by Andrew
"I didn’t do anything."
"I don’t care."
Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones, The Fugitive
Since I appear to have struck a nerve with my declaration I don’t particularly like either party, this seems a good opportunity to further stir up the commentariat. Or, perhaps, a chance for me to expand somewhat on my remarks to make them at least comprehensible to the reader, granting that I do not expect to change anyone’s minds regarding the subject.
As I noted last night in comments, I don’t really see a great deal of difference between the two parties. Yes, the Republicans are certainly setting some records at the moment, both in ineptitude and malfeasance, so I will be quite pleased if the Democrats take back at least one house of Congress in November. But I don’t have any great hopes for the Democrats beyond the hope that divided government will produce a little gridlock and maybe even some oversight of the executive branch. The Democratic leadership certainly doesn’t inspire any real confidence, and while the sight of John Conyers leading impeachment hearings against President Bush would probably be amusing, when the judge has already reached a verdict, the odds that the hearings will actually try to highlight all the facts seems slim.
Are the Republicans more corrupt than the Democrats? It certainly seems so, with Duke Cunningham already in the big house and Tom DeLay preparing to face charges in Texas. I’m of the opinion that the Republicans are currently more corrupt as much because paying off Republicans leads to better results than paying off Democrats at the moment, but it’s true that I cannot point to similiar Democratic scandals back when the Democrats controlled Congress. Of course, I’m not an expert on the history of Congress, either; I do remember Jim Wright going down for some scandal involving someone buying copies of his book or some such, and Dan Rostenkowski going to jail for his actions as head of Ways and Means. And I seem to recall someone named Jefferson who likes to keep $90,000 in cash in his freezer. But, as I said, I’m not an expert on these scandals, so I don’t have the grounding to measure them against one another to determine which is more serious. So I’m willing to stipulate that the Republicans are worse, if for no other reason than I have no brief for the Republican Party.
Anarch charmingly claims that my dislike of both parties is akin to a 1930s German declaring there’s no difference between the Nazis and the Social Democrats, a charming analogy. A rather silly analogy, but political discourse would be so dry and stale if we couldn’t spend all our time comparing things to either the Nazis or Vietnam. Really, I think the pundit industry would dry up and blow away if we couldn’t use those two. Of course, the analogy founders if it turns out that I’m endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress, as I have, but why let the facts stand in the way of a lazy analogy?
Let’s assume, for the moment, that the commentariat is correct that a Democratic Congress will be a paragon of virtue, never accepting a bribe, always giving the other party its chance to speak, never pushing through bills without input from the other party, etc. [Update: upon rereading, I clearly missed the mark here. My intent was to utilize a little hyperbole, but it comes across as snide. My apologies.] While from a good governance perspective that’s a good thing, and so I would welcome it, from a practical perspective the rewards at my level are not anything I’m going to get overly excited about. I’ll be pleased to see the Democrats take on the President about executive overreach (one of the reasons I’ll be voting Democratic in the fall). And as I noted above, if we get some gridlock it won’t break my heart, as avoiding more No Child Left Behind acts and expansions of entitlement programs like Medicare Plan D would be good things.
OK, so maybe I do care. (Ed. Way to stick to your guns. Hush.) The cynic in me wonders if the Democrats really are all that likely to be any better than the Republicans. Given that we’re stuck with a two-party system, however, I suppose I’d best hope that they will be, since they’re the only realistic alternative. Bring on the gridlock.
Politicians, in my worldview anyway, are all pigs at the same trough. Havings said that, I still think that the Deomcratic pigs are a wicked lot better than the Republican pigs. The Dem Pigs/Politicians have a different view of the role of Gov’t than the Repub Pigs/Politicians and that counts for a lot, IMO. Repubs seem to think Gov’t (especially the Fed Gov’t) is a bad thing in and of itself and I think this belief is the main reason they are so poor at governance. Look at the Katrina response or the effort to “save” Social Security if you need proof of this.
Also, I think you are overstating the views of your opponents when you claim they believe, “that a Democratic Congress will be a paragon of virtue.” If this is just hyperbole I think detracts from your argument rather than adding to it.
Competition is good, maybe some good ideas will gome through.
One party goverment is horrible. Divided government where the social issues get muted just might be a good vacation from the present.
this seems a good opportunity to further stir up the commentariat.
FOOD FIGHT!!
John Belushi, Animal House.
I think I would prefer widespread Democrat corruption to the current Republican version. Also, since the government isn’t going away, and its clear that the Republican’s big talk about drowning it in a bathtub was just that, talk, we might as well have the party in power be one that tries to be productive (actual policy analysis, w00t!), rather than destructive.
That said, I think gridlock would be preferable to either (think Dem Prez/Sen and Republican house). Seems like things went pretty well from 1994 to 2000 (other than the ridiculous impeachment nonsense).
As I noted last night in comments, I don’t really see a great deal of difference between the two parties.
Then you are not looking very hard, and have not paid much attention to American History over the last 100+ years.
Both parties share a devotion to the basic American values of capitalism. So I guess in this most general sense, there is not a whole lot of difference.
Things that would not exist had Republicans been the majority party for most of the 20th century: social security, minimum wage, labor laws in general (unions and wage and hour laws), EPA and environmental laws in general, FTC, trade regulation and consumer protection in general, civil rights legislation, abortion, contraception for the unmarried, etc.
I imagine the ACLU would have a lot more business since the Republicans over the years have sought to chink away at free speech and other civil liberties.
No difference. Right.
p.s.
Our two party system is not a result of ideology, but the cold mathematics of a winner-take-all system of governance. A party cannot last long unless at least some of the time, it delivers 50% + 1 of the vote. American history is littered with third party movements that are absorbed into one of the two major parties as a matter of cold practicality.
This tends to blur the ideological identity of the parties, but its still there.
p.s.
Our two party system is not a result of ideology, but the cold mathematics of a winner-take-all system of governance. A party cannot last long unless at least some of the time, it delivers 50% + 1 of the vote. American history is littered with third party movements that are absorbed into one of the two major parties as a matter of cold practicality.
This tends to blur the ideological identity of the parties, but its still there.
Andrew,
“The Democratic leadership certainly doesn’t inspire any real confidence, and while the sight of John Conyers leading impeachment hearings against President Bush would probably be amusing, when the judge has already reached a verdict”
I didn’t think it was amusing when Bob Barr, et al. did the same to President Clinton, did you?
I wouldn’t argue that historically Democrats are less corruptible than Republicans, but this bunch of Republicans in power seems to want to be off the scale in every bad way, including corruption.
dmbeaster,
That is not the way to convince Andrew, since he would likely support the repeal of the majority of the items you listed, especially the regulatory ones. It might get some traction with a Nader voter, but not a libertarian.
Let’s assume, for the moment, that the commentariat is correct that a Democratic Congress will be a paragon of virtue, never accepting a bribe, always giving the other party its chance to speak, never pushing through bills without input from the other party, etc.
Did any commenter actually express the view that the Democrats would be perfect, as opposed to just significantly better? Did not Anarch and Gary both already point out, in the other thread, that with statements like this you are excluding a lot of middle ground, a lot of run-of-the-mill venality that still falls far short of the epic power-grabs and brazen corruption of the present Republican-dominated government?
Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos!
Iām actually on board with you here. I agree with you 100% on the benefits of gridlock, and I actually hope the Dems take the House in November – but for slightly different reasons š
If they take the House, their antics over the next 2 years will absolutely guarantee that a Democrat does not get elected president for the next 2 terms. The publicized hearings, the cut-n-run resolutions, and the obstructionism ā the GOP 08 campaign commercials will write themselves.
There is plenty to hate about the current administration ā but the thought of a weak on defense Dem as the chief executive during the trying times to come is enough to keep me on this side of the aisle.
But please ā take the House.
Re: the Democrats being perfect; no one suggested the Democrats were perfect, my intent was simply to use a touch of hyperbole to note that I would still have issues with them if they were.
Dan,
Re: Barr vs. Conyers; I didn’t really follow Barr that closely because, while I believed that President Clinton had broken the law, it wasn’t something I was going to get overly excited about. With Conyers it would be more of a laugh so you don’t cry, because I think there are a number of areas where this administration should be called on the carpet, and I fear that Conyers will do so in such a clumsy and ham-fisted manner as to allow the Republicans to paint the hearings in a partisan light rather than seeing them as a necessary brake on the power of the executive.
Danthehman:
That may be, but then let Andrew defend a world without such regulation. The 1890s was such a wonderful time.
Libertarians have a fantasy that things automatically work better without regulation. Guess what — unregulated capitalism kills the free market; caveat emptor results in a less efficient marketplace, and greater costs; no labor laws results in ossified class stratification. There are very practical reasons why such regulation promotes a greater good.
Over-regulation in the name of such goals is also a serious problem, and creates its own inefficiencies. But eliminating regulation altogether creates a greater problem, which libertarians seem to overlook.
Andrew,
“With Conyers it would be more of a laugh so you don’t cry, because I think there are a number of areas where this administration should be called on the carpet, and I fear that Conyers will do so in such a clumsy and ham-fisted manner as to allow the Republicans to paint the hearings in a partisan light rather than seeing them as a necessary brake on the power of the executive.”
And except for a lack of other areas where Clinton needed to be called out on the carpet and the hearings being a necessary brake on the power of the executive, as opposed to a brake of the President covering up the power of his libido, where do you see the differences? If anything, the differences I pointed should make the Clinton impeachment appear more ridiculous, not less.
ack — missing a preposition after “pointed” in last sentence. Either “to” or “out” work.
Dan,
I’m sorry, I thought I had made it clear that I consider any notional Conyers hearings as markedly more important than the Barr hearings. Let me be clear: I would like to see Congress investigate this administration’s actions over the past six years. I would like them to do so soberly and as impartially as possible, in an attempt to balance the legitimate concerns of defending the nation against terrorism while still protecting the balance of powers between branches of government that has been allowed to sway way too far in the direction of the executive.
I am fearful that Conyers will stack the hearings and will play them as a political measure to attack the President rather than as a fact-finding mission, and that such a move will place the focus on the existence of the hearings rather than on their substance.
Like I said before, I don’t think the Democrats are angels; just that they are part of that overwhelming majority of people who would be better than the present Republicans in power. Partly this is because the Republicans are unusually dreadful; partly because some of their awfulnesses are connected to their ideology; but I also wanted to argue earlier that it would be politically disadvantageous for Democrats to repeat some of the Republicans’ mistakes. This isn’t an argument for the claim that they’re angels; it’s just that their self-interest runs, at present, in less awful directions.
I also think that the present crop of Republicans in power are sufficiently extreme that a lot of basically non-partisan policy people have migrated into the Democratic camp recently, and this makes the Democrats likely to be better on policy in the near-term. This, of course, is just a temporary thing, and I expect it to change when Republicans start to swing back away from the extreme right, but still.
Note: that comment took a long (!) time to post, and was actually written before any of Andrew’s comments appeared. (The ones that made it seem unnecessary.)
even if these weren’t “trying times”, i get the feeling you’d find a different groundless reason to stay over there.
By mid-afternoon on 9/11, even Al Gore said to himself, “Thank God for Florida”.
These are trying times – so I don’t need to go looking do I?
Comments are rather sluggish this morning.
Comments are rather sluggish this morning.
Too much to drink last night.
On Conyers hearings, even if they were set up perfectly (i.e,, non-biased investigatory fact-finding missions) the giant shrieking harpies bleating from the right-wing would claim otherwise, and I don’t think the news media is up to accurately reporting reality without falling for the right-wing spin (country needs to move-on, their opposed to fighting terrorists, etc. etc. etc.).
Waitwaitwait…so, you think that the sex scandal was the only objectionable thing about Clinton’s term in office? Me, I was much more concerned about this than what Bill and Monica did in the Oval Office with a cigar. So, ponder well for a moment why Democrats were not taken seriously on matters of national security and campaign finance after that little escapade.
but the thought of a weak on defense Dem as the chief executive during the trying times to come is enough to keep me on this side of the aisle
even if these weren’t “trying times”, i get the feeling you’d find a different groundless reason to stay over there.
