Name-Calling
Not too long ago, I saw a talk show with a liberal and a conservative where the liberal used the term “Teabagger,” and the conservative got all riled up and accused the liberal of name-calling–at which point, the liberal conceded and said, OK, I won’t use that term. Now, I thought this was proper: even though the Tea Party crowd used the term themselves before they caught on to the double-entendre, now that they don’t like the term any more, we shouldn’t use it. We can still talk about how they used to use it and took so long to catch on, but it’s not kosher to continue referring to them that way.
The thing is, I don’t think that right-wingers have any right to call out liberals on this until they stop using the term “Democrat” as an adjective. It’s a noun–go ahead, look it up. Now, this has been around for a while–certainly since the 50’s, when McCarthy used it against liberals of the time. It was renewed in 1984 when William Safire had the gall to question to Democrats’ right to use the term “Democratic.” The use came into wide use again recently since the airing of a political attack ad in 2000 where the word “DEMOCRATS” was being flashed around the screen, and one time, only the last three letters, “RATS” was visible. Conservatives thought this was hilarious, and started using “Democrat” as an adjective far more often and far more consistently–“the Democrat senator,” or “the Democrat Party,” and so on–as a subtle way of perpetuating that jibe.
The thing is, it has not just been a sometimes phrase. Virtually every conservative politician, including people like Bush, McCain, senators, governors, and a host of other top-level conservatives now use the term universally, and have for years.
I mention this because I was shocked when Jon Stewart, on the Rachel Maddow show, criticized the use of the term “Teabagger,” and said, “didn’t you hate it when the Republicans used to use the phrase ‘Democrat’?”
“Used to”?
Jesus, Stewart. Governor Rick Perry of Texas was just on your show 4 or 5 days ago and he used that exact term, referring to Anne Richards as “the Democrat governor.” I remember when I saw that, I bridled and wished that Stewart would take the opportunity to call him out on it and maybe call attention to the widespread practice. But Stewart just let it slide by. To hear him act like it’s no longer used was kind of jarring to me.
Maybe we don’t get to use an improper name used in a derogatory manner, but neither do you–and you don’t get to lecture others on crap that you make a practice out of.
I’m completely at a loss here. Why is the *name of your party* offensive? Do you think a Republican would take offense at the phrase “Republican policies”? Do you think the term “Democrat” is the equivalent of a homosexual slur?
I can understand why Democrats would be embarassed to be associated with their party, but I didn’t realize how strongly it hurt.
I can understand why Democrats would be embarassed to be associated with their party
Really, Geoff. And you say you are not a troll. That’s like a liar like you saying he’s not a liar.
The Democrats of the 20th century were far from perfect but they did a good job with governance.
They had runs in government of 1913-1921, 1933-1953, 1961-1969, 1976-1981, 1993-2001.
The first period featured the establishment of a modern, quasi-public central banking system, FTC, Clayton Antitrust Act, intervention in WW I to perhaps save France from the Spring 1918 German Offensive.
FDR/Truman’s administration featured Social Security, winning WW2, saving South Korea from the Communists (well, after screwing up and letting the North think they could invade).
JFK/LBJ featured reversing some of the mistakes of prior Southern Democrats (like Wilson) with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Medicare, first trying to save South Vietnam (1964-1968) then the Democratic congress got us out when it became clear we couldn’t (1971-75).
Carter appointed Volcker which applied shock therapy on the transitional economy to eventually moderate the rapid debt growth and associated inflation that was occurring as the baby boomers began entering their mid-20s (1971-1986). He amnestied all Vietnam draft evaders, reversing LBJ’s mistake of sending draftees to fight somebody else’s war. Carter tried to rein in growth of the military-industrial complex, but failed.
Throughout this period the of 1933-1981 middle class in the US reached its apogee of security. It was all downhill from here, with a short pause during the 1990s under Clinton and the dotcom/NAFTA productivity boom.
Largely thanks to the Reagan tax cuts, the richest 10% of the country has grown from having 2/3rds the capital income to 4/5ths.
But since Carter, it can be said that the Democrats and the Democratic Party in general hasn’t covered themselves in glory.
There’s just too much bullshit propaganda and the Constitutional structure of this nation is too slanted towards rural BFE enclaves for any old-school Progressivism to be viable any more. We’re now stuck with center-right Ds like Obama and far-right Rs like Palin.
If things here in the US are going to go as I think they are (down the tubes) I’m not terribly enthusiastic about returning to Japan any more, I may have to try my luck in a more 社会主義 hellhole like Canada or Germany. Too bad their weather sucks so.
