"IC"-Y
The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg calls attention to a seemingly small matter that in one sense has to rank as no more than a footnote in the catalogue of damage wreaked by the Bush administration, but which also captures something about the president’s approach to governing that explains why the catalogue is so thick in the first place. Before reading his piece, see if you can figure out what Hertzberg is writing about from these quotes he cites straight from Bush’s mouth: “It’s time for the leadership in the Democrat Party to start laying down ideas;” and “The Democrat Party showed its true colors during the tax debate;” and “Nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for actually getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program.”
The ignoble legacy of dropping the “–ic” suffix in reference to the Democratic Party includes Joe McCarthy’s habitual usage as an insult and Bob Dole's caustic denunciation of “Democrat wars” (to which Hertzberg notes, “those were the days!”). No sitting Republican president has ever resorted to it before, and Hertzberg quotes conservative icon William F. Buckley as averse to using ‘Democrat’ as an adjective. But George W. Bush has followed where Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz led him.
Bush has often expressed mystification when asked about why the country has become so polarized. More than anything, as I guess just about everyone else but him recognizes, the main reason is that far more than any past president he and his top officials have acted as political partisans rather than leaders of the entire country. Whether it has been Ashcroft’s post-9/11 warnings against “giving comfort to the enemy,” just about anything out of Rove’s mouth, the campaign against Max Cleland, etc., etc., there’s a sneaky viciousness that emanates from the top down. Whatever the political utility of that approach – which is unclear over the long haul -- it obviously isn’t working as a strategy for successful governing. One of the first steps toward repairing the damage down the road will have to be restoring civility to the White House.
Comments (18)
Restoring civility to the White House? Certainly. But only after the crooks are punished and they and their business buddies pay back what they stole. They aren't just being rude. They are making a massive power grab and looting the public till.
August 1, 2006 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the lessons of the "Great War" was that it doesn't work if only one side is gentlemanly. One side fights dirty using every trick in the book. The other side finally gets into power and wants to show that they are "above" this so they go back to bipartisan governance. This means the conservatives get 100% of what they want when in the majority and 50% when in the minority.
What is needed is for the Dems to use the same rules that the Republicans have been using for the past 14 years, especially in the house and senate. They can become gentleman again after they have undone the worst of the past 40 years and the remaining guerrilla Republicans have been replaced.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 1, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've said almost the same thing many times and truly believe that those who play by the rules are at a distinct disadvantage over opponents that aren't similarly encumbered. Unfortunately there is also a structural or maybe it's a fundamental problem with the Dems playing by the same dirty tricks as the Republicans.
The Repugs are able to focus on one, narrow goal, the aggrandizement of the wealthy. This goal is very well suited to the use of dirty tactics. Dems are struggling for social and economic justice, a much broader set of goals which are far less suited to the use of dirty tactics.
The Dems must play the their strengths. This does not mean that they should assume that the Repugs will play fairly however. They must stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially since there is no freakin' doubt left.
August 1, 2006 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
We should call the other party the 'Republic' party once for every time they use 'Democrat. It isn't the same grammatically, but it does point out how absurd the whole thing is. A moronic tit for tat is not only appropriate, but perfectly so. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I would remind that assholes (and The Devil, BTW) love for their targets to engage with them when they slander, but they HATE to be simply laughed at.
August 1, 2006 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gingrich, back when he was stirring things up, "distributed to fellow Republicans a list of key words to be used when describing Democrats: 'sick, traitors, corrupt, bizarre, cheat, steal, devour, self-serving, and criminal rights.'" That's according to John Dean in his latest book.
I refer to them as Repugnants sometimes, but I wonder whether we shouldn't just call them Undemocratic? The Undemocratics? For starters, it's true. And it's probably more irritating to them for just that reason. They don't want to be democratic, but they sure don't want to admit it.
August 1, 2006 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since they oppose the "Democrat" party they could be called "anti-Democrats".
Or, we could point out that the pols that use "Democrat" are referring to something that doesn't exist and are clearly delusional.
August 1, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem when Bush says something like this is you can't tell if it's a smear or just a grammatical error. I mean the guy makes one wonder whether Yale really belongs in the Ivy League.
August 1, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone please explain what, exactly, it is about the phrase 'Democrat Party' (or any other use of 'Democrat' as an adjective) that is objectionable?
I'm not disputing that it is deeply annoying, just trying to pin down WHY.