Things that would not exist had Republicans been the majority party for most of the 20th century: social security, minimum wage, labor laws in general (unions and wage and hour laws), EPA and environmental laws in general, FTC, trade regulation and consumer protection in general, civil rights legislation, abortion, contraception for the unmarried, etc.
Most of the 20th century?
EPA ā Created by Nixon.
Civil rights legislation:
Radical Republicans (Reconstruction, tried to legislate against discrimination).
Warren (R) Court ā Brown v. Board of Education ā overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. Warren appointed by Eisenhower (R).
Woodrow Wilson (D) ā Racial segregation in federal employment.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 ā Many more D votes against than R votes against.
Civil Rights Act of 1965 ā Many more D votes against than R votes against.
Civil Rights Act of 1968 ā Senate (D) 28.8% against, (R) 9.4% against. House (D) 37% against, (R) 45.6% against.
Do we even need to discuss the Southern Democrats?
Todayās libertarian, seems to be a cool way to say āIām a right-wing statist who enjoys porn and dope and is not to offended by gays.ā
Slarti,
“Waitwaitwait…so, you think that the sex scandal was the only objectionable thing about Clinton’s term in office? Me, I was much more concerned about this than what Bill and Monica did in the Oval Office with a cigar.”
So you think there was impeachable conduct by the President (which was, after all, what I said) from this? Really? Can I see some evidence of this?
Do we even need to discuss the Southern Democrats?
You mean the ones who left for the Republican Party?
Todayās libertarian, seems to be a cool way to say āIām a right-wing statist who enjoys porn and dope and is not to offended by gays.ā
Which is one reason I attempt, with mixed success, to avoid all such labels.
You mean the ones who left for the Republican Party?
Byrd still had a D next to his name last time I checked.
Sorry, but the revisionist history surrounding Democrats and the civil rights movement is laughable.
Impeachable? It barely merited an investigation. Given the seriousness of what happened, I’ve been looking askance at that whole situation for nearly a decade, now, but my askance-ness isn’t accomplishing much. The fallout from that was two defense contractors convicted of passing secret information to the Chinese.
I don’t know which would be worse: that we were giving (or selling) secrets away wholesale to the Chinese with Clinton’s knowledge, or that all that happened without him having any awareness of it. One smacks of corruption; the other of a depth chart of incompetence.
The campaign money machine, though; I never understood why nothing stuck from that.
Gromit says:
with statements like this you are excluding a lot of middle ground…
But this is the way of libertarians. The muddle of the real world is unappealing to them. Libertarians swill gin out of the bottle on principle; civilized people drink martinis.
the revisionist history surrounding Democrats and the civil rights movement is laughable.
You think it’s funny? All those Republicans beaten by Bull Connor’s men didn’t think it was funny, son.
Todayās libertarian, seems to be a cool way to say āIām a right-wing statist who enjoys porn and dope and is not to offended by gays.
Where do I sign up? Any, uh, free samples available?
Perhaps now would be a good time to say: one of our practices here at Obsidian Wings is to avoid saying things about “Democrats”, Republicans”, and I should now add “libertarians”, unless we actually mean them to apply to all those people who identify themselves as Democrats/Republicans/libertarians/Bonapartists/whatever.
I got in trouble for this in one of my first ever comments on this blog: after Abu Ghraib, I said that Republicans (by which I meant: the ones in Congress and the administration) had brought shame on this country, and Moe lit into me. I thought he was wrong at first, but over time I have concluded that he was right and I was wrong.
hilzoy,
Look at it this way: it’s a good way to identify those who don’t actually have an argument to put forward.
I recently read that the Republicans gor their earlier reputation for integrity from the thirty years in which Democrats dominated Congress. Nobody would even bother to try to bribe a Republican in the 50s and 60s;there wasn’t any point. So it was in the interest of Republicans to have policy judged on national merit rather than local interest.
“Divided gov’t” as I experienced was divided in several ways. The division between Southern and liberal Democrats in the 50s and 60s was at least as important as divisions between Republican and Democrat. Divided government has become less useful as the Republicans have become more ideological and the Democrats have been forced to scramble for campaign money that conflicts with their prevailing ideology.
Tax cuts, defense spending, and inertia. I do not see the Democrats ever gaining a large enough majority to overcome Republican intransigence without some obvious catastrophic externality. The Republican error in the late 40s, 80s, currently was in attempting to dominate without the actual votes;without the franchise, you are better off emphasizing defense. That should be a lesson learned from Clinton health care. LBJ waited patiently, worked the margins, and was ready when the breaks fell his way.
That one might want sutures.
The claim “I like the Democrats about as much as I like the Republicans.” is not the same as the claim “There’s little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.” I like steak about as much as I like ice cream, but I wouldn’t claim that there’s little difference between them.
“Let’s assume, for the moment, that the commentariat is correct that a Democratic Congress will be a paragon of virtue, never accepting a bribe, always giving the other party its chance to speak, never pushing through bills without input from the other party, etc.”
Jeepers; talk about false excluded middles.
Gary,
Did you even bother to read the update, or did your busy little fingers scurry to the comment box as soon as you hit that?
OC Steve wrote–
“Sorry, but the revisionist history surrounding Democrats and the civil rights movement is laughable.”
Do you know what the history is? There were northern liberal Democrats who supported civil rights and conservative southerners who opposed it. The southern white voters who hated civil rights often became Republicans over this issue. I grew up with this. None of this is a secret. As a child I was confused by the fact that my father said the South was traditionally Democratic when my racist white friends were staunch Republicans and despised Democrats as n—-lovers. It didn’t take me long to figure out what had happened to the traditional Southern Democratic voter, nor was it a big surprise when Reagan went to Mississippi and gave a speech on “state’s rights”. I didn’t need Jimmy Carter to explain what that was about.
My amusement at the expense of libertarians (all perfectly fine people, with the exception of Tom Tancredo and millions of others) is that their realism regarding the imperfectibility of mankind is so perfectly affronted when mankind turns out to be imperfect.
Some libertarians (I mock, all in fun) say: Hey I want government to be run like a business.
Me: O.K. So you want government to be productive and do stuff?
Libertarian: No. I don’t want it to do anything.
Me: You mean, you want it to go out of business?
Libertarian: Yes. With one exception.
Me: Is it your exception or my exception?
Libertarian: All mine.
Me: Because I’m imperfect?
Libertarian: Yes, as I am perfectly well aware of.
My feeling about Randall Cunningham and Tom Delay (for example) is that, O.K., imperfection comes with the bi-pedal territory, but did you need to take imperfection to such perfect superhuman heights? Couldn’t your imperfection have been of the run-of-the-mill, imperfect sort like Jim Wright’s tawdry, imperfect imperfection.*
The odd thing about today’s Republican Party is that the human imperfection of corruption is so perfectly tolerated and realized by some of its denizens but the human imperfection of small d democratic governance wherein compromise and give and take and deal-making (yeah, I’ll include what you want in my bill so we can get some business done) is so perfectly not tolerated, as when members of the Democrat (there I go misspelling it again) Party
can’t even attend a stinking meeting in my public building.
The history of America goes something like this:
I won’t be taxed without representation. I must give my consent. The King is not perfect.
Wait a minute. Hey, I’m still being taxed. I didn’t give my consent. What kind of representation is that? I’ll tell you what kind, the imperfect kind.
Did I mention I won’t be taxed with representation either?
Perfect.
*I’m perfectly aware of LBJ’s colossal and perfect imperfections in the area of political corruption. I think it’s terrible that millions of people receive medical care under Medicaid because of his corrupt arm-twisting and deal-making when they could be affording scant amounts of medical care in
the free market in the perfectly imperfect world they lived in before LBJ.
As to Mr. Jefferson — off with is head. Put it in the freezer next to the money.
“Do we even need to discuss the Southern Democrats?
You mean the ones who left for the Republican Party?”
I don’t remember where I heard this, but it makes a lot of sense to me – we have had a three party system since the Civil War. The three parties have been the Dixiecrats, Dmeocrats (northern ethnic whites, union members) and Republicans. The Dixicrats have been in two long-term coaltions, first with the Democrats and now with the Republicans. In the meantime, the Democrats have done everything they can think of to run off their white ethnic, union memeber base. Now because of the coalition with the Dixicrats, the Republicans have been doing everything to run off their country club boardroom base. Except when they do something like thier wobble on immigration, to win base the boardroom base, which has been alienating the Dixiecrat base. This is the conundrum the party in coaltion always faces; it’s like having a foot in two baots and now it’s time for the boats to drift apart again.
“Did you even bother to read the update”
Yes.
“Do we even need to discuss the Southern Democrats?
You mean the ones who left for the Republican Party?”
I don’t remember where I heard this, but it makes a lot of sense to me – we have had a three party system since the Civil War. The three parties have been the Dixiecrats, Dmeocrats (northern ethnic whites, union members) and Republicans. The Dixicrats have been in two long-term coaltions, first with the Democrats and now with the Republicans. In the meantime, the Democrats have done everything they can think of to run off their white ethnic, union memeber base. Now because of the coalition with the Dixicrats, the Republicans have been doing everything to run off their country club boardroom base. Except when they do something like thier wobble on immigration, to win base the boardroom base, which has been alienating the Dixiecrat base. This is the conundrum the party in coaltion always faces; it’s like having a foot in two baots and now it’s time for the boats to drift apart again.
John T.,
“My feeling about Randall Cunningham and Tom Delay (for example) is that, O.K., imperfection comes with the bi-pedal territory, but did you need to take imperfection to such perfect superhuman heights”
My feeling about Randall Cunningham is that, while not the greatest quarterback in NFL history, he does not deserve to be confused with the former Congressman whose nickname he shared with a Doonesbury character, which always seemed a better way to refer to him to me.
Andrew: [Update: upon rereading, I clearly missed the mark here. My intent was to utilize a little hyperbole, but it comes across as snide. My apologies.]
I know a thing or two about that…
Anarch charmingly claims that my dislike of both parties is akin to a 1930s German declaring there’s no difference between the Nazis and the Social Democrats, a charming analogy. A rather silly analogy, but political discourse would be so dry and stale if we couldn’t spend all our time comparing things to either the Nazis or Vietnam. Really, I think the pundit industry would dry up and blow away if we couldn’t use those two. Of course, the analogy founders if it turns out that I’m endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress, as I have, but why let the facts stand in the way of a lazy analogy?
Contrary to what you wrote, my analogy* was neither charming, silly nor lazy. [Well, ok, it was charming. I’m cute like that.] It was overblown and hyperbolic, of course, but it was also to the point — and that point was in response to the following quote of yours:
Let me reiterate: no offense, but this is dumb. Mind-bogglingly, stupefyingly dumb. My response was a reductio ad absurdem to illustrate this, by picking the 1933 SPD (a party far to the left of where the Democrats have ever been) and the (1933) Nazis (a party far to the right of where almost anyone’s ever been); two parties who were ideologically distinguishable in almost every single detail except that of “statism”. If that’s your sole perspective, well, you’re in for a seriously rough ride.
Except, of course, that that’s not your sole perspective, which is one of the reasons I risked being so, um, bracingly direct. I know you’re capable of distinguishing between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and assigning moral valuations thereto — you’ve done it innumerable times, not least of which is in the present OP — which is what flabbergasted me in re the previous statement. Of course they’re both “statist”; I’m quite literally not aware of a single government or meaningful political party in the entire course of human history which was anything but, especially if you buy into the standard libertarian construction. [I don’t, but that’s a convo for another time.] Finding a “non-statist” government would be like finding an atheist vicar or a Marxist CFO; it’s conceivable, but so close to a contradiction in terms as to render it all but impossible. If you’re going to look at the state of American politics and judge “wins” and “losses” purely by statism then yes, by that self-same logic you’re denying yourself the ability to make the kinds of distinctions that would allow one to vote for fiscal responsibility, for a sensible foreign policy, for cleaner and more responsible government (viz. the passage cited above), or for (reductio’ing) the SDP against the Nazis.
I repeat: that’s dumb. It’s also contravened by damn near everything I’ve read of yours except when you’re engaging in direct comparisons of Democrats and Republicans. You don’t have to like the Democrats — hell, I don’t like them most of them time and I’ve voted the straight Democratic ticket in almost election I’ve been eligible for — you just have to acknowledge (as you do in the breach) that the Republicans winning in 2006 and 2008 would be a loss for the country while the Democrats winning, suboptimal though that outcome might be in the grander scheme of things, wouldn’t be.