Maybe California will be the bulwark against all the BS and I can just stay here. We Democrats did pretty good here at the state level.
I won’t comment on your history of the Democrats and their party except to say that I don’t care much for the historical Deocrats either. What I will say is…You completely missed the whole point of my comment. Which is that “The name of the Party ‘Democrat’ is not (usually) considered to be an insulting or demeaning term”. So treating it that way (by Democrats) is just plain bizarre.
I understand that you may prefer “democratic”. But I find “Democrat” to be a useful distinction as an adjective:
– Yesterday Myanmar held democratic elections
– Yesterday Pelosi finalized the Democrat platform.
Why is this distinction insulting? I don’t know–please explain.
And finally, the “RATS” reference is so obscure that only a professional political victim would remember it. The word “Democrats” was sliding off-screen to the left. So yes, it said RATS for a millisecond, before saying ATS and TS. In fact, it’s somewhat relevant here, so I’m glad it was mentioned. In both this case and the supposed “Democrat policies” insult, the Democrats have taken a self-righteous tone of insult and injury over *literally* nothing. By contrast they smirkingly and snidely used the term “teabagger” as a *deliberate* and *demonstrable* insult, long after there were calls for left-wing commentators to stop. To this day, it’s occasionally heard on the air.
Let me get my microscopic violin, so we can cry for the poor insulted DemocRATS.
Geoff: Either you’re thick or you’re being disingenuous. Somehow I think you’ve managed to accomplish both. That the Republicans found a way to do so without it sounding distinctly pejorative is simply a twist in the pejorative itself–something right-wingers delight in. Conservatives are like the high school bully who gets a kick out of insulting people by making up names for them, especially if it’s the kind that the teacher doesn’t see as a bad name–thereby allowing him to be a bully and get away with it.
“Democrat” is the noun form. The adjectival form is “Democratic.” To remove the “-ic” at the end is a distinct jab, implying that Democrats aren’t Democratic. It is akin to calling “Republicans” “Repubs” on the basis that they have no faith or love for the Republic, so do not deserve to use the name. Imagine Obama and every Democrat down the line using “Repub” and Repubs” as if it were the natural name for the party, the people, and the policies, with the implication of undeservedness and lack of patriotism fully part of that. Have that continue for decades. Something tells me you’d be less than happy with the term. Judging from past action, I am certain that Republicans would be throwing fits and crying foul. Think not? Look at their whining and bitching when liberals use the term “teabagger,” a term that conservatives made for themselves, about themselves. After just a few months of use, they go ballistic when they hear it. Democratic politicians, on the other hand, are simply ignoring the very, very long-standing conservative trend of digging at the Dems the same way. If nothing else, it shows that the Republicans are massive hypocrites and that the Democrats have that much more class.
As for your condescension, I don’t give a rat’s ass, to coin a phrase. I simply refer to your manner as confirmation of my point–though you are far less elegant than and not nearly as clever as your brethren.
I prefer to categorize myself as a “progressive” or “leftist” or “social liberal”, terms I’m sure make you break out in bigger hives than the term “Democrat”. I see nothing to be embarrassed about it (obviously, or else I wouldn’t call myself those things). In fact, it’s that very lack of embarrassment that makes being a liberal so cool. I know very well I won’t be embarrassed about how I felt on a social issue a quarter-of-a-century from now. During the turn of the 20th century, the social liberals weren’t the ones kicking themselves in embarrassment over their anti-slavery stance during the Civil War. In the 1940s, the ones who were hanging their heads in shame for trying to deny women the right to vote decades earlier weren’t the social liberals. And 25 years from now, the younger generation who will be cringing with humiliation for their parents reactionary, anti-civil rights politics and bigoted demonizing of homosexuals, Hispanics and Muslims won’t be the offspring of the social liberal. That’s why, were someone to write my autobiography years from now, I’ll have nothing to be ashamed of. I’m proud to know that I’ll be on the right side of history just like my forebears before me.
Now, who the social liberals happen to be at any given point in history may not necessarily be the same people they are now. In the 19th century, it was the Republicans who were the anti-slavery party, and thus the social liberals. But not anymore, or at least not in this point in history. I don’t know if Democrats should be embarrassed for their party, but there’s no question in my mind that Republicans should be appalled at their extreme right-wing ideology. And it’s really very curious as to why someone would want to choose an ideology that history will eventually expose as repressive bigotry a generation from now. History always repeats itself after all, but some people never learn.
I thought I bq’d Geoff’s quote, but I guess not. I wouldn’t want anyone to think those were my words.