Has the public noticed this yet?

Question

Saying the 'Democrat' Party instead of the Democratic Party.

I was informed of this about a few months ago and am wondering if the public is noticing it. This was originally used as an 'inside' jab at Democratic politicians and I haven't noticed the public doing it.. that's why I'm asking.

I've heard Bush, Rush L., and even Republic congressional members on the congressional floor use it. Bush actually used it in a press conference right after the Nov. elections.

I've started referring to the Republican party as either Republic Party or the Party of Republics. I considered saying fascist republics the way neocons say 'liberal democrat' but honestly, that is unfair because I know not all Republics are fascists.

Anyone else noticed this?

Answer 1

The troubling fact with America today is the sheer degree of soundbyte media that it relies on as 'news'. It's fair to cut words down for simple practical use, but that does not extend to using similar words that have a different connotation.

For instance (and this is an experiment you can do), if you were to ask someone to close there eyes and say the first thing they heard when they were told the word 'democrat' you might blurt out something like 'anti-war' 'coward' or even 'terrorist'. But 'democratic' would probably strike a completely different chord in the american brain. This is called media conditioning.

I always think it's a good idea to point out the power of media in many political arguments, simply because of the vast amounts of information that is exposed to us every day, and how that has such a knock-on effect on voter behaviour. Instead of thorough, indepth and fair anaylsis of current events, we are treated to soundbyte media - jargon words that represent whole cultures of information, and are too vague to mean anything. Within this there is also an awful lot of subliminal advertising going on, which hides its tracks very well, but still leaves footprints.

'Democrat party' instead of 'Democratic party' is one of those subliminal devices. Let's make this clear - for the President to use such terminology is pretty poor. Because in the fashion in which he has used this word, he is using it as a thinly veiled slur and insult. Simply by shortening it down, he completely changes the entire function of the party. I mean, look at these words 'libs' 'dems' and how quickly they lead into other related AND HEAVILY SUGGESTED words. They would never dream of calling themselves the 'repub' party.

This lack of respect on the very basic level of having the common decency to call the opposition properly is a clear insult. The whole selling point in today's culture is the brand name, the label, the logo. By manipulating it and chopping it down he is exposing the sheer contempt for the opposition, and this is terrible; the President is (supposed to be) the example for young and poor alike. Regardless of his popularity, he must show respect for other people's rights, and one of those is to be called correctly! If I was the leader of the democrats today I would have immediately called a press conference and explained "the President referred to a Democrat party in his speech recently. Who are they?"

Why don't the Republicans start abbreviating their party name? For practical use? But of course not. By respecting their name, and not their opponents, they are crossing the line - on a very primitive note, too. This is poor behaviour. Worse still, it shows that the President is aware of the public's fears, doubts and confusion - for instance, why are we occupying another country, what happened to the terrorists, why did we give up on Laden? - and is quite prepared to exploit those notions for temporary political gain. Not only does it bare insult to the democrats, but also the entire voting-age population of America.

This is the behaviour of a man that can seemingly do as he likes. He doesn't have to call people properly. He doesn't have to respect people. And his lap-dog media (who have the sheer audicity to call themselves 'moderate but lean to the right') will follow his example and copy him, and the viewers will - unconsciously or not - relate to the Democratic Party even worse. Let's face it, if they tolerate this, then they might as well change their name to the 'Flip-Flop Party'.

It also reveals a startling lack of understanding for his fellow countymen - and how that's okay! It groups them together like faceless men, it strips them of everything they stand for. It changes to 'supporter of the democrat party' rather than 'believer in democratic ideas'. Thus implying the party is weak and corrupt! It's so subliminal, so suggestive, but those two letters mean a whole lot to such a heavily used word! This is pure and simply a bullyboy insult to the opposition, and this is all working because the big news corporations fail to deconstruct it, whether intentionally or not, they fail to challenge him, they fail to read on its impact. The President might as well have waved his bloody middle finger to the camera and said 'Dems SUCK'.

- Good answer by Peace Love and Harmony as well

Answer 2

Yes. It's just a bit of disrespect they are throwing around.
They don't want it to sound positive (to be democratic is a good thing) but they want it sound like they are just about themselves (The Democrat Party is the party of Democrats).

It doesn't work with Republicans. Calling them the Republic party doesn't really mean anything - it might also have good connotations that Democrat does not.

Just remember if all they have to fall back on are name games, they don't have much.

Answer 3

Yes, the use of the word Democrat as a pejorative adjective has been well documented as a smear tactic.

"This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,” Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book—it’s entitled “Words That Work”—and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of “ic”s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in. "
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

It was refreshing to hear one of the commentators on MSNBC actually make note of it the other night after Bush did it during his speech.

Answer 4

The republicans are trying to split the democratic party by falsely implying democrats aren't democratic. Another cheap shot attempt to sabotage anything or anyone remotely connected to the left.

Answer 5

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Joe Scarborough were discussing it after the State of the Union the other night, but until now, that was all I've heard about it.

Answer 6

Yes, they have done that for years.

It's unfortunate but most people don't understand the difference re: the usage of democrat(n) v democratic(adj). A noun v adj....geez.

Democratic party....adj

But that's I blame on our schools!...lol

Answer 7

Yeah...but, defining it correctly for either side, will not make them any better. Americans has dealt with corruption, lies, and disservice from politicians for years. It doesn't really matter anymore what party they are from, those scaly snakes are still running our Country pathetically.

Answer 8

Yes, it's a cute little slur that the idiots like Limbaugh and Bush like to throw out there. In Bush's case, I think he's just too dumb to know the difference.

It's the "Democratic" party.

Answer 9

Been around for a looooong time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29

Hope this helps.

Answer 10

It's one the stupidest slurs EVER.