* I’ll have to go to the judges on this one, but I’m fairly sure that a comment beginning “You sound like…” is a direct comparison, not an analogy. Trivial point, I know, but where’s the fun if we can’t come to hammerblows over trivialities?
” and Moe lit in to me. I thought he was wrong at first. But over time, I’ve concluded that he was right and I was wrong.”
Then he changed his mind. Now he’s right and everyone else, but especially you, is (are) wrong. š
As to generalization, I’m (I’m not referring to anyone in particular) remiss in not pointing out that when I use terms of ideology or party affiliation, I’m not talking necessarily about everyone here.
Especially here, the place of moderate discussion in the blogosphere, otherwise referred to by the rest of the blogosphere in general terms as hypocrisy.
But, if generalization is so bad, why the draconian efforts over the past 35 years by the Republican Party (by which I’m not referring to anyone in particular) to enforce generalized party discipline and to oust even moderate Republicans (by which I’m not referring to anyone in particular).
Question: When Sebastian (by which I’m not referring to anyone in particular) refers to the “Democrat” Party, what generality ( I hate to generalize about generality) is being referred to?
Anarch,
I get to be dumb. I’m a CDAT; it’s in my contract.
I am interested by the fact nobody seems to have noticed that, in the last paragraph, I note that I have convinced myself of the thing I was arguing against.
Ah, but John: you appear to be under the mistaken impression that you belong to the “people”, or “commenters”, or “everyone”, to whom the rules apply; whereas in fact, by having such a stellar record of successful gonzo commenting (as opposed to mere attempts at gonzo commenting, which are much more frequent — it’s sort of like undergrads who try to write like Nietzsche; attempts are alas much more common than success) that (Nietzsche again — why does he keep popping up?) you are free to sin boldly, and to hell with sklavenmoral*. The normal rules don’t apply to you.
Some of them, at least. We won’t tell you which. Transgress the wrong ones, and it’s down into the oubliette.
(*I cribbed that phrase from somewhere.)
John, they like to say “Democrat Party” because they think it makes people consider them illiterate — a virtue in some quarters.
Related: as everyone knows, Democratic Party can almost never be used as the subject in a sentence.
Dantheman:
If I called him “Duke”, John Wayne would rise from his grave and tell me I was generalizing.
Thanks for the correction. Not all quarterbacks are corrupt. I want to make that clear, though John Elway is a Republican, but I think that is a personal problem.
Incidentally, I hate to generalize, but I don’t believe in the perfectability of mankind, either. And I mean that personally.;)
I get to be dumb. I’m a CDAT; it’s in my contract.
Dammit. I’m only dumb at an amateur level; sure, it maintains my Olympic qualifications but I’d really like to parlay it into a career, y’know?
I am interested by the fact nobody seems to have noticed that, in the last paragraph, I note that I have convinced myself of the thing I was arguing against.
I wasn’t sure that you had, actually, so, um…. yay?
You’re a Climate Data Analysis Tool? You’ve just destroyed my whole picture of you.
I never thought of you as a tool, I swear.
I wasn’t sure that you had
Judging from the commentary, you’re far from alone.
You’re a Climate Data Analysis Tool?
Um…no.
one of our practices here at Obsidian Wings is to avoid saying things about “Democrats”, Republicans”, and I should now add “libertarians”, unless we actually mean them to apply to all those people who identify themselves as Democrats/Republicans/libertarians/Bonapartists/whatever.
I’ve always found this to be a rather silly policy (and the various responses it begets, usually involving references to old Johnny Carson routines and huffy accusations of “mind-reading,” to be similarly absurd). There is a Republican Party and a Democratic Party in this country, and they both have official stances on a host of issues which the vast majority of their respective candidates support to some extent or another, and it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize those positions as the positions of “Republicans” and “Democrats” in general. If in the midst of a critique of Republican foreign policy I make the claim that “Republicans supported the invasion of Iraq,” I don’t expect anyone to argue in good faith that I’ve grossly mischaracterized Republicans because of the existence of Lincoln Chafee. The standard you’re holding forth here makes it more or less impossible to ascribe any trait to Republicans or Democrats whatsoever, and renders the very labels meaningless.
Christmas,
I think the intent is to discourage commentary of the ‘X thinks this, therefore you think this’ variety, rather than to deny people the ability to point out that the official stance of the Republican Party is X.
Christmas: just think of it as a way of asking people to identify the people they’re speaking of clearly. Either that or a way of avoiding the sorts of misapprehensions that lead to needless vitriol.
Generally speaking, I think she’s on to me.
I spent my formative years in an oubliette;
I prefer the echo here.
As a linguistic aside, one of the problems is that English has (at least) two implicit universal-ish quantifiers which mangles things rather considerably when you read a sentence using the wrong one. Something like “Republicans supported the war” could interpreted in a bunch of different ways depending on context, some of which would be true and some of which wouldn’t be true, and while it’d be nice if everyone took the most charitable interpretation, it’s nicer (if more frustrating) to simply write more accurately in the first place.
Slartibartfast —
Followed your reference to a wikipedia article on Chinese espionage. It starts with a Chinese test in May 1995 of a nuclear warhead that was allegedly based on stolen US designs.
Assuming it’s all true, the key espionage presumably occurred some years before (you don’t run up a nuclear weapon over a long weekend). And indeed, the 2nd paragraph notes that “According to the report, the information was stolen via an espionage campaign that stretched from the late 1970s through the mid-1990s.”
Bill Clinton only took office in January 1993, so it’s more likely than not that the designs were stolen under Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush.
Of course, the Chinese spy on us. (Who else would they spy on? The Finns, for cell-phone designs?) And sometimes they succeed, which is bad. But whatever broad-brush conclusions you’d draw about it presumably apply to Messrs. Reagan and Bush as well.
OC Steve — “the thought of a weak on defense Dem as the chief executive during the trying times to come is enough to keep me on this side of the aisle”
Hasn’t it registered with you yet that there’s more than one way to be weak on defense? The current Bush administration has been terribly weak … half-hearted, unfocused, unwilling to sacrifice, so entranced by by moonbeam dreams as to ignore the world around them. You know, all the ugly things people say about academics.
Realistically, how could a Gore (or Kerry) admministration have done worse?
*Cribbed from von
but the thought of a weak on defense Dem as the chief executive during the trying times to come is enough to keep me on this side of the aisle.
Stepping out in a sec, but define “weak on defense”.
But there’s value in the ability to make ideological generalizations about ideologically like-minded groups (in this case, political parties). For example, Andrew in this post is making the claim that there isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans (although as far as I can tell he’s not exactly making that claim all that full-throatedly); it seems to me there’s no way to respond to an argument like this without making generalizations of this sort. If someone tries to use the Republican Party’s very well-known stances on foreign policy to smear an individual commenter, then you step in and complain. You don’t say it’s not true that “Republicans support X” if X is in the party platform and 90% of elected GOP representatives support X.
“According to the report, the information was stolen via an espionage campaign that stretched from the late 1970s through the mid-1990s.”
Yep. Keep reading; you’ll find that key things were stolen in the mid-1990s, and that certain folks in government became aware of it, and that no one seemed to think it was important enough to tell the President, or discuss it with China. If you buy the official story, anyway. Not saying it’s untrue, just that if true it represents an astonishing negligence.
That’s only a piece of it, though. I know it’s a lot of stuff to read, but keep reading. There’s lots of footnotes, too, but I expect that at least some of them are broken by now.
It has been said that the Law is a Crucible; pouring opposing elements into a pulverizer, heating till it boils, and looking at the result as possibly being the “truth.” We all know deep down this is not what really happens. But it is a way to go about it.
The two party system is the same. We have opposing views about how to run government. Is it best that one control all branches? No, because then they will run amok. If one branch, theoretically with equal control, opposes the methodology of another branch, and they “fight it out” perhaps we will have a system that is better. That is why many feel that Congress ought to be run by the democrats, because they disagree with the Executive branch on how to run government.
In the past this forced bipartisanship has seemed to work to some degree. On the other hand, when one does not play by the rules, and goes outside the bounds of the process, it all goes to hell in a handbasket, and nothing works right.
The GOP has stepped outside the lines during this administration. The result is chaos. My view? If Democrats take control of congress, it will be all partisanship, all the time, with everybody trying to dirty trick everyone else out of power. No good result can come of that.
Perhaps it will be better if the voters got what they wanted all along——–a dictatorship. Then they will understand the REAL value of the two party system, and they will wish longingly for it again.
But I’m just exasperated. Of course I want the dems to win. Its the only alternative to Bush as King at this point.
I voted for Kang.
Both parties are corrupt by nature. It’s just that the repugs are such hippocrites about it. My last three presential votes were against the repug and not for the dem.
Robb: you only need to post once.
Robb’s comments are like potato chips.
OCSteve: Most of the 20th century?
…
Radical Republicans (Reconstruction, tried to legislate against discrimination).
Might want to check the dates on that one.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 ā Many more D votes against than R votes against.
Civil Rights Act of 1965 ā Many more D votes against than R votes against.
Civil Rights Act of 1968 ā Senate (D) 28.8% against, (R) 9.4% against. House (D) 37% against, (R) 45.6% against.
A great example of how to lie with statistics. Republican votes were instrumental to the passage of these acts, but to say that’s only half the story would be charitable. I think the Southern realignment of the past half-century has been covered pretty well by others, so I’ll just point out the raw numbers on these votes.
CRA of 1964 (which is what I assume you meant when you typed 1965):
More D’s than R’s voted against, but more D’s than R’s voted for, too. More D’s than R’s voted, period, because the Democrats were in the majority. The regional breakdown is eye-opening, too, as it makes clear that party affiliation wasn’t the most important factor.
CRA of 1968:
Same story. There are simply enough Democrats that they can beat the Republicans in both for votes and against votes. Also note that in the 1968 vote, the Democrats’ house numbers, which are far more representative of the population generally due to apportionment and term lengths, exceed the Republicans not just in absolute numbers but in percentages, too.
VRA:
This is where your “more votes against” cherry-picking is most misleading, since there is very little difference in the percentages between the House Democrats and the House Republicans on this vote.
This is all a long way of saying the idea that the modern Democratic party should answer for the sins of the segregationist faction of the Democratic party of the early to mid twentieth century is a tired and dishonest Republican talking-point. They were forced to either shape up or leave the party by pro-civil-rights forces some time ago, something the modern Republican party can only claim about the occasional loudmouth like Pat Buchanan.
The failures of one party (Bush/Republicans) does not say anything about the likelihood of success for the opposing (Gore/Kerry/Democrats.) All it means is that we get to roll the dice again and see what happens. Which I think would be better than the status quo, but is no guarantee of anything whatsoever.
And really, the idea that things couldn’t possibly be worse is naive.
I’ve always found the insistence of so many Republicans on using “Democrat” as an adjective and referring to the “Democrat Party” mystifying. On a certain level, I know that a lot of them do it to annoy us, and it does succeed–but not, I think, in the way they intended. It annoys me in the way that hearing adults use grade school insults annoy me: it’s not that I feel insulted, is that I feel embarassed that they have involved me in their display of immaturity.
It’s the Democratic Party. They are Democratic politicians. Changing the name by which you call someone in order to tweak them is about on the level of refusing to capitalize someone’s name because you don’t like them. In the end, it doesn’t accomplish anything except making you look illiterate and stupid.
I am an optimist and, therfore, think Worse can always get worse. But, you have to admit, the GOP have certainly pushed Worse’s abilities a great deal already.
“I’ve always found the insistence of so many Republicans on using ‘Democrat’ as an adjective and referring to the ‘Democrat Party’ mystifying.”
See Hendrik Hertzberg, among many other commentators on this, Catsy.
“Changing the name by which you call someone in order to tweak them is about on the level of refusing to capitalize someone’s name because you don’t like them.”
The problem is that individuals are Democrats.
It is a propaganda issue for both sides. A democratic process and a Democratic proposal have nothing to do with each other. In fact, some Democratic proposals are anti-democratic. Democrats would prefer that you think of all of their proposals as democratic.
