collateral damage that will be incurred by particular individuals, the criminalization of abortion would open the door to other, though less tangible, more offensive and corrosive elements to a free and open society. For example, since the criminalization of abortion would inevitably depend on a Constitutional finding against an inherent right to privacy, we may end up having to engage in new battles where privacy is concerned — whether the issues at hand arise from medical, criminal or employment related matters. The point here is that, clearly, the criminalization of abortion would come with unacceptable levels of collateral damage and, too, at a high risk of introducing unintended consequences against Americans’ right to privacy.

Sure, the states could each serve as a petri dish; wherein, the theory goes, locally tailored and unique solutions could emerge that, at long last, would end the national debate on abortion; allowing the country to exist under a 50 state consensus on reproductive freedom — each state with its own unique response to the issue of abortion. Of course, the petri dish compromise is contingent on the abortion criminalization pushers and on the right to privacy advocates honoring an eventual compromise. Because, clearly, once one side or the other breaches whatever compromise is formulated, the other side would be compelled to push back. Clearly, the criminalization pushers see abortion as an abomination and as being morally repugnant; therefore, any compromise that, in their view, tolerates medical abortions in even one of the 50 states will be interpreted as unacceptable and as unfinished business. Now, from their standpoint, they would be correct; after all, the end goal of those seeking to criminalize abortion is to totally and utterly end medical abortions in our country, period. Now, our nation has already endured — and not very well, I might add — one national compromise on an issue where, in fact, there was no compromising, let’s not forget (yes, that compromise: the Missouri Compromise, which split the nation). It is clear, given the rhetoric of the abortion criminalization pushers, that this is an issue on which there’s no compromise. After all, does anyone really believe that any sort of compromise can ever be maintained when those seeking to criminalize abortion see themselves, however delusional, as marauding abolitionists unshackling fetuses from bondage? Now, I don’t mean to suggest that we’re any where near the level of tension that must have existed when that first national compromise collapsed. However, just as the abortion criminalization pushers will not tolerate the continued practice of medial abortion in even one state of the Union; likewise, those of us that support the right to privacy and that defend our reproductive sovereignty should not be willing to accept any compromise that would undermine these core principles.

As for elected Democrats needing more breathing room on the issue of abortion from the progressive grassroots, frankly, I simply wish that elected Dems would speak candidly on the issue — without some consultant standing over their shoulders telling them how they should respond. As has been remarked over and over again, no one is for abortion; however, we should all be for the right to privacy, and for sovereignty and security over our bodies — these, of course, extend to reproductive our freedom. Some have dismissed and caricatured what, at best, can be described as the shorthand version of the grassroots-approved Democratic Party comeback formula:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog (DailyKos.com) – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party.  They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.  In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.  The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people.  From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. [ Sen. Barack Obama ]

While this caricature touches on the major themes that the Dem grassroots have been agitating for and calling on the Democratic Party to pursue, I think that it intentionally misreads what the grassroots is really trying to say; which, very simply, is: formulate a Democratic agenda that shores up the advances of the New Deal, be vigorous advocates for that agenda, and refuse to let conservatives/republicans define the national debate — yes, a’la George Lakoff, shift to a progressive frame and redefine the terms of the debate. What does this have to do with abortion? Well, unlike the minority that seeks to criminalize its medical practice, the majority of Americans support access to abortion; because Americans intuitively understand that abortion, in spite of the rhetoric, is about one’s right to privacy, and about security and sovereignty over one’s body. Unfortunately, because those seeking to criminalize abortion are dominating the debate and its terms, these core principles, privacy and security, are being left out of the national debate by elected Democrats. So, while I’m perfectly willing to give Dems some breathing room while they get their bearings, it is unconscionable for anyone to ask the American people to surrender our right to privacy, and our security and sovereignty over one’s body.

We all agree that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.” Likewise, we can also agree that those seeking to criminalize medical abortion by overturning and/or undermining Roe v. Wade present a direct threat to our right to privacy, and to our personal security and sovereignty; accordingly, our Democratic representatives must be expected to engage the abortion debate on these terms, and not merely accept the terms imposed by the abortion criminalization pushers.

Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)

The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ’92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).

[...]

In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.

This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:

"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.

Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?

As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:

There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.

Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ’08 the way they did in ’04.

Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.

Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.

In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.

I simply loved this line from Vendetta: People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people. Now, no one, of course, is advocating violence in any form, but symbolically, the dark hero of this movie is right on… for far too long we’ve been afraid of what we’ll be charged with: un-American, un-Patriotic, an opportunist merely seeking to position oneself for a presidential run in 2008 — think Feingold, and the shit with which his courageous and CORRECT stand has been met with by some that are still afraid (including elected Dems). At any rate, here we have a movie that comes dangerously close, given our times and the paranoia that still lingers in some circles, to advocating a storming of the castle, en masse… err, should I say, a Crashing of the Gates, as it were (and, frankly, it suggests that we, The People, do a lot more than just batting down some gates).

Now, aside from open advocacy of an up rise against an oppressive and un-representative government, bent on moralizing and hoarding power while those that hold key government posts profit from the failures of their own government; V for Vendetta also offers some provocative moments and more than a couple of touching performances by Natalie Portman (whom looks great with short hair or even wearing a baby doll outfit (see the movie!)).

Of course, as with any work dealing with a dystopia, at moments the movie falls short; but, I believe, specially if one puts the movie in today’s political context (and how could one not!?), there’s a lot in V for Vendetta that’s provocative and well worth the $10+ bucks that many of us will pay now days to go see a movie.

PS. I just saw this post, which covers some of the more substantive issues that V for Vendetta raises.