Language Arts
Feb 7th, 2006 at 7:06 am by Susie
Thom Hartmann talks about something that absolutely makes me crazy: the Republicans’ retooling of the term “democratic”:
There are two dimensions. The first is that, back around the time of the Gingrich revolution (which makes me think that it was Frank Luntz, since he was behind the wording of the Contract for America), someone in the Republican Party figured out that whenever you use the word “democratic” it makes people feel good, but when you say “democrat,” it doesn’t have as much juice. Even though the real and only name of the Democratic Party is “Democratic Party,” Republicans started referring to the party as the “Democrat” party. They also refer to Democratic Party’s policies as “democrat policies,” because they found that, when you say “democrat,” you get a more negative emotional response, because people think “politicians.” When you say democrat-ic, you get a more positive emotional response because people think of the frame of democracy.
Gingrich Republicans started referring to “that democrat politician Harry Reid,” for example, or, “that democrat idea.” You’ll even see it in the Washington Post and other publications incorrectly, sometimes. You can always tell the partisan bias of somebody based on whether they’re using that or not, because that’s been drilled into the Republicans. You never refer to the Democratic Party. You never refer to Democratic principles or ideals. You always say Democrat policies and Democrat party.
Secondly, there was the idea that the word democracy sounds an awful lot like democratic, whereas the word republic sounds an awful lot like Republican. Therefore, when referring to our form of government, they feel it is better to convince people that we live in a republic than to convince people that we live in a democracy. If you convince people that we live in a democracy, it may seem that the Democratic Party knows more about it. And if we live in a republic, then probably the Republican Party should be in charge of it. This is the thinking and the plan. We’re talking about an actual game plan here.
“Madison writes back to him and says that the entire Constitution is a bill of rights. The first three words are “We The People.â€?” Original intent of the Founding Fathers. A good place to start.
It’s interesting to hear Hartmann talking about starting with Goldwater, and then being “radicalized” by Viet Nam. That’s how I started out.
Do you think terrorists are really a threat to our Republic, or just to our Republicans?
Does this go over with anyone but professional Republicans? I always find it terribly affected, and a tip-off that the speaker can’t be trusted to say (or indeed, think) anything but GOP talking points, but possibly that’s just me. Do you suppose any normal, on-the-fence voters find this verbal mannerism convincing?
Though no Democrat, nor for that matter ‘Liberal’, I propose a simple solution: tit-for-tat, if it’s ‘The Democrat’ party then its opposition must be ‘The Republic’ party.
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
I would also suggest that you can use the Publican Party (which brings in the religiously insane angle of these psychos) or, my personal fave, the Repugnicant Party.
I remember hearing Joe McCarthy in the 1950s refer to the “Democrat Party” and thought he was the inventor of this abomination. However at http://mckeesport.dementia.org/blog/000041.html I read that it went back even farther, to Tom Dewey in the 1940s.
Now back in the really old days our Party used to be known as “The Democracy.” I like that! Let’s try to bring it back!