Democrat’s proposal
Democrats’ proposal
Both are clearly correct. For the most part I suspect it is a lazy abbreviation of those.
Democratic votes against the Voting Rights Act, not democratic.
Democrats’ votes against the Voting Rights Act that at least makes sense.
As for usage–see the similar sounding description “Fascist”. A proposal by a fascist need not be described as a Fascistic proposal. It is the Fascist proposal.
See also “Feminist”.
Singular Feminist
Plural Feminists
Adjective Feminist
I find it interesting that at least one of the people here who professes to be so annoyed refuses to talk about “pro-life” proposals….
Sorry, are you actually arguing about what the correct usage is – claiming that ‘Democrat Party’ is more correct than ‘Democratic Party’? The damn party has been around for over two centuries, and it’s been the Democratic Party for both of them. If you’re worried about the possibility of confusion, the same exists for the Republican party. The English language incorporates homonyms, and hasn’t collapsed under the strain.
I’m not going to get terribly worried about it — as snide little attacks go, it’s an unimportant one — but it is beyond ridiculous to characterize Republicans’ usage of ‘Democrat Party’ rather than ‘Democratic Party’ as having anything to do with accuracy rather than partisan sneering.
It is a propaganda issue for both sides. A democratic process and a Democratic proposal have nothing to do with each other. In fact, some Democratic proposals are anti-democratic. Democrats would prefer that you think of all of their proposals as democratic.
No. It isn’t a propaganda issue for both sides. The distinctions you want to make are easily handled, in print, by capitalizing “Democratic” when one is referring to the party. In speech, context is usually more than adequate. If Bill Frist said, “I don’t think this Democratic proposal is a good idea,” absolutely no one would be confused.
snide little attacks go, it’s an unimportant one
Aren’t snide little attacks umimportant by definition? š
Personally, I am going to start referring to the GOP as the Publican Party whenever I hear someone say ‘Democrat Party’. It will be about as accurate. Quite possibly more so.
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.
The Harrison Ford quote was, “I didn’t kill my wife!” Five-tenths deduction.
“It is a propaganda issue for both sides. A democratic process and a Democratic proposal have nothing to do with each other.”
Sure, Sebastian: this is why Democrats are so juvenile about always insisting on referring to “Repubs,” because we don’t want to grant that a Republican proposal might be republican.
We also believe in treating people like idiots, both insulting their intelligence while we directly insult them by refusing to call their party by its rightful name.
Oh, wait: we don’t. Only one set of people are that rude and crude.
“For the most part I suspect it is a lazy abbreviation of those.”
You’re denying that Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich deliberately used a strategy of manipulating language? I’m willing to believe that you are ignorant, but now you have no excuse. Really. Truly. Right?
Yes, but Pharisee party would be even more accurate if referring to creatures like Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, and so on.
JP,
D’oh! I think I transposed Harrison Ford and Milhouse.
Maybe Andrew was right after all: Lamont is apparently the Al Qaeda candidate.
Lamont is apparently the Al Qaeda candidate.
o.O When did I say that?
Errrrr… you know, I could’ve sworn I typed something totally different. But I have no idea what it was. So, um, Andrew would have been right if he’d said that, which he totally didn’t, and, er, oops?
See, I think (I just about got away for the weekend, but since I started this last uproar ..) what we have here is three folks, Sebastian, Slart, and Andrew who are pretty much principled, sincere conservatives and/ or libertarians, who vote Republican from time to time.
It’s just tough to get an argument off the ground for many of the rest of us. You rage in from the storm of the rest of the blogosphere with a jones, or a stalk of celery, on regarding the latest outrage from Tom DeLay (nailed it, Gary), or John Gibson, or Frank Luntz and first, you need to answer questions like, “Tom who?” or “John Gibson, never heard of him? Plays third base for the Cardinals?” or “Republicans commissioned language manipulation by whom?” .. or in Charles’ case…
“My thumb in your eye. That’s impossible. I don’t have thumbs.” (that’s a joke)
But see, Gingrich, DeLay (yes), Gibson, and Luntz have other fish to fry. They are after the 5% percent of the electorate which give the Republican Party their slim, challenged majority.
The folks who are frightened by the bogeyman and can be sweet-talked. They’ve taken Sebastian, Slart, and Andrew for granted.
I, for one, am quite willing to be a Publican when there’s need.
Me too. But only if need is demonstrated.
Sometimes I’m Publican for myself, but I don’t like to talk about that much.
“You’re denying that Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich deliberately used a strategy of manipulating language?”
They used a strategy of manipulating language all the time. Politicians, ummm, do that.
I have two words for you. “Pro…Choice”.
Sebastian Holsclaw: The problem is that individuals are Democrats.
It is a propaganda issue for both sides. A democratic process and a Democratic proposal have nothing to do with each other. In fact, some Democratic proposals are anti-democratic. Democrats would prefer that you think of all of their proposals as democratic.
Democrat’s proposal
Democrats’ proposal
Both are clearly correct. For the most part I suspect it is a lazy abbreviation of those.
You’re missing the issue entirely. “Democrats’ proposal” is fine, since “Democrat” is a noun. The objectionable usage would be “Democrat proposal”, which uses the noun “Democrat” as if it was an adjective, which it is not. “Republican”, “feminist”, and “fascist” can each be used as nouns and adjectives, so “Republican proposal” is grammatically correct. “Democrat” on the other hand, is like “autocrat”, “technocrat”, or “theocrat” in being ONLY a noun.
“They used a strategy of manipulating language all the time. Politicians, ummm, do that.”
Sebastian, the point is: many Republicans, as part of campaign that’s been running for many many decades, denigrate their opposition by refusing to call the opposition by its actual name: the Democratic Party. This is a discourtesy not engaged in in any way by Democrats in return.
Do you deny this?
Do you feel that denigration is reasonable behavior? Do you defend it? Or would you say that Republicans shouldn’t do it? (I’d suggest that they shouldn’t on the grounds that it is childish and rude.)
What do you think?
Sebastian Holsclaw: They used a strategy of manipulating language all the time. Politicians, ummm, do that.
I have two words for you. “Pro…Choice”.
This is another question entirely. You can complain that “Pro-Choice” (or “Pro-Life” on the other side) fails to accurately describe the position in question, but there’s nothing inherently ungrammatical about it, and where these terms are used in the official names of organizations, respectful dialogue would demand that they be used, unmodified.
Whether respect is deserved is a separate question entirely, but it is inarguable that, as Gary points out above, Democratic politicians overwhelmingly give Republicans this minimal respect, and in return have faced a systematic campaign to deny them the same.
Wait, I thought Lamont was the Nazi candidate. Isn’t that why the Wall Street Journal gave him a Hitler mustache?
The use of “Democrat Party” seems roughly parallel to the Jim Webb campaign’s use of “Felix” to refer to George Allen, except that at least Felix is actaully Allen’s middle name and the Webb campaign hasn’t been repeating the joke for decades.
Many decades; as Hertzberg observes:
It’s so classy.
Anybody around with the keys to the blog? There’s a foul mess in the subsequent post to be expunged.
btw feel free to X the previous comment and this as well.
What should people be using in place of “pro-choice” that would be more accurate and less manipulating, Sebastian? “Pro-death?” “Pro-abortion?” Please don’t tell me you’re in agreement with those addle-brained notions.
It’s “pro-life” that’s the more manipulative and inaccurate usage, since in practice what it generally means is simply “anti-abortion.”
“Pro-Reproductive-Choice” would be bit more precise. “Pro-Life” is just a mess, though. To attain a similar level of precision, while avoiding the negativity of “Anti-” (which seems to be the underlying motive of this game) it would have to be something like “Pro-Human-Zygotic/Embryonic/Fetal-Life”.
Well, I propose a solution to the “Democrat” Party slur. And, by the way, Dick Armey was the guy who could imbue that phrase with special contempt. He even used it on Barney Frank.
Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to embrace the slur, as Richard Pryor embraced the n—– word, and Jackie Mason embraced the J– word, and various gay performers have embraced the f– word.
I am a proud member of the Democrat Party. Democrat Party member say to me, I’m going to open a can of wupp-ass on yo Democrat Party member butt, I’ll know we are brothers. Democrat Party member approaches me and claps his hands in a mincing manner and gushes, O.K., Democrat Party members, and one and two and three for the first act of “A Chorus Line”, I’ll know we are brothers, or sisters, or something. Democrat Party member addresses me as Hollywood, ACLU Democrat Party member, I’ll know we share more than circumcision.
Here’s the catch, though. Only Democrat Party members may use the word in speech and written form. All Republicans may not say Democrat Party member and when they refer to the name in writing, it must be D——- Party Member.
That way, Republicans can walk around for years afterwards whining about the fact that “why do they get to use political incorrect terms and we don’t. That’s not fair. We demand the right to use the n word and the f word and the j word and the d word, too. I mean, some of our people coined those words.”
It’ll be fun. Let’s try it in posting rules first.
That way, Republicans can walk around for years afterwards whining about the fact that “why do they get to use political incorrect terms and we don’t.
This is wonderful. I think we should do this.
That way, Republicans can walk around for years afterwards whining about the fact that “why do they get to use political incorrect terms and we don’t.
This is wonderful. I think we should do this.
That way, Republicans can walk around for years afterwards whining about the fact that “why do they get to use political incorrect terms and we don’t.
This is wonderful. I think we should do this.
As you can see, I’m quite enthusiastic about the idea. Sorry about the triple post.
All I know is that when I see some clown using the word “Democrat” that way, I have the urge to change my signature on Redstate to read: Using the word “Democrat” as an adjective doesn’t make you look clever–just illiterate.
Of course, that way lies a quick ban. But it would be fun while it lasted.
“Pro-Life” is just a mess, though.
I’m not sure I agree. The thinking, as I understand it, is full rights are invested at conception – that is it is a person with all the rights of you or me.
Of course the complication comes from most of the pro-life supporters who refuse to think through the implications of such a stance. Abortion is, therefore, murder and should be punished with death or life imprisonment for both doctor and mother. A fertilized egg that fails to implant is a tragic loss of life, therefore all sexually active women must pee into a cup and send it to a hospital, just in case. After all, a human life could be at stake.
Not to mention that their concern for using the state to protect life drops dramatically once the fetus has been born.
“Pro-Life” is just a mess, though.
I’m not sure I agree. The thinking, as I understand it, is full rights are invested at conception – that is it is a person with all the rights of you or me.
Of course the complication comes from most of the pro-life supporters who refuse to think through the implications of such a stance. Abortion is, therefore, murder and should be punished with death or life imprisonment for both doctor and mother. A fertilized egg that fails to implant is a tragic loss of life, therefore all sexually active women must pee into a cup and send it to a hospital, just in case. After all, a human life could be at stake.
Not to mention that their concern for using the state to protect life drops dramatically once the fetus has been born.
OCSteve
Sorry, but the revisionist history surrounding Democrats and the civil rights movement is laughable.
The right wing pretense that it has ever done anything in the last 100 years about civil righs is laughable. As if Republicans were doing something about civil rights before Democratic activism on the subject drove the southern Democrats to the Republicans, who were happy to welcome the racists into the fold. Byrd is still a Dem because he expressly repudiated his past racist ways. Those who wouldn’t bolted.
As if Republicans were pushing for enactment of civil righs laws in the 60s. It was basically a fight by Dems against southern Dems, who as noted then became Republicans in reaction.
The only thing you can cite on the subject that has any merit is the Radical Republicans post-Civil War, and that movement was then repudiated by the party within the next 20 years.
How many Republicans embraced the civil rights decisions of Earl Warren? Basically none? As if he was a beacon of Republicanism on civil righs. And lets not forget that the majority of the court that penned the decision was appointed by Democrats.
Nixon enacted the EPA? — he did not veto it, but did nothing to push for it. If Republicans had controlled Congres, it would not have been enacted.
dmbeaster, is, of course, entirely correct in this.
“Whether respect is deserved is a separate question entirely, but it is inarguable that, as Gary points out above, Democratic politicians overwhelmingly give Republicans this minimal respect, and in return have faced a systematic campaign to deny them the same.”
