During this fall’s election, now-former delegate Dick Black got in the habit of intentionally mispronouncing the name of his opponent, Delegate Elect David Poisson, as “poison,” rather than “PWA-sonh.” He did this in their debate and on his advertisements. Black lost his seat to Poisson, and his childish antics surely played a role in that.
I’ve long been annoyed with rude Republicans who intentionally mispronounce the name of the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party.” They do this because “democratic” is a word that Republicans want very much to associate with all that is good and right, but want to separate from the Democratic Party. So they drop the “ic.” It’s a really rude thing to do — it reminds me of people who call President Bush “Resident Bush,” “Preznit Bush,” or “Bushit.” Mangling somebody’s name, or the name of their organization, is one of the most base and offensive things that can be done to them, and it angers me.
Because I’m not very smart, it hadn’t occurred to me that these two thoughts — “poison” and “Democrat Party” — are related. Happily, Daily Progress columnist Bob Gibson is smart, and he explains that this tactic isn’t just rude, but is backfiring:
Northern Virginia voters are intelligent enough to know that the name of Poisson’s party is the Democratic Party and that Republicans who call it “the Democrat Party” are intentionally mispronouncing the party’s name.
That has been a favorite little tactic of some conservative Republicans who think it funny to mispronounce proper names.
Many Northern Virginians consider such tactics, well, to be a bit of poison at the polls for those who insist on using them.
People who go out of their way to mispronounce a name may be saying more about how they view fairness and courtesy than they might realize.
Even in politics, language still matters and civility is still a part of the art of persuasion.
Those who read this blog regularly know that, in all political matters, I teeter between wanting to fight fire with fire and wanting to take the high road. This is another instance of that. On the one hand, I’d like to start referring to the Publican Party, or the Republic Party, because I’m fed up with being treated rudely by some Republicans in this regard. On the other hand, it’s a (vocal) minority of Republicans — though all of the leadership and most of the elected officials, in my experience — who do this, and it seems unfair to treat an entire party with the rudeness demonstrated by a minority of its members.
No doubt I’ll continue to vacillate. Hopefully, in time, the Republican Party will come to realize that this sort of nastiness doesn’t work, and the problem will self-correct. But I’m not holding my breath.
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2005/11/poison-democratic/
I think this is a silly complaint. The Democratic Party nominates Democrats to run for office, and “Democrat Party” is likely no more than an error arising from that fact. In any event, it’s hardly a corruption of meaning akin to Poisson and poison. Some Republicans may be too stupid to know an adjective from a noun, but this seems a major overreaction to them.
Actually, a lot of money went into deciding that people liked “Democrat Party” less than “Democratic Party,” and so “Democrat Party” was suddenly a staple in GOP talking points.
What Dan said. :) This is a tactic pushed deliberately, based on extensive research and polling. It is no accident that every major Republican figure says “Democrat Party” instead of “Democratic Party.”
Not sure I get the Democrat Party bit.
It’s not like “Demo-rats” (wasn’t there an ad insinuating that) or “RepubliKKKans” or anything stupid or outrageous.
Republicans are plural. Republican is singular.
Democrats are plural. Democrat is singular.
Republican Party.
Democrat Party.
Now it may not be correct, but I don’t see how the faux pax is somehow demeaning…
It’s demeaning because it’s not our name. It would be like if I called you Sha Kenney. “Sha” isn’t your name.
More relevantly, both “Democratic” and “Republican” are adjectives, followed by the noun of “Party.” If we’re the “Democrat Party,” then you’re the “Republic Party,” if somehow the noun form is more appropriate than the adjective form.
It didn’t seem to do too much damage to Tim Kaine’s campaign, as I heard many Democrats refer to Jerry Kilgore as Jerry Kill-gore.
This is not a problem of the Republican party. This is just a problem with people who do not take the time to put together a reasonable argument but instead throw out names like a bunch of children.
This is not a problem of the Republican party.
The fact that the Republican Party, as a matter of policy, deliberately uses an incorrect name for their opposition party is clearly a problem of the Republican Party.
The consistent use of ‘Democrat’ as an adjective is an absolute ‘tell’ that someone is an active, partisan Republican. I got a chuckle out of the fact that the Kilgore piece that came out the last weekend before the election, the one that was supposed to fool recipients (Democrats) into thinking that it was from Russ Potts, gave itself away right on the cover with the title “Official Democrat and Progressive Voter Guide.” It’s such an ingrained habit they couldn’t even ditch it in the interests of more effective deception.
I must have missed that memo when this policy was announced.
I think it’s like the “homosexual agenda” — you have to be really high up in the hierarchy to get an actual copy of the agenda.
I’ve used “Democrat Party” myself, but not with malicious intent, and I’m not on anyone’s mailing list (although I probably should be… those “homosexual agenda” and “marriage under attack” mailings are comedic gold mines). I’ve just never been corrected. Mostly it’s that “Republican” works as a noun and as an adjective, whereas “Democrat” only works as a noun.
I would be wrong to state or imply that all people who say “Democrat Party” do so with malicious intent. What makes language manipulation so powerful is that, when done correctly, it pervades the common vocabulary. “Democrat Party” isn’t quite there, but, at this rate, it will be.
I still think it’s silly. If people react negatively to “Democrat Party,” it should be because of the syntax error. And, no, the analogous truncation of Republican Party cannot be “Republic Party” because Republican is both noun and adjective.
If there was a memo on the subject, it never made it to me. But I tend to put people from the RNC off when they send things to me unsolicited.
As far as the homosexual agenda goes, that one I did get. I guess that makes me one of the caporegimes in the gay mafia. Now, should I be Tessio, Clemenza, or Pentangeli? Choices, choices. I’d be consigliere, but the toupees are always too bad.
