Democrat or Democratic?

[gilliam]

On a final note, the Democrats really need to ditch the donkey as a symbol.

Actually, it has a noble history, see: History of the Democratic Donkey

Later, Nast [Harper’s Weekly] used the donkey to portray what he called “Caesarism” showing the alleged Democratic uneasiness over a possible third term for Ulysses S. Grant. In conjunction with this issue, Nast helped associate the elephant with the Republican party. Although the elephant had been connected with the Republican party in cartoons that appeared in 1860 and 1872, it was Nast’s cartoon in 1874 published by Harper’s Weekly that made the pachyderm stick as the Republican’s symbol. A cartoon titled “The Third Term Panic,” showed animals representing various issues running away from a donkey wearing a lion’s skin tagged “Caesarism.” The elephant labeled “The Republican Vote,” was about to run into a pit containing inflation, chaos, repudiation, etc.

http://libweb5.princeton.edu/Visual_Materials/gallery/nast/jpeg/nast1.jpeg
click here for a full-size view (709K)

“The Third-Term Panic,” Harper’s Weekly, Nov. 7, 1874. This is the cartoon that made the elephant and donkey the permanent symbols of the two major US parties.

We have two great parties in the United States, both with great histories. Sometimes that gets blurred during campaign season.

 

[gilliam]

It’s that ongoing question of whether or not ignorance is an excuse. For me, it’s too much of a stretch to believe that Americans, who have grown up in a nation of two political parties, simply make a mistake in the name of one of those parties.

Considering the wide spread and long time use of the term, I am not surprised at all. But once it is explained to people, they should indeed know better.

 

[PoliSciProf]

Perhaps a little history will help. In 1792 Thomas Jefferson and Madison formed a party which was called the Democratic Republicans. Over time, because of internal factions, it evolved into the Democratic Party. Jefferson was attacked by 1800 as a dangerous democrat, an athiest and a radical. “Democrat” was a perjoritive and seems to be so again in some circles. Democratic is correct historically. By the way, both modern parties can claim Jefferson as their own.

 

[rlg94086]

Perhaps a little history will help. In 1792 Thomas Jefferson and Madison formed a party which was called the Democratic Republicans. Over time, because of internal factions, it evolved into the Democratic Party. Jefferson was attacked by 1800 as a dangerous democrat, an athiest and a radical. “Democrat” was a perjoritive and seems to be so again in some circles. Democratic is correct historically. By the way, both modern parties can claim Jefferson as their own.

“Democrat” should be a pejoritive…I wouldn’t want to be called a Democrat.

 

[gilliam]

By the way, both modern parties can claim Jefferson as their own.

They can have him

 

[system]

1. 
   *]It is purposeful; the announcers do it because it is correct. Democrat is the noun, Democratic is the adjective.
   *]Some talk radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh like to speak of the “Democrat Party” or a “Democrat bill” as a way to mock the party’s pretensions. He knows it’s not grammatically correct, he’s just using wordplay to make the point that he doesn’t believe they are democratic at all.
   *]On this message board, mangling a party’s name to make a point is against the rules, but I think we can charitably assume most posters who refer to the “Democrat Party” or a “Democrat proposal” don’t realize it’s incorrect, and so are mangling it unintentionally.

1. 
   This thread seems so strange to me.
   
   Of course the phrase “Democrat Party” is meant to insult and belittle.
   
   I sugest that whoever does it, also use “Republic Party” for Republicans; “Liberty Party” for Libertarians; “Social Party” for Socialist Party. etc.
   
   If you’re going to be wrong, be wrong across the board!

 

[john1863]

“Democrat” should be a pejoritive…I wouldn’t want to be called a Democrat.

Well,

That was helpful and enlightening. BTW, smilies…what can I say.

John

 

[jman507]

I find the whole thing to be overly pedantic, and a bit stodgy. I guess it can be one part ignorance, but I’d think it’d also be another part that the two words are so close together, it’s a force of habit. Typically if you place in the wrong word, it’s not going to lead to any confusion.

I don’t really see how to add the “ic” or to not add the “ic” is every really a question of essential significance. If they help to govern well and in a way to the satisfaction of the people, the people will be happy with them. If not, the people will not be so happy. If any of those terms, be it formally right or wrong, will be thought of as a pejorative or a complimentary is going to hinge on that.

I suppose that if your a journalist, historian, political scientist, or someone trying to wright down a record of events then one ought to know the difference. Otherwise I wouldn’t get too hung up if someone uses the terms wrong, there are more important matters.

I can understand if you care about it, it can be irritating, but you don’t actually turn into the best apologist fighting those battles. It would be like telling someone they are wrong when they say after someone dies they can become an angel. Chances are there are more important concepts at that point in time to instruct another in, than trying to fight the battle of exact theological terminology.

Even if it is used as a pejorative, it’s better to blow it off and just assume it was said with the best of intentions. There is a good chance no one else realizes what was done, if it was said as a pejorative. In that case, it was also done to through you off your equilibrium to get you from trying to do anything positive. If you start arguing about it, people will just look at you and think, “who cares. This really doesn’t address any questions as to why should I follow that party?” Nor does it even try to force you to look at common ideas from a different light.

 

[rlg94086]

Well,

That was helpful and enlightening. BTW, smilies…what can I say.

John

You can say…“oh, Robert must be joking because he used a smiley.”

Buy a sense of humor John.

 

[rlg94086]

This thread seems so strange to me.

Of course the phrase “Democrat Party” is meant to insult and belittle.