Oh please. This is ridiculous. Democrats give Republicans disrespect in other ways. Oh, by calling them “the US Taliban Party” or some such. Give me a break. But for the future I will use Democrats’ proposal so as to neither invoke the ever-present grammar flame nor play the into the silly propaganda that “Democratic” is remotely related to “democratic”.
What Democratic politicians have used the phrase “US Taliban Party”?
“Democrats give Republicans disrespect in other ways. Oh, by calling them “the US Taliban Party” or some such. Give me a break.”
No, Sebastian. This is an utterly false equivalence. There has been a deliberate campaign by Republicans for many decades to denigrate the Democratic Party by refusing to call it by its right name.
There is no such equivalent campaign by Democrats as regards the Republican Party. There never has been.
This is plain fact. Everyone knows it.
“…nor play the into the silly propaganda that ‘Democratic’ is remotely related to ‘democratic’.
What are you talking about? What “propaganda”? Why would you refuse to refer to the “Democratic Party” as the “Democratic Party,” or something from the Democratic Party as “Democratic”? Are you claiming that people are illiterate, and unable to understand capitlization? Surely you couldn’t seriously claim that?
And, of course, would you seriously assert that we should all start refusing to refer to the “Republican Party” or use “Republican” as an adjective, because to do so would be “propaganda”?
I can’t believe you’d say any of those things, since you’re not 9 years old. I respect you, Sebastian. Please don’t let me down here.
Can’t we all just agree that the other side is made of villains and rascals?
Why isn’t there a similar possibility for horrendous confusion of the nouns “democrat” and “Democrat”?
What Gary just said.
Chairman of the NAACP about Ashcroft (who before 2000 was regularly seen as a moderate Republican): “He knows something about the Taliban, coming from, as he does, from that wing of American politics.”
“And, of course, would you seriously assert that we should all start refusing to refer to the “Republican Party” or use “Republican” as an adjective, because to do so would be “propaganda”?”
Gary, little ‘r’ republican doesn’t really exist as a strongly evocative term in modern US politics. Little ‘d’ democratic does. The confusion factor is much less there, but if you believe it to be serious, by all means you should refer to Republican Party proposals rather than Republican proposals. You won’t get any problem from me on that one. Naming is often about propaganda. That should be rather obvious. Nothing wrong with it so long as we notice it.
You claim it comes down to what people want to call themselves. On this very blog, that isn’t true with respect to “pro-life” for a noticeable number of commenters, some of them the same people who are complaining about “Democrat”.
You say “Democrats’ proposal” is correct. That is what I’m going to use. What precisely is the problem? Are you suddenly against correct usage?
“Can’t we all just agree that the other side is made of villains and rascals?”
No. But I’m more than willing to agree that people who deliberately distort simple nouns and adjectives, and refuse to admit that they are playing games, childish games, in a way that one side does and the other does not, are such.
I can’t imagine a simpler and clearer issue than this.
We have two parties, both of whose names, when not used as proper nouns, and thus capitalized, are common adjectives.
Anyone who is literate, who knows how to write and read English, knows the difference distinguished in English by capitalization between a proper noun and an adjective.
This is not a fact there is any controversy about.
It would be hard to view anyone claiming otherwise as doing other than deliberately lying for political purpose.
No Democrat that I’m aware of has ever said “well, we can’t call those people ‘Republicans’! Someone might think we meant that they and their ideas were ‘republican’! We can’t have that!”
That’s a simple fact. Everyone knows it.
And any Democrat that said anything like that would be either an idiot or a liar.
I don’t believe that most Republicans are idiots or liars.
Not having done a survey, it’s never been my presumption that most Republicans engaged in refusing to refer to the “Democratic Party,” or to use “Democratic” as an adjective to refer to that which comes from the Democratic Party. I’ve presumed it was either a deliberate piece of provocation by activists, or occasionally an unthinking piece of usage by ordinary Republicans who’d never thought about it.
I tentatively assume no Republican is going to argue that most or all Republicans are, in fact, deliberate liars and distorters, deliberately prone to engaging in utterly childish behavior.
So I assume any honest Republican or defender of Republicans would agree that refusing to use “Democratic” is unbelievably childish and insulting, and not behavior any grown-up would lower themselves to.
Do I have any of this wrong?
“There has been a deliberate campaign by Republicans for many decades to denigrate the Democratic Party by refusing to call it by its right name.”
What is this ‘denigrate’? It is rhetorical distinction-drawing. Democrats (the people in the party) belong to a party that believes in enacting social change through the Courts in opposition to the democratic process by penumbrating (you won’t find that word in the dictionary) and examining or creating emanations. That, frankly isn’t democratic. It isn’t republican either, as it doesn’t respect the basic founding document of republic in question.
“Do I have any of this wrong?”
May I call your attention to the fallacy of the excluded middle?
Why do you think that is Gary? Is it because Democrats are unfailingly polite to Republicans?
Or is it perhaps because the term “republican” doesn’t have much independent political valence?
When what a party calls itself has political valence, are Democrats likely to accept what people call themselves, or play games with it?
I’ve given an example: “pro-life”.
Do you believe the general treatment of Democrats on the label “pro-life” is more like rhetorical distinction-drawing or that it shows that such Democrats are “in fact, deliberate liars and distorters”?
“Democrats (the people in the party) belong to a party that believes in enacting social change through the Courts in opposition to the democratic process by penumbrating (you won’t find that word in the dictionary) and examining or creating emanations. That, frankly isn’t democratic. It isn’t republican either, as it doesn’t respect the basic founding document of republic in question.”
What does that have to do with anything?
You can’t be seriously arguing that people can’t tell proper nouns from adjectives, Sebastian. I can’t believe you would honestly make that argument. I can’t believe anyone who isn’t illiterate would honestly make that argument.
You know perfectly well the difference. You don’t have any trouble, as a rule, telling the difference, as is perfectly obvious from your writing and we can tell from the way you reply that you don’t have any problem telling the difference when you read.
If I say that “my, that’s quite a congress of pigeons by that fountain,” you’re not going to believe I’m referring to the United States Congress.
If I point to some ducks in the lake, and say “look at those marine fowls,” you’re not going to be confused, and believe I’m referring to United States Marine Corps birds.
If someone gives you directions that say “go to Main Street and turn left,” you don’t get confused and object that that isn’t the “main” street in town.
If you meet a Professor, you don’t confusedly ask her what she professes.
When someone refers to the Civil War, you don’t object that it wasn’t “civil.”
When someone mentions the Dallas Cowboys, you don’t assert that they aren’t “cowboys” and that you’re going to refuse to refer to them by that misleading name.
I could run through a very long list of sports teams demonstrating this point further.
This stuff is covered in fifth grade.
You can’t possibly honestly argue that you and most people don’t know what a proper noun is. Please.
“Why do you think that is Gary? Is it because Democrats are unfailingly polite to Republicans?”
No. It’s because, demonstrably, only relatively few Democrats are so juvenile as to want to bother referring to, say “Rethuglicans.”
But if you insist this is legitimate, I suppose I could take up the habit when speaking to you.
I mean, I really can’t believe that you’d claim people can’t tell the difference between proper nouns and adjectives.
I’m still expecting a sensible response on this from you.
You surely must realize how much respect many people would lose for you if you seriously claimed most people can’t tell the difference between proper nouns and adjectives. Since that’s absurd, one would have to believe you were being intellectually dishonest, and I, for one, have never thought that of you.
The Chairman of the NAACP* is “a Democratic politician?” Really? What district does he serve, and who gets to vote for him?
*Who Sebastian does not bother to name and whose comment he does not bother to link to, strangely.
Democrats (the people in the party) belong to a party that believes in enacting social change through the Courts in opposition to the democratic process by penumbrating (you won’t find that word in the dictionary) and examining or creating emanations.
This, by the way, is nonsense. It applies equally to both major political parties and to neither.
Actually, if Sebastian thinks “the Chairman of the NAACP” is the proper response to KCinDC’s request for the name of “a Democratic politician,” maybe he doesn’t understand the difference between adjectives and proper nouns. I know a couple of good ESL courses he can take if this is the case.
Andrew:
“Can’t we all just agree that the other side is made of villians and rascals?”
What do you mean by “other”? š
As a proud member of the Democrat Party, I do believe from time to time social change should be enacted through the Courts, although I try to keep my bouts of penumbrating within reasonable bounds (I occasionally rearrange my vegetables and clothe my goats in Louis XIV Court garb, but that’s not a reason for alarm either.)
I figure from time to time the Courts should preempt the legislature when the legislature is grievously stupid by omission because the will of the people dictates we shall be stupid for a little longer (it makes no matter whether Zell MIller buys his ax handles from Democrat or Republican ax handle purveyors). In that way, the Courts also preempt social change by even more stupid means.
By the way, I’m pro-life, except when I’m not, like EVERYBODY, but there I go generalizing again. I’m happy to describe myself as such.
I will bet $50 that there was a meeting of Republican operatives, (late 1980s’ maybe) who decided the Democratic Party would be henceforth be referred to as the Democrat Party, of which I’m proud voter, by EVERY Republican candidate across the nation as a matter of campaign discipline. Years from now someone will mention that decision in his or her memoirs.
There is another $50 bucks that says there has been no Democrat Party operative meeting at which it was decided that Republicans should be referred to as the “Taliban”.
The Democrat Party is not that organized. We let people shoot off their mouths in any old fashion.
Betting and using my real name in comments sections. Bad idea, probably.
I missed this: “Ashcroft (who before 2000 was regularly seen as a moderate Republican)”
Wow, that’s completely untrue. Wildly. Ashcroft had long been seen as one of the most extreme Christian fundamentalist politicians, long before he even became a Senator. I mean, I could give about 100,000 pre-2000 cites on this uncontrovertible fact.
“You say “Democrats’ proposal” is correct. That is what I’m going to use. What precisely is the problem? Are you suddenly against correct usage?”
No. Correct usage is the adjective: “Democratic.”
Similarly, we don’t say “Repugs’ proposals.” It’s not correct usage, and it’s not grammatical.
You can’t just make up new grammar, Sebastian.
I can’t believe you’re seriously claiming that referring to the “Democratic Party” is “propaganda.”
Not even Richard Nixon stooped this low.
You can’t just make up new grammar, Sebastian.
I’ve had it up to here holds hand above head with your “rules”!
Forgot the cite.
Sebastian, if you claim to be pro-life yet at the same time rant about how your country can’t execute minors anymore — the description ‘pro-life’ seems not a perfect match.
And I remember the good old times when Americans would regularly tell me that they were NOT living in a democracy, they were living in a Republic. I think I gave up on trying to place your political labels correctly in 1999 or so. Democratic with a big D and Republican with a big R are the only ones I felt at ease with, since they referred to political parties. So on behalf of the furreners in blogosphere I’d like to petition for using the proper party names…
“And I remember the good old times when Americans would regularly tell me that they were NOT living in a democracy, they were living in a Republic.”
You live in an elective representative democratic monarchy.
We live in an elective representative democratic republic.
It’s not actually particularly complicated. Probably some of the confusion amongst Europeans comes from the fact that most of you are still living under constitutional monarchy, rather than being republics, and so the latter term is relatively unfamiliar to you.
I’m not aware of any country on earth that is a pure democracy. A pure democracy would have no elected representatives mediating, but instead all laws would have to be passed by direct vote of the populace. There is no such place.
Republic:
You are saying that “Democrats’ proposal” is wrong? That is the possessive of a plural noun correct?
“I’m still expecting a sensible response on this from you.”
It is rhetoric. It is really that simple. Furthermore, it tends to take place (when exercised by Republican politicians, at least in the examples that I’ve seen) in speechs where the capitalization issue doesn’t resolve anything.
Speaking of sensible responses,are you going to respond to: “Do you believe the general treatment of Democrats on the label “pro-life” is more like rhetorical distinction-drawing or that it shows that such Democrats are “in fact, deliberate liars and distorters”?”
I’m perfectly willing to conceed that the the term annoys you. I’m willing to avoid using it because it annoys you. I see the “deliberate liars and distorters” thing as a rather dramatic overreaction.
Gary: I agree with you. I tried to tell them that Republic alone is not enough to differentiate from Cuba – but I would still be told that I was wrong š and after a while it starts to be funny.