And, no, the analogous truncation of Republican Party cannot be “Republic Party” because Republican is both noun and adjective.
The fact that it’s both noun and verb does not prevent the truncation from being analogous. Both “Democrat” and “Republic” are nouns, and both “Democratic” and “Republican” are adjectives. (“Republican” enjoying the benefit of being both noun and adjective.) Both adjectives can be converted to nouns by chopping off their final two letters.
Hence, “Republic Party.”
I take it you’re not a big fan of DailyKos, where terms like “Rethuglicans,” “ReThugs,” “Repugs,” etc. are used constantly. Along with constant use of the “F” bomb and other profanity. What do you make of this phenomenon? There’s a big discussion going on at DKos on this subject (use of profanity) right now. I generallly find it a sign of bad writing and lazy thinking, yet some of the most popular writers on DKos use the “F” word constantly. Thoughts?
Republicans are plural. Republican is singular.
Democrats are plural. Democrat is singular.
Republican Party.
Democrat Party.
Now it may not be correct, but I don’t see how the faux pax is somehow demeaning…
It’s demeaning because it’s a deliberate mispronounciation of the party’s name. Your pedestrian example of “Republican Party. Democrat Party.” demands I either start calling people from France “Franciards” or people from Spain “Spench”.
Or, maybe, just because certain syntax works for one group, it doesn’t necessarily mean it works for the other.
Frankly, I don’t even care about the grammar or the syntax. Good manners just says that you refer to a person or group according to their reasonable wishes. If I meet John Smith, who asks that I call him “Mr. Smith”, that’s what I call him. If he asks that I him “Jack”, that’s what I call him. If he asks that I call him “Scooter”, so be it.
Similarly, for groups, if my fellow citizens of African descent, ask to be referred to as “African Americans”, why shouldn’t I comply with that reasonable desire? If they don’t want to be called “Negroes”, why would I insult them by using that reference?
There are so many legitimate areas of disagreement as to how we ought to be governed, these insults of appellation are juvenile and reflect bad manners on the part of the speaker. Dick Black learned what his constituents thought about loutish behavior.
Lowell,
The difference is that in the case of the Republican party, they deliberately use the incorrect terminology pretty much 100% of the time in statements at the most senior level. You hear it from Ken Mehlman, Bill Frist and all the rest of them. I expect that kind of rudeness from the plebes on either side. But not from leadership.
Touchy, touchy, touchy. I’ve heard of sore losers, but sore winners?
I take it you’re not a big fan of DailyKos, where terms like “Rethuglicans,” “ReThugs,” “Repugs,” etc. are used constantly. Along with constant use of the “F” bomb and other profanity. What do you make of this phenomenon?
I do like Daily Kos,but I don’t like that aspect of it. On the one hand, I know that the site is written for and read by the faithful, so there’s less danger of offending anybody. On the other hand, it establishes a norm of disrespect that I’m not a big fan of. As I’ve said, though, I go back and forth. If I believe that President Bush deliberately started a war based on lies, killing thousands of civilians and Americans, then why waste time being polite?
Foul language isn’t a problem for me, so long as it enhances what’s being said. I find that constant use if it only serves to diminish the impact of those words, though. Which is unfortunate, because then when you really do want to make clear that you’re really serious or excited about something, you’ve used up all of the words that we use to indicate that.
As a follow up to Waldo’s point, the use of all those terms on daily kos are obviously meant to be jokes. On the other hand, the use of the term “democrat party” is meant to be taken seriously, the thinking being that tweaking the name will have some subconscious effect on people who hear it over and over.
How come Waldo, a heterosexual married man, gets a copy of the homosexual agenda and _I_ don’t?
As a follow up to Waldo’s point, the use of all those terms on daily kos are obviously meant to be jokes. On the other hand, the use of the term “democrat party” is meant to be taken seriously, the thinking being that tweaking the name will have some subconscious effect on people who hear it over and over.
You gotta be kidding me…
No, Shaun, I’m quite sure that he’s not kidding. He undoubtedly believes that. Sad, huh?
I have to confess that I probably have referred to you guys as part of the “Democrat Party” (although I probably more often refer to members of that party as “Democrats.”). Having gotten that load of guilt off my chest, I have to tell you that it never was an intentional slight, it just reflects a lack of awareness about your sensitivities on the point. So I side with JD and others who suggest you’re reading too much into that particular point.
As a Republican, I’m very relieved at the Black and Craddock losses. I’m not in either of their districts, but they present too big a target for you folks. We’ll do a lot better without them.
Nova, you simply don’t understand…. this is a conspiracy at the highest levels to slander, demean and belittle the Democrat Party (I got the memo)
Charles Reichley, a Potomac News columnist, does this gratuitously. It’sown o almost as is if he’s trying to come up with new reasons to write “Democrat Party.” I can picture him hunched over his keyboard cackling at his own brilliant wit. It’s pretty pathetic actually.
What’s the history/signifigance behind newspapers with the word “Democrat” in them. Like the “Fauquier Times-Democrat”?
I.Publius & Shaun,
I assume you guys think that the recent increase in the use of the term “democrat party” is explainable as a sudden attack of republican absent mindedness. On the contrary, as Dan pointed out three days ago, the decision to start using that term was a deliberate decision on which money was spent. Read George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language and you’ll see how subtle word choices can have major influences on how people think. The term “democratic” represents ideals in which all americans supposedly believe. “Democrat” is a term which, at least in the minds of some, is linked with anal sex, flag burning, baby killing, and lots of other bad things. I assure you these sorts of subtleties are not lost on the Rovians.