I sugest that whoever does it, also use “Republic Party” for Republicans; “Liberty Party” for Libertarians; “Social Party” for Socialist Party. etc.

If you’re going to be wrong, be wrong across the board!

Definitely. Except it doesn’t work for Republican/Republic. A member of the Democratic Party is a Democrat. A member of the Republican Party is a Republican. It just so happens that “Republican” is both an adjective and a noun, whereas “Democrat” is only a noun. Some conservatives are using that to their pejoritive advantage by forcibly using “Democrat” as an adjective. It doesn’t work linguistically…but it does tick off Democrats, which I believe is the intended effect.

As I taught my kids when dealing with toddlers…ignore them. They feed off of your reaction. By making a big deal about it, you are only encouraging the improper use of the word.

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t really see how to add the “ic” or to not add the “ic” is every really a question of essential significance.

If someone mispronounces your name, you correct them. If you don’t, and other people join in mispronouncing your name, a mess is created. An example of this is the title of the thread.

But yes, some individuals may continue mispronouncing your name even after you correct them. Making a stink about their clumsiness or rudeness (whichever the case may be) probably isn’t productive.

 

[Vonier]

The speech police descend immediately and all in the interest of charity chase the author right off her own thread.

Using the rules to bludgeon other posters into silence isn’t how I’d define discussion. Or charity.

 

[b_justb]

As far as the term “democrat” being used as a pejoritive. Do ya all recall this classic line from Casablanca?

Sam is asked about his loyalties, and steadfastly wishes to remain with Rick (“I like it fine here”). Rick is ultimately detached from politics.

Rick is also divorced from romantic associations and commitment. At the bar, a cute, infatuated French bargirl Yvonne (Madeleine LeBeau) confrontationally begs for his interest, but his alcoholic mistress no longer figures in his life:

Yvonne: Where were you last night?
Rick: That’s so long ago, I don’t remember.
Yvonne: Will I see you tonight?
Rick: I never make plans that far ahead.

Rick orders his crazy Russian bartender Sascha (Leonid Kinskey) not to serve Yvonne any more drinks, and then orders Sascha to call for a cab to get her to leave quietly and go home. Outside, the rejected, drunken mistress tells him: “What a fool I was to fall for a man like you.” After putting her in the cab with Sascha, he turns and sees Renault relaxing on the front patio terrace at one of the outdoor tables. The opportunistic police Capitaine Renault, who enjoys a social friendship with Rick, has witnessed her send-off. He resents Rick’s easy way with women and wryly observes that maybe his chances with the discarded Yvonne will now improve:

How extravagant you are - throwing away women like that. Some day they may be scarce. Oh, I think now I shall pay a call on Yvonne, maybe get her on the rebound, huh?

Rick politely calls Renault promiscuous: “When it comes to women, you’re a true democrat.”

 

[Digitonomy]

The speech police descend immediately and all in the interest of charity chase the author right off her own thread.

Using the rules to bludgeon other posters into silence isn’t how I’d define discussion. Or charity.

I suppose I qualify as one of the “speech police” you’re referring to, so I’ll say this: Until this thread, I have never seen anyone on this board find fault another member for talking about the “Democrat party” or a “Democrat candidate,” even though it’s grammatically incorrect. As I said, in most cases I simply assume the person is ignorant about proper usage, but it would be slightly rude to point this out unless it were an important issue.

In this case, the OP basically asked whether people using proper grammar were doing so out of ignorance or to manipulate perceptions. Not only did this confused understanding need to be corrected, the OP actually asked for feedback on her view of the situation. I’m puzzled why you would find fault with people for providing that feedback, especially on a discussion board where that is the topic of the thread.

As for the silence of the OP, unless you know more about her than we do, we simply don’t know why she hasn’t replied - she may not have had a chance to read this since her last post, she may have reconsidered her position, she may have decided to forgo posting until the holidays are over, or she may stand firm in her original belief but feel she has nothing new to add to the topic, and nobody has stated anything new that she needs to provide a counterpoint to. Regardless, her posts clearly show enough of a fighting spirit that I wouldn’t worry too much that she’s been “bludgeoned into silence.”

 

[Thekla]

As I said, in most cases I simply assume the person is ignorant about proper usage, but it would be slightly rude to point this out unless it were an important issue.

The thing is, I’ve never heard a Democrat refer to their own party as the “Democrat Party;” it seems to come from only the most partisan Republicans. Shouldn’t it be hard to imagine that only Republicans are ignorant of proper usage?

 

[Thekla]

The speech police descend immediately and all in the interest of charity chase the author right off her own thread.

Using the rules to bludgeon other posters into silence isn’t how I’d define discussion. Or charity.

As an official member of the speech police, there’s really nothing to discuss; it’s the Democratic Party.

 

[Thekla]

As I taught my kids when dealing with toddlers…ignore them. They feed off of your reaction. By making a big deal about it, you are only encouraging the improper use of the word.

That doesn’t necessarily work with bullies; generally if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

 

[rlg94086]

That doesn’t necessarily work with bullies; generally if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

Ah! I see you are coming around on the need to depose Saddam Hussein.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Saying the “Democrat Party” is done intentionally to annoy Democrats. As such, it is uncharitable and something we should avoid. There’s really no more to it than that.

Now, if you want all my Democrat jokes, you’ll just have to email me privately.

 

[Thekla]

Ah! I see you are coming around on the need to depose Saddam Hussein.

Yeah, that’ll happen.