The problem I have with the US system is mainly how rigorous it is, compared with what I am used to. But we are far from the perfect democracy either. I think Switzerland comes closest – especially since they have full voting rights for women everywhere :^)
“Speaking of sensible responses,are you going to respond to: ‘Do you believe the general treatment of Democrats on the label ‘pro-life’ is more like rhetorical distinction-drawing or that it shows that such Democrats are “in fact, deliberate liars and distorters’?'”
No; it’s irrelevant, and I’m uninterested in abortion arguments.
Gary has covered the ground on “Democrat Party” extremely well. I echo his sentiments.
Fledermaus, “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” both suffer from the same problem: they elide the actual issue altogether. The problem for “Pro-Life” is that the fix is a lot more cumbersome, since it requires either a lot of verbiage or a lot of philosophical groundwork to be laid before the practical limits on the implied meaning of “life” become clear. Whatever we think on an intellectual or emotional level about a fetus, we still live in a culture in which human life is measured from birth, and the label doesn’t account for this in any meaningful way.
Sebastian, I realize I contradict Gary on matters of language at my own peril, but you are correct, in thinking that there’s nothing grammatically wrong with “Democrats’ proposals”. “Democrats'” is a plural possessive noun. But I’ll echo KCinDC’s question, why do you object to risking the appearance of calling the Democratic Party “democratic”, but have no problem with implying that a Democrat is a “democrat”?
“Democratic Party” is a name. You don’t go unilaterally modifying other peoples’ names without offending. To offer a strictly hypothetical example, if I, and all the like-minded commenters on this blog, were to start systematically writing your name “Sebasstian” would you not find this disrespectful and grating? Suppose we say it’s to keep people from thinking we are talking about some other individual, say St. Sebastian, or the crab from “The Little Mermaid”? Would you find this a compelling explanation? Suppose, in response to further objections that this deliberate misspelling is rude, we started griping about the epithets “Defeatocrat” or “Feminazi”?
“No; it’s irrelevant”
Well then, you have spoken, so let it be.
This would have been easier if you had said that you were preaching, I thought you wanted a discussion.
Sebbie-webbie: “I thought you wanted a discussion.”
No, I’m actually entirely uninterested in a discussion of whether you should call a group by its name, or an individual by her or his name, or not, as well.
I’m gonna slip out of my Birkenstocks and softly tip-toe to the mic. I’d introduce myself as liberal, but at the last drum circle there were a few ‘real men’ type fellas who didn’t want to hear gay political nonsense and they made it known. Most of the regulars are pretty understanding and sensitive to other peoples feelings, so we were able to talk it out before it came to blows. What a relief! Although I was hopeful we could find a resolution, I wasn’t feeling too secure–actually I was feeling pretty scared. Anyway (I can tell I need to bring this up with my therapist again), this is why I now introduce myself as a whiny liberal, as it makes everybody laugh…even the liberals.
Peace
OK, look, “Sebastian” is the name of a rather famous animated lobster who was the constant companion of Ariel, mermaid daughter of Poseidon, king of the seas. This “Sebastian Holsclaw” clearly is not an animated lobster, therefore I see no reason to call him that. Instead, I shall start referring to him as “Brocktoon.”
Oh, for heaven’s sake, Gromit beat me to that joke. I can’t be funny this early in the morning, people.
What is funny is that “Democratic Party” was a perfectly good name for, oh, a century and a half, until some Republicans — as Gary has documented via links — decided to start playing games with it for propaganda purposes. And Sebasstian thinks this is perfectly fine — in fact, essentially ignores it away — yet turns around and calls the Democrats propagandists for naming themselves that way.
Each morning, I think a little bit more that either a) I have gone completely crazy, or b) everyone else has.
“No, I’m actually entirely uninterested in a discussion of whether you should call a group by its name, or an individual by her or his name, or not, as well.”
To be clearer you are perfectly interested in discussing it when you can call the people who are doing what you don’t like “deliberate liars and distorters” but not interested in discussing whether or not people more on your side doing the same thing are also deliberate liars and distorters.
Exploring that would tend to either show that “deliberate liars and distorters” was rhetorical hyperbole or that your contention that Democrats don’t offer discourtesy through relabeling is false. It might even show both. The irony (if I dare to introduce another word fraught with peril) is that you now offer me a discourtesy which I have not offered you in the midst of discussion on how deeply insulting it is to do so.
Fortunately I’m not deeply insulted.
Summary
“Democrat Proposal” deeply insulting because what people call themselves is sacred, altering it is not ever a valid rhetorical device, Democrats would never do such a mean thing.
“Anti-Choice Proposal” apparently doesn’t exist in Gary’s world and certainly wouldn’t be used by high profile Democrats like Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein and/or it is a rhetorical device.
Sebastian: wtf? Democrat is a name. It’s a proper noun. The party’s name is the Democratic Party. And it’s been around for over 200 years, making it the second-oldest political party on the planet. “Anti-Choice” is none of the above; it’s a modern coinage, an adjectival descriptor that isn’t (so far as I know) part of anyone’s name. How on god’s green earth are you getting the two confused here?
The self-chosen umbrella name for Pro-Life groups is “Pro-Life”. It is an adjectival descriptor which has been adopted by a certain group as the proper noun name for that group. Precisely like “Democratic” in “Democratic Party”.
So you’re saying there’s an organization whose actual name is “Pro-Life”, and that Democrats refer to it by some other name when they talk about it? Then why didn’t you capitalize the term when you first brought it up?
I’m confused, is there an organization whose actual name is “Democratic”? I thought we were talking about the “Democratic Party”.
We are talking about the Democratic Party, and the proper adjective derived from that name. In what possible way is “Pro-Life” a proper noun or adjective?
I’m confused, is there an organization whose actual name is “Democratic”? I thought we were talking about the “Democratic Party”.
There’s a Pro-Life Party?
I thought we were talking about the “Democratic Party”.
Which Republicans frequently refer to as the “Democrat Party”. This is exactly what we’re talking about.
You know, though, it’s a stupid, petty, sneering rhetorical device, but has anyone ever seen anything that indicates it’s effective? Based on the historical record, I know it’s meant as a sneer, but it did have to be explained to me. I could have gone along for the rest of my life not understanding that it was meant as an insult, and I wouldn’t be surprised if voters who aren’t very into the inside baseball of it all don’t miss it completely. So, while Crabcakes is wrong to to imply that there’s anything correct or legitmate about Republican usage in this regard, I can’t get too bent out of shape about it.
Sebbie-webbie:
Wherever the Pro-Life Party appears on a ticket, or a spokesperson speaks for them, I shall most assuredly refer to the “Pro-Life Party,” and to their proposals as “Pro-Life Party proposals,” and to their positions as “Pro-Life Party positions.” For convenience, I’d be happy to shorten that to “the Pro-Life position,” and “the Pro-Life proposal.”
Of course.
“Pro-Life Party” would be a proper noun. On the other hand, when “pro-life” is a generic adjective, then, of course, it’s not a proper noun, and not referring to a defined set of people.
This really doesn’t need explicating. We all know how proper nouns and adjectives are distinguished, I think; it’s not an esoteric point of English.
“On the other hand, when “pro-life” is a generic adjective, then, of course, it’s not a proper noun, and not referring to a defined set of people.”
It often refers to a defined set of people.
The regularly call themselves “Pro-Life”.
Democrats very often do not call them what they call themselves, but rather use the term “Anti-Choice”.
Retreating to a grammar argument on nouns and adjectives doesn’t help you because you aren’t calling attention to grammar irregularities, you are calling attention to “deliberate liars and distorters”.
The stated basis for your reaction was
A) It is what Democrats call themselves;
B) Calling them something different was a Republican plot to influence usage;
C) It is a horrific rudeness not duplicated by Democrats.
I mentioned that it was a rhetorical device to draw a distinction between “Democrats” and “democratic”.
You seem to think that grammar rules can’t be bent for rhetorical effect, which is umm… ridiculous.
You also say that Democrats don’t do that to Republicans with the “republican”.
I mention that is probably not due to Democrats’ excessive politeness, but because “republican” is a term which has fairly little popular political valence as opposed to “democratic”.
Your response is… nothing.
I offer a term with rather noticeable political valence “Pro-Life”. I note that on a term with political valence, Democrats are rarely happy to use the description used by the people themselves, but instead refer to them as “Anti-Choice”.
Your response to this is to retreat back to the grammar argument while neither abandoning the stated reasons for your non-grammar reaction, nor acknowledging that those reasons apply to usage by Democrats.
I also note that you appear to be violating your own “rules” for rhetorical effect.
Since my point is that such rules get violated for rhetorical effect, and yours is that they cannot….
I mentioned that it was a rhetorical device to draw a distinction between “Democrats” and “democratic”.
Well, yes, and you did so by telling a lie — to wit, that the purpose of the Democratic Party is to enact unwanted social change through court decisions.
Is it seriously your contention that members of the Democratic Party are not really democrats, but people who refer to themselves as pro-life are really pro-life?
You’re also eliding the fact that the topic under discussion was how members of the two major — for all practical purposes, the two only — political parties in this country refer to each other in public; you’re the one bringing in the distraction of issue-driven special interest groups and what they choose to call themselves.
Can you find a single example of a highly placed Democratic elected official — let alone someone from a previous Democratic White House — referring in public to “Rethuglicans” or any such thing?
“the purpose of the Democratic Party is to enact unwanted social change through court decisions.”
the purpose?
If we are going to be hyper-technical about grammar (and apparently we are) we should say “a” purpose.
“you’re the one bringing in the distraction of issue-driven special interest groups and what they choose to call themselves.”
Yes I am the one talking about “Pro-Life”. I’m doing so because Gary’s stated reasons for freaking out over “Democrat” apply equally to “Anti-Choice”. At that point he retreated wholly to the grammar point.
Seb: there is a real difference. Suppose that pro-life people (or pro-choice; it doesn’t matter) decided to refer to themselves as “the people with the right views on legalizing abortion”, or “the wonderful people, whose opponents are sleazeballs”, or something. This isn’t a name; it’s a description, and it’s false. That’s our problem with “pro-life”, and it’s why people sometimes object to it: of course we’re all pro-life (except maybe Jeffrey Dahmer or someone); of course none of us (except maybe Jains) thinks that it’s always wrong to kill any life at all, even the HIV virus or tumor cells; of course, therefore, we differ about which life it’s OK to kill, and for what reasons.
“The Democratic Party”, by contrast, is a proper name.
Did you or did you not say this?
Democrats (the people in the party) belong to a party that believes in enacting social change through the Courts in opposition to the democratic process by penumbrating (you won’t find that word in the dictionary) and examining or creating emanations.
Yeah, you did. So I take it you’re backing off on that, recognizing that it’s nonsense.
I’ll wait for those quotes from Democrats referring to “Repugnicans.” They’ll be along shortly, I’m sure.
The term(or name) pro-life comes, direct from the factory, pre-packaged with an underhanded slap.
“Since my point is that such rules get violated for rhetorical effect, and yours is that they cannot….”
Yes. I tried multiple appeals to reason, and to being a grown-up.
The response I had been expecting, given your general sense, and the respect such sense had earned from me, was that you would have said some variant of “yeah, that’s a pretty lame practice, to refuse to use ‘Democratic.'”
But, instead, you’ve twisted and turned, trying to make excuses for the indefensible.
So I’ve, unfortunately, lost a bunch of respect for you, and turned towards playing by your rules, Sebbie-webbie.
It’s entirely juvenile, isn’t it? Makes you think “only a 10-year-old would do that sort of thing,” doesn’t it?
Then you’re getting the point. In which case, appreciate how it feels to hear it endless times a day, year after year after year.
Sebbie-webbie.
Makes you think less of the people doing that silly thing, doesn’t it?
“I’m doing so because Gary’s stated reasons for freaking out over ‘Democrat'”
It’s not particularly me; most Democrats find it extremely annoying. And I’m not “freaking out” over it any more than I did the day before yesterday, or last year, or five years before that.
I’m merely immensely disappointed that you would defend this utterly childish, inane, tactic.
“…apply equally to ‘Anti-Choice’.”
As pointed out to you, whenever it’s in regard to the Pro-Life Party, it would be a point that applies equally. Until then, it doesn’t. Proper noun, Sebbie-webbie: proper noun. That’s what we’re talking about: refusing to use a proper noun. It’s that simple. That’s the only issue. Attempts to obfuscate that and switch the subject aren’t relevant, and won’t work. Attempts to claim that adjectives are proper nouns, when they aren’t, won’t work.
Phil, I’m not backing off that statement.
The Democratic Party does in fact encourage “enacting social change through the Courts in opposition to the democratic process….”
You transformed that into “THE PURPOSE” which is rather different.
Hilzoy, “This isn’t a name; it’s a description, and it’s false.”
“‘The Democratic Party’, by contrast, is a proper name.”
When you name a political party you tend to do so with a description. See for example:
Libertarian Party
Communist Party
Peace and Freedom Party
Green Party
Nationalist Socialist Party
If you want to rhetorically call attention to a dissonance between the (descriptive) name and the beliefs of the party you can do so. You can do so effectively or ineffectively. If Gary wants to argue that in this specific instance, the rhetorical device is ineffective or silly-sounding, he is free to do so. He does not argue that. He argues that there is something particularly bad about not calling someone by their chosen descriptive name.
I needs must point out that if anyone starts arguing about “pro-life,” you’ve allowed Sebastian to derail the conversation off the point of the derogatory usage of “Democrat Party,” and onto a diversion of his choosing. Best not to fall for that gambit, I suggest.
Phil, I’m not backing off that statement.
The Democratic Party does in fact encourage “enacting social change through the Courts in opposition to the democratic process….”
Which parties do not?
If you want to rhetorically call attention to a dissonance between the (descriptive) name and the beliefs of the party you can do so.
So, in other words, you are claiming publicly that members of the Democratic Party are not, in fact, Democrats, and do not, in fact, believe in the principles of democracy?
If so, in what way is that different from me claiming that you have identified the enacting of unwanted social change via the courts as the purpose of the party? What other purposes do you think they have? Clearly you don’t think they have any democratic purposes if you feel there’s a dissonance between the name and their beliefs.
Sebbie-webbie, I don’t know if you are being deliberately ingenuous about how the Democratic Party got its name, or are merely ignorant.
Here is the basic story:
So now you know that claims that the party was named the “Democratic Party” was no more of a “propaganda” trick, nor a ploy of anyone other than the founding fathers, than was the naming of the “Republican Party.”
So you now know that claims otherwise are false.
Moreover, the Democratic Party was an offshoot of the Republican, aka “Democratic Republican,” Party.
If you have a problem with any of this, Sebbie, I suggest taking it up with Thomas Jefferson.
Facts aside, I’m afraid in some circles Gary’s previous post can probably be squleched through retroactive swiftboatation.
squelched
dagnabit!
“I needs must point out that if anyone starts arguing about “pro-life,” you’ve allowed Sebastian to derail the conversation off the point of the derogatory usage of “Democrat Party,” and onto a diversion of his choosing. Best not to fall for that gambit, I suggest.”
Is that Jesurgislac posting under Gary’s name? I didn’t realize that you were the final arbiter of what is important in all discussions. There are easier ways to say “I can’t effectively respond to his point”. I thought a major difference between Jesurgislac and yourself was that she played the “I can’t hear you” game.
What precisely do you believe the exposition of the history adds to the discussion of a rhetorical device drawing distinctions between “Democratic” and “democratic”?
The history of the Party name doesn’t change the modern political valence of the term “democratic”. Quick, what percentage of US voters would have any idea about that history? 1%? 0.5%? So what is more relevant to rhetorical usage? Things that the common listeners will understand, or things that only historians will understand?
This isn’t a discussion about ‘my’ rules. When you pointed out many months ago that “Democrat program” (or maybe “Democrat something else” I don’t remember) was incorrect and insulting to you, I stopped using it. I’m not annoyed by your usage of my name. I’ve been called “faggot” and “gay” by people who were actually threatening, so your usage really doesn’t sting.
I only noted it to point out that you find it appropriate to break the “rule” on usuage to make a point. You argue that such usage is out of bounds, yet you do it yourself–to make a point. It is like your are offering a proof that proofs are impossible.
And come on, “…hear it endless times a day, year after year after year”?
You understand exaggeration for rhetorical effect. You understand changing names for rhetorical effect. Maybe it really was just the grammar that set you off.
It’s a proper name. Bunches of people deliberately mispronounce it because they know it bugs some people. And because, in their circles, bugging people with trivialities, and appearing ignorant, are apparently each badges of honor.
Sebastian, your defense of this practice is really beneath you. No purpose is served by dropping the -ic other than annoyance: it certainly doesn’t competently express reservations about people who seek to vindicate their rights in court, rather than hope for legislative remedies when those rights are being infringed.
(I’ll expect that you advise your client that when someone breaches a contract with it, that it complain to the legislature, and ask for an appropriation to make up for the harm. No?)
You also ought to give up some of your bad faith argumentation. I believe, for example, that the Constitution prohibits states from granting marriage licenses to opposite sex couples only. You don’t agree with me, and that’s fine. What’s not fine is claiming that I don’t really believe this.
“Bunches of people deliberately mispronounce it because they know it bugs some people.” And far more people use “anti-choice” to describe people who call themseleves “pro-life”.
Which apparently bores you so much as to be completely beneath mention. Perhaps because it is not your ox being gored. This must be the empathy that Democrats are so famous for.
“I’m not annoyed by your usage of my name. I’ve been called ‘faggot’ and ‘gay’ by people who were actually threatening, so your usage really doesn’t sting.”
I’m not trying to sting you; I’m asking you if you agree or disagree that that sort of thing is nothing but inane and juvenile, and a practice that makes you think less of someone who engages in it.
I don’t think less of you. I think you are wedded to this particular argument and unwilling to talk about it. I suspect you think the same of me.
“Which apparently bores you so much as to be completely beneath mention.”
Possibly because it is an entirely irrelevant and separate issue.
It’s also tu quoque.
We’re discussing one specific wrong behavior. Attempting to distract the conversation away from that behavior is an unworthy debating tactic.
If you want to argue abortion and its language, I suggest that, since you have posting privileges, you make a separate post about that separate topic, and then anyone who wants to argue about the language of abortion debates can enjoy that discussion with you.
But if you’re disappointed that people don’t want to get distracted with your attempt to introduce a red herring into this topic, which is the juvenile behavior of modern Republicans in refusing to engage in the basic courtesy of referring to the “Democratic Party,” a proper noun, well, good.
However, it appears we’ve reached the point where there’s little left to be said. If you change your mind, and condemn that juvenile and inane practice of so many Republicans, good for you. I’ll think somewhat better of you again.
If you don’t, well, so be it. But the practice is indefensible, and attempting to ring in other topics, and tu quoque, is irrelevant (and lame). Beyond that, there’s little more to be usefully said.
“I don’t think less of you.”
All I can say is that I think less of people who think playing with, or making fun of, proper names.
You may or may not have noticed that since 2001, this has been on the sidebar of my blog:
This is not a new stance of mine. This is not a partisan stance of mine.
I felt strongly enough about it to put it up as my “First Fundamental” almost five years ago. It should hardly be a surprise that I’ve not changed my mind about this.
That should have been: “All I can say is that I think less of people who think playing with, or making fun of, proper nouns, is a defensible practice.”
Condi was on TV the other day saying something nasty about Hezbollah, wasn’t very diplomat of her. Of course, she’s kind of insidiocrat, so I understand. On the other side of the aisle, Pelosi was in San Francisco spouting far left-wing talking points, not very pragmat of her, though she can be a bit dogmat at times. But I’m kind of agnost about the whole thing.
Let’s see:
the Democratic Party has the right to be referred to by its proper name.
A. It’s the name, much as mine is Francis, not Frances.
B. Those who use Democrat party cannot reasonably claim to be trying to distinguish between democratic and Democratic — that’s infantile.
The Pro-Life Party …. doesn’t exist.
There are people who identify themselves as “pro-life”. Oddly, the only life that they (as a movement) seem all that interested in protecting is emplanted embryos. Also oddly enough, this self-identifying group of people were perfectly satisfied for years in being called “anti-abortion” “Pro-life” popped up relatively recently, and there is some evidence that the expression comes straight out of focus group testing.
So. I am a member of the Democratic Party. Commonly, I am called a Democrat.
SH is a member of the pro-life movement. Until, however, he demonstrates a somewhat broader commitment to life, it remains perfectly accurate to refer to him as being “anti-abortion”.
The Quakers — now that’s a group that’s pro-life.
Which apparently bores you so much as to be completely beneath mention.
Gary’s been telling you the difference repeatedly. Refusing to use the generic adjective with which a group of people choose to describe their views (pro-choice, pro-life) is a rhetorical way of expressing disagreement with the manner in which that adjective characterizes the associated views. Refusing to use an organization’s name because you believe it’s not entitled to the positive connotations of the name is a juvenile taunt.
I only noted it to point out that you find it appropriate to break the “rule” on usuage to make a point. You argue that such usage is out of bounds, yet you do it yourself–to make a point. It is like your are offering a proof that proofs are impossible.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘out of bounds’ here. Of course people do it. The point Gary is attempting to make (I believe) by calling you ‘Sebbie-Webbie’ (and, indeed, that I was attempting to make by calling you ‘Crabcakes’ above. Not sure what I was thinking — something based on the crab from the Little Mermaid and the ‘claw’ in your last name) is that it’s childishly annoying and stupid – something that is easier to perceive when one is being teased pointlessly oneself.
It is possible for Republicans to choose to taunt and sneer at Democrats generally by refusing to use the name of their party, and no more out of bounds than many other things they do. But it is peculiarly petty, undignified, and stupidly unpleasant.
Luckily, as I said above, I don’t think it has any particular effect among voters who aren’t paying very close attention already, and so aren’t going to be swayed. It’s useful to provoke hostility and contempt from committed, partisan Democrats, but I doubt it’s noticed at all by the vast bulk of the population.
I gather from the renewed lowercase that you’ve given up on the silly claim (at 12:43) that “pro-life” is a proper name.
I would think it silly and juvenile for any kind of official publication or statement by a politician to call Bush “Shrub” or “Bushie”, or Republicans “Rethuglicans” — and that’s never happened, as far as I know.
There’s a difference between a name and a description — and you still haven’t explained why you’re fine with calling Democrats “Democrats” when you don’t think they’re democrats. Why is it only the adjective that bothers you?
It’s useful to provoke hostility and contempt from committed, partisan Democrats
So it would seem from reviewing this thread.
He argues that there is something particularly bad about not calling someone by their chosen descriptive name.
No. He argues that there is something particularly bad about substituting a different proper name for the chosen proper name.
And BTW, the notion that this is a rhetorical device designed to convey the idea that the Democratic Party is not democratic is idiotic. Suppose there were such a thing as the “Democrat Party.” Surely the implication of that name would be that the party is made up of democrats. So the “rhetorical device” accomplishes nothing but rudeness.
If Republicans recoil at the thought of referring to the “Democratic Party” they have polite alternatives. These incude, for example, “the opposition party,” “the minority,” “the other party,” etc.
And, technically, since the Democratic Party doesn’t advocate direct democracy, can’t we argue that their name is somewhat misleading?
I really shouldn’t stir the pot, but sometimes you just can’t help yourself. š
“It’s also tu quoque.
We’re discussing one specific wrong behavior. Attempting to distract the conversation away from that behavior is an unworthy debating tactic.”
It isn’t tu quoque. You offer a number of explanations for why a particular (annoying at best, your repeated use of “indefensible” is an interesting rhetorical device) practice bugs you so much. I apply those explanations to a similar case which doesn’t bug you so much. I want to understand why the second case is fine while the first case is “indefensible”. I want to understand why the second case is indicative of rhetoric while the first case indicates that the user is among “deliberate liars and distorters”.
That isn’t tu quoque, that is trying to understand the contours of the argument.
You apparently believe that an appeal to adjectival noun-ness is sufficient to explain why calling someone other than their chosen description is rhetorically valid in one instance or indicative of being “deliberate liars and distorters” in another.
If that were really the case, the rationalizations about respect and the like would be completely uneeded. So, I suspect the actual distinction lies elsewhere.
“You apparently believe that an appeal to adjectival noun-ness is sufficient to explain why calling someone other than their chosen description is rhetorically valid in one instance….”
I’m apt to not respond again on this. You’ve had it pointed out to you many times that we’re discussing proper nouns, a name, not “chosen description[s],” adjectives. You are wilfully choosing to claim otherwise.
I believe I’m done. You don’t believe refusing to call an organization by its name is appalling behavior. A pity, for what that says about you. But that’s on your soul, not mine.
Lizardbreath: You know, though, it’s a stupid, petty, sneering rhetorical device, but has anyone ever seen anything that indicates it’s effective?
In a word, yes. From the Herzberg article Gary linked earlier:
“and you still haven’t explained why you’re fine with calling Democrats “Democrats” when you don’t think they’re democrats. Why is it only the adjective that bothers you?”
The general political valence of “democrat” is practically non-existent in US politics.
The general political valence of “republican” is practically non-existent in US politics.
If you felt the need to draw rhetorical distinctions between labels and their adjectival meaning, you would only do so with politically charged terms. You might do so with “Green” for instance, but you probably wouldn’t bother with “Purple”.
In lay usage, when people in the US talk about “democracy” or “democratic” they are often really talking about “republicanism” if you were to be super-strict about definitions. But “republican” doesn’t retain that modern usage for most people. So there is no need to try to separate “Republican” from “republican” because the adjective has no common usage. The term “republican” has no politcal valence.
The same is true of “democrat”. In common US usage, “democrat” has no political valence. If I were to speak the following sentence aloud, it would be nearly incomprehensible to the average listener: “The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are composed largely of democrats.” Even when written, many people would think it was a nonsense sentence.
Little “d” democrat just is not commonly used.
So a politician who thought it was rhetorically clever to cleave the name from the adjective wouldn’t bother to do so with a term that had no political valence. So when the claim is made that Democrats don’t offer disrespect to Republicans by changing the name, that is not because Democrats find such things abhorrent, but rather because “republican” has no independent political valence. With terms that do have independent political valence, Democrats feel free to change them.
“democrat” and “republican” don’t have particularly strong political valence. No one bothers to mess with them.
“democratic” does, some Republicans bother to mess with it.
“pro-life” does, many Democrats bother to mess with it.
Make that “Hertzberg”. Unintentional typo. Ironic, yes.
“You don’t believe refusing to call an organization by its name is appalling behavior. A pity, for what that says about you. But that’s on your soul, not mine.”
You are totalizing again when you say “an organization”. Do you believe that referring to a paper put out by the “National Right to Life” organization as “an anti-choice group says” is appalling? That is clearly a rhetorical device to avoid using the proper name of the organization. It is also very common practice.
Andrew: So it would seem from reviewing this thread.
For my part, it’s because I let this kind of petty shit slide for years — and now I and mine are (or at least were until fairly recently) called traitors for our pains. Call it a retroactive unslipping of the slope if you will, a post-facto preservation of a line that shouldn’t have needed preserving in the first place; and if we’re gonna walk it back, then we might as well walk it all the way back.
No, Sebastian, but phrasing it as “National Wrong to Life says”, or “Nation Righ to Lif says”, would be juvenile.
Sebastian Holsclaw: So when the claim is made that Democrats don’t offer disrespect to Republicans by changing the name, that is not because Democrats find such things abhorrent, but rather because “republican” has no independent political valence. With terms that do have independent political valence, Democrats feel free to change them.
What proper nouns do Democratic politicians systematically mangle for rhetorical effect in their official communications? And I’m not talking about Julian Bond here, I’m asking about figures with the level of prominence of sitting Presidents and Congressmen, who have been documented at great length abusing the word “Democrat”. Can you offer any examples?
You are totalizing again when you say “an organization”. Do you believe that referring to a paper put out by the “National Right to Life” organization as “an anti-choice group says” is appalling? That is clearly a rhetorical device to avoid using the proper name of the organization. It is also very common practice.
That’s far from clear. I could easily say “National Right to Life is an anti-choice organization”. In that case I’m not avoiding using their name at all, though I’m still describing them on my own terms. That’s different from simply referring to the organization as “National Right To Commandeer Women’s Uteruses” which denies them even the simple respect of the use of their proper name.
Andrew,
“And, technically, since the Democratic Party doesn’t advocate direct democracy, can’t we argue that their name is somewhat misleading?”
Sure you could argue that, but since no one is advocating direct democracy there isn’t any rhetorical point in doing so.
And to be clear, at no point have I argued that saying things like “Democrat proposal” is a positive good. I’m not even defending it as a useful or pleasing rhetorical device. I’m comparing it to “anti-choice” which I believe to be cheesy, but not appalling or signifying that the speaker is a liar or any of the near apocalyptic terms that Gary is using.
“That’s different from simply referring to the organization as “National Right To Commandeer Women’s Uteruses” which denies them even the simple respect of the use of their proper name.”
Heh. I’m certain I’ve seen pro-life groups referred to in just that type of name-corruption.
By the President? By sitting members of Congress?
Russert: Sen. Frist, what explains the opposition to estate tax repeal in the Senate?
Sen. Frist: It’s clear that this wealth destroying tax is supported by most members of the Democrat Party, who think that-
Russert: Sorry to interrupt Sen. Frist, but what party was that?
Sen. Frist: Well the Democrat Party has constantly oppose-
Russert: The “Democrat Party”?!!? of Sri Lanka?
Sen. Frist: No, the Democrat Party is opposed to the dea–
Russert: Senator, senator
[cross talk]
Russert: Senator, I’m asking, I guess I’ll have to spell it out, are you referring to the Democratic Party, the party of Sen. Clinton, Sen. Feingold, of President Bill Clinton, as the “Democrat Party”?
Sen. Frist: Well yes, and they certainly favor all manner of tax incre-
Russert: You do know that the name of their party is the Dem-o-crat-ic Party, don’t you?
Sen. Frist: Of course.
Russert: And so why do you refer to it as the Democrat Party, knowing full well that the name is “Democratic Party?”
Sen. Frist: Its a rhetorical labeling device meant to upset the opposition with no substantive content, Grover Nor-
Russert: Name calling?
Sen. Frist: Well I wouldn’t call it name calling but-
Russert: What are you, seven?
Sen. Frist: As you well know there’s a constitutional requirement that Senators be 30 years old and so I respectful-
Russert: Someone check his I.D.
Ugh++
I hate it when I am late to the party but still feel compelled to comment, it just seems so futile. Oh… wait… I see the comment party continues… Hmmm… Since the rhetorical merit of the use of “Democrat” vs. “Democratic” seems to be well covered, permit me to add my voice to the chorus on the virtues of divided government.
“I agree with you 100% on the benefits of gridlock, and I actually hope the Dems take the House in November – but for slightly different reasons…” -oc
I could not agree more. In fact I was pre-agreeing when I posted this last May:
The benefit of divided government in restraining government growth and spending is more than theory. It is historical fact. Niskanen and Ritter show that spending is always greater and budgets grow faster when you have single party control of the legislative and executive branch. This adminstration proved it with single party Republican control over the last five years blowing away even the LBJ Great Society/Vietnam single party Democratic control. The dynamic of divided government accomplishes the desired objective of restraining government growth, not the individuals or parties that make up that divided government state, or even what they say or believe. Democrats (or Republicans) do not create the result. Divided government does. Republican vs. Democrat is a false choice. Single Party vs. Divided Government is the real choice for 2006.
Heh. I’m certain I’ve seen pro-life groups referred to in just that type of name-corruption.
Please name no fewer than five currently-serving (5) elected members of the Congress who have done so. For bonus points, name a recent Democratic President who has done say. If you can do both, I’ll PayPal you $50.
“If you can do both, I’ll PayPal you $50.”
If he can’t, I’m sure I shouldn’t mention that my present total fortune in the world is $35 until the end of the month….
I’ve not defended the use of the phrase ‘anti-choice’ but if its used as a characterization, rather than in substitution for a proper noun, I’m not sure it’s the same injury. Used in substitution for a proper noun, for the purpose of annoying members of the group identified by the proper noun, I’d say it’s over the line as well.
Wow, is this still going on?
So, in a desperate attempt at a threadjack-threadjack: I was reading the news just now when all of a sudden my computer, which was silent, asked me in an annoyingly perky voice: “Do you have problems with erectile dysfunction?” It went on and on and it took me forever to figure out how to get it to stop.
It’s not enough that I get zillions of messages every day asking questions like: does ur gf wish you cd stay hrd longer? and offering misspelled drugs like Cialllis and Viaagra, none of which are in any way addressed to my condition. Now my computer has to start pestering me about ED as well.
I may scream.
Hilzoy, there are innumerable additional spam-filtering software choices you could use.
Plus, if you’re getting so much visible spam, you are apt to not have a very good access provider and e-mail service.
I use the clunky e-mail service of Yahoo webmail, but it only lets me see a handful of spam mails a day (although, as I say, it’s very clunky, and doesn’t let one set one’s own parameters at all, which is annoying, as about 80% of what little spam I do see comes from virgilio.it, and I’d like to just eliminate seeing all mail from that domain, since I’ve never yet seen a legitimate one).
I do get hundreds of e-mails per day dumped into the “bulk” folder, but I almost never look at or see any of it (once in a while it starts dumping legitimate Paypal mail there, and that’s the only exception).
Hilzoy, am I right in assuming the source of the message was a webpage?
As for spam, I’m having the same problem lately. Mail.app is pretty good about flagging spam, but the spammers are getting more and more clever, and my main address is hopelessly compromised. I probably get a dozen messages a day on my main account, only a couple of which aren’t flagged and dumped into my Junk folder, but it’s still really annoying. I can’t count how many times these bottomfeeders have tried to sell me a “Vibrating Ring”.
Gromit: yep.
Gary: the spam I see has made it through two filters, alas. It’s not tons and tons, maybe ten a day, though I also see what I get that didn’t make it through the filters, since I check that.
In any case, I wrote a post about this, wondering: why so much spam/advertising about ED and nothing whatsoever about anything specific to women?
I get a lot of weight loss spam. Not specific to women, but inclusive, at least.
Divided government Bipartisanship
The cynic in me wonders if the Democrats really are all that likely to be any better than the Republicans. Given that we’re stuck with a two-party system, however, I suppose I’d best hope that they will be, since they’re the only realistic alternat…
Good grief, what I miss when I take the weekend off.
š
There is, in fact, a group in the UK called Pro-Life Alliance, and while I would have no hesitation in describing them as an anti-choice group, their name (proper noun, capitalized, etc) is “Pro-Life Alliance”, and to alter it, however slightly, to “Pro-Li Al-lie-ance” is childish and silly, and I would certainly not do that when discussing choice/anti-choice issues with anti-choicers: we have enough important stuff to disagree on without making up silly insults about organisational names. The side that first descends to namecalling of that kind has definitively lost the argument: I guess that’s Republicans for you.
Way after the fact (busy weekend; painting the kitchen and then (surprise, me!) painting the kitchen cabinets): I disagree with Sebastian. What Gary and hilzoy (and, doubtless, others) have said about proper names, etc I completely agree with.
It’s one thing if Atrios refers to Republicans as “Repugs” or the like; it’s completely different if a Senator or the President indulges in “Democrat Party”. Atrios is supposed to be an idiot. The idiots in office are in our employ.
Thanks, Slarti. I’ve been dismayed that we’re playing yet another round of someone maintaining that random blog commenter = high-traffic blogger = radio talk show host = unknown assistant professor at Podunk College = senator = hate mail sender = syndicated columnist = yahoo holding sign at protest = president of the United States.
random blog commenter = high-traffic blogger = radio talk show host = unknown assistant professor at Podunk College = senator = hate mail sender = syndicated columnist = yahoo holding sign at protest = president of the United States.
Hey! This is America, pal. Everyone’s equal here. š
It’s one thing if Atrios refers to Republicans as “Repugs” or the like; it’s completely different if a Senator or the President indulges in “Democrat Party”. Atrios is supposed to be an idiot. The idiots in office are in our employ.
Yup — nailed it.
AAARGH!
Lamont is quite good in the interview, but listen to how guest host Scott Pelley repeatedly refers to the party whose primary Lamont won.