PrintIf you're the kind of person who reads this blog, you're probably already familiar with the churlish Republican practice of refusing to call the Democratic Party by its true name. Disiplined GOPers will instead refer to "the Democrat Party," or "the Democrat agenda." But yesterday on ABC 's "This Week," Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, whom Michelle Cottle recently profiled in TNR's pages, took this practice to a comically nonsensical extreme:
DEMINT: We can't promote freedom and democracy by repressing free speech. That's not the way to do it. I think people should be able to come together in associations and organizations and spend money to get their message out. I think that's going to promote the democrat process, instead of really what we've got now, is where you essentially give the labor unions carte blanche over our system, grassroots as well as spending.
The democrat process? DeMint has so thoroughly conditioned himself to avoid the label "Democratic" that he apparently now has trouble uttering the word even when it comes with a small 'd.' (ABC has cleaned up the transcript to correct DeMint's error, but I've double-checked the audio to confirm what I heard live.)
But, hey, if DeMint wants to use the same terminology to describe both the Democratic Party and the democratic process, I'm sure his partisan rivals won't complain.
COMMENTS (8)
The current fiasco with healthcare, and the related fiasco in Massachusetts, argue that the Republicans are correct. There is nothing discernibly democratic about the party any more, and calling it The Democratic Party is a crime against the language.
The current screwups are being responded to with the same pathetic excuses we've been hearing since 1968: "We didn't lose because we were wrong, incompetent, etc. but because the voters are too stupid and gullable to understand that they are being manipulated by our opponents, and to recognize that we know better what's good for them than they do." Some democrats.
The current fiasco with healthcare, and the related fiasco in Massachusetts, argue that the Republicans are correct. There is nothing discernibly democratic about the party any more, and calling it The Democratic Party is a crime against the language.
The current screwups are being responded to with the same pathetic excuses we've been hearing since 1968: "We didn't lose because we were wrong, incompetent, etc. but because the voters are too stupid and gullable to understand that they are being manipulated by our opponents, and to recognize that we know better what's good for them than they do." Some democrats.
OTOH, the actions of the Republic Party at the present day don't do much to improve the state of the republic.
OTOH, the actions of the Republic Party at the present day don't do much to improve the state of the republic.
Powell's first paragraph is itself a crime against the language. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. When the word modifies the noun "Party," it is an adjective and must be spelled and pronounced as such. Whether the Democratic Party's policies represent the will of the people or not is beside the point. Language is impossible without rules. We call these rules "grammar." When so-called "conservatives" violate grammar in order to make a political point, they demonstrate a radicalism that has more in common with history's Robespierres and Stalins than with Burke. Rewriting the rules of grammar to enforce political conclusions reveals a totalitarian mindset.
Powell's first paragraph is itself a crime against the language. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. When the word modifies the noun "Party," it is an adjective and must be spelled and pronounced as such. Whether the Democratic Party's policies represent the will of the people or not is beside the point. Language is impossible without rules. We call these rules "grammar." When so-called "conservatives" violate grammar in order to make a political point, they demonstrate a radicalism that has more in common with history's Robespierres and Stalins than with Burke. Rewriting the rules of grammar to enforce political conclusions reveals a totalitarian mindset.
What irony and rhubarbs said. Next I suppose Powell will accuse the British Labor Party of being insufficiently composed of union laborers.
What irony and rhubarbs said. Next I suppose Powell will accuse the British Labor Party of being insufficiently composed of union laborers.
Irony, no matter how you say it, neither party looks very competent at the moment. Because niether is - on its best day.
Rhubs, you make not like rp's grammar, but what about his point that y'all are going to give us healthcare whether we like it or not? OK, but November's coming.
Irony, no matter how you say it, neither party looks very competent at the moment. Because niether is - on its best day.
Rhubs, you make not like rp's grammar, but what about his point that y'all are going to give us healthcare whether we like it or not? OK, but November's coming.
That's "may not."
That's "may not."
butchie, RP regards Republicans like terrorists. In that whereas U.S. security is seen to have failed unless it defeats every terrorist, if just one of the terrorist's attempted attacks works, he wins. So to RP, the fact that one Republican won one election anywhere in the country proves that the Democratic agenda is unpopular. Whereas the fact that Democrats won more votes than their Republican opponents for the presidency, the Senate, the House, and all state and local offices in the last national election, to RP that fact neither validates the popularity of the Democratic agenda nor suggests that the people don't want what Republicans are selling.
When Democrats lose one state election, D ... view full comment
butchie, RP regards Republicans like terrorists. In that whereas U.S. security is seen to have failed unless it defeats every terrorist, if just one of the terrorist's attempted attacks works, he wins. So to RP, the fact that one Republican won one election anywhere in the country proves that the Democratic agenda is unpopular. Whereas the fact that Democrats won more votes than their Republican opponents for the presidency, the Senate, the House, and all state and local offices in the last national election, to RP that fact neither validates the popularity of the Democratic agenda nor suggests that the people don't want what Republicans are selling.
When Democrats lose one state election, Democrats are "arrogant" not to regard this as the repudiation of their entire agenda by the national body politic. But when Republicans get outvoted at every level of elected office nationwide for three straight years, then this is taken as evidence that their ideas are so popular that they need to make their platform even more conservative. This is an insane way to think about the electoral process, but it's also the conventional wisdom among conservatives.
As to the claim that the public doesn't want healthcare reform, well. Every element of the Democratic healthcare reform is not merely popular but very popular. The most controversial element of the reform -- the public option -- is "only" approved by 22 percent more Americans than disapprove of it. Yes, reform as a whole has become unpopular, due to a combination of a disciplined conservative campaign to lie to the public about reform and to the embarrassingly messy process by which Democrats have come to draft and pass the legislation. But if this were a plebiscitary democracy, the Democratic healthcare reform agenda would beat the Republican alternative in a landslide.
When you poll on substance -- do you approve of doing X -- rather than polling on the popularity of either side's weaselly PR slogans, the Democrats' reforms are hugely popular. I mean, who exactly is against using the free market to solve public problems, or against raising the bar of personal responsibility, or against dispersing authority to the states rather than concentrating it in Washington, or against reducing budget deficits, or against reducing dependence on government handouts, or reducing wasteful government spending? Republicans, apparently, since those are the hallmarks of the Senate healthcare reform bill.
Indeed, butchie, but only one party regards mispronouncing the name of the other party as an intelligent way to proceed in national politics.
Indeed, butchie, but only one party regards mispronouncing the name of the other party as an intelligent way to proceed in national politics.