I mean, the obvious comeback from a Republican if an opponent objects is to say, "What's wrong with using that word? Are you saying you aren't a 'Democrat'? Are you saying 'Democrat' is a bad word?" And obviously one can't answer "yes" without weakening one's position in the argument further. And anyway, it's true, members of the donkey party are 'Democrats' and there's nothing inherently pejorative about the word, whether as a noun or an adjective.
I realize it's a kind of rhetorical nod to Joe McCarthy, but it annoyed me even before I was aware that he'd pioneered it. And I'm sure the construction resonates as derogatory even for those (the majority of Americans, I'd guess) who are unaware of that history.
The best explanation I can come up with is that when uttered with a certain sneer, the word 'Democrat', whether used as adjective or noun, can evoke a bunch of other nouns that end with '-crat', all of which have pretty strongly negative connotations. Think 'aristocrat', 'autocrat', and -- the one which probably resonates most powerfully, even viscerally, with Americans -- 'bureaucrat'.
And therein may lie the rub -- Republicans love this offensive construction because it reinforces, even if only subconsciously, the long-standing Republican portrayal of the party of the New Deal as the party of heartless big government. And because it resonates in the same way with Democrats, who, however, resent that portrayal of their party and what it stands for, they resent the linguistic construction.
Am I wrong? I admit some obvious objections are possible. (Maybe it's all about the sneer and repetition, and the rhyme is irrelevant -- think George H. W. Bush and 'liberal'.) But if so, someone please explain why a perfectly inoffensive word like 'Democrat' can be made to sound like a slur.
August 1, 2006 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
rdf said: One of the lessons of the "Great War" was that it doesn't work if only one side is gentlemanly.
Ko-rect. Difference between ardent liberals and ardent conservatives is that the liberal gives the conservative room to speak, and the right to speak.
The conservative will kill the liberal to stop the speech.
August 1, 2006 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will it be considered uncivil for the Democrats to start indictements against the many, many Republican crooks who have held office or bribed those who did?
It better not, because that will be badly needed. Along with a few other things like enforceing the Labor Laws and Anti-Trust Laws.
August 1, 2006 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say it annoys because it is a deliberate error, like "Amerika", and implies little respect for the mentioned person or party. It is effectively an epithet, by substituting a label for the proper one.
It is the prerogative of a Party to choose its name, and altering that name is disrespectful.
August 1, 2006 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Francis Moore Lappe's new book "Democracy's Edge", she says that the divide in this country is not red v blue or liberal v conservative, but between those who believe in democracy i.e. democrats and those who don't i.e. anti democrats.
Those who believe in inclusivity are democrats and those who believe in exclusivity are anti-democrats. This was the difference since the beginning of our nation. The Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson & Madison and the Federalist or Royalist Party of Adams and Hamilton. "Democrats versus Aristocrats, Jefferson would later say.
Luntz uses Democrat because of the "rat" at the end.
I use Republic-in-the-can because of these jerks.
"Loyalty to your country always; Loyalty to your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain
August 1, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Also, there are a lot of bad laws that need to be repealed, some dating back to the Clinton Administration (I think due to Clinton's desire to be civil and appease big business). I'd start by reversing media consolidation. When we have a free press again, the rest will be easier. A standard and simple card check process for allowing workers to organize could be next.
August 1, 2006 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just ran across this little ditty, thought I'd plop it for the hell of it:
August 1, 2006 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In many ways, it's parallel to the way anti-semites use "Jew" as an adjective in place of "Jewish." The repugnance really comes from the fact that the only people who use it that way do so when they're expressing contempt for Jewish people. And similarly, "Democrat party" isn't used when expressing mere disagreement with the party; it's used to express contempt.
There's also the implication that the Democratic party doesn't support small-d democratic values.
August 1, 2006 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer, "Tighty Righties."
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
August 2, 2006 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
A big part of what animates Bush seems to be just pissing us off. He never misses an opportunity to slip in that little dig here, or twist the dagger just a little bit there.
He relishes it.
That's what the self-satisfied smirk is all about.
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
August 2, 2006 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Restoring civility HAS to begin with very aggressive prosecution of all the criminals currently in residence. Else, it will not last. (Note that I'm using Bush's current "lasting peace" bullshit for supporting Israeli aggression as our tool for prosecuting him.)
he and his top officials have acted as political partisans rather than leaders of the entire country.
Yup. Couldn't agree more. Stop me if you've heard this one:
;-)
GWB purchased a KFC franchise.
His restaurant will serve only right wings and assholes.
August 2, 2006 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink