Jason, I’ve addressed this issue in Impromptus many times over the years, usually with humor (or attempted humor). There are some people who are loath to give up “Democrat” as an adjective. (There are people who are loath to say “loath,” instead of “loathe.”) I think the problem stems from the fact that “Republican” is both a noun and an adjective: “a Republican,” “the Republican party.” But “Democrat” works just one way, requiring “Democratic.”
Year after year, I hear from people who suspect that, in saying “Democratic,” Democrats are trying to pull a fast one. I respond, “No, Democratic policies are just as disastrous as Democrat ones, I promise.”
In any event, “Democrat” as an adjective has become part of our speech, part of our Republican lexicon. Has a Democrat ever used “Democrat” adjectivally? It’s pretty rare, I think. I know some Republican politicians who are essentially bilingual: saying “Democrat policies” when firing up the base and switching to “Democratic” when in polite or mixed company.
Of course, these are RINOs who have betrayed us with their Establishment “ic.”
Seriously, I have a fondness for “Democrat party,” “Democrat wars,” and so on as a cultural indicator. When you talk to someone who says “Democrat party,” you’re probably talking to someone who can be counted on to vote against it. I also like to use the name “pro-abort” sometimes, instead of “pro-choicer” — but that’s another post.
Deliberate use of "democrat" as an adjective marks the speaker as either a know-nothing or a boor or both. Dumbing down the language in order to offend people is the verbal equivalent of flipping them off.
In the case of democrat-as-adjective, it seems to have grown in popularity as our national partisan hatefest has increased in intensity. It's another reason that so many normal Americans increasingly tune out the two parties and their haters and now call themselves independents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust speaking as a rethuglican repubican, I'm baffled by why you'd feel that the term Democrat is offensive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJeane Kirkpatrick used "San Francisco Democrats" famously and everyone knew what she meant. When "Democrat" is used as an adjective, we all know what that means -- and it's entirely appropriate and correct.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Today the term republic still most commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right."
This post would be more persuasive if Republicans actually still believed they supported a Republic rather than a Theocracy or some other form.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Theocracy": that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs opposed to creating a complete secular society? That's working well everywhere else in the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause clearly if religious institutions aren't forced to provide free condoms we're living in a Theocracy ... come to think of it, I guess that's been the case up until this very year and I didn't even realize it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCalling the Democratic Party anything other than its chosen appellation is essentially name-calling and makes you sound stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStupid and childish, like you're on a junior high school playground. One can be a patriotic, loyal Democrat ....and don't start with the "wow, do those guys have a thin skin" business.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, do those guys have a thin skin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI always make it a point to use the shortened version -- purely because it seems (rather amazingly) to tick them off so. No further reason required.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think "pro-abort" is a better word than "pro-choice.". It's pretty sensitive, but it's also clear, and it's better to clear than fuzzy! Now I'm starting to get all those comments from my high school English teachers!...finally, at last.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInstead of dropping the adjectival we should add extra ones in the interest of being specific and clear. So let it be the Democratic party and let those who subscribe to its policies be Democraticans and let those disastrous policies to which they subscribe be "democraticanistical." You know, in the interest of clarity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, it was history teachers overall, in my experience, that were interested in word clarity. English teachers were more interested in word fuzziness, but the distinction is probably that some were "politically correct" and some were "politically incorrect," like in George Orwell's essay on "Politics and the English Language"...that is such a neat essay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll stop using Democrat as an adjective when Dems stop using 'The National Review'...and we'll be even.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, quit it with your "conservative" speak!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow are the Democrats using National Review? Do you mean they might be reading it? Or do you mean they might be infiltrating its ranks? If they are infiltrating its ranks, then what do you mean by "democrats"? National Review is supposed to be a conservative publication. By "conservative" i mean the way that WFB defined the word conservative. Have you read "God and Man at Yale"? I'm reading it, at least to try and understand better what he meant. People can try to hold words hostage and change their meanings, but they can't change the values and beliefs they represent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe or she means when they quit inserting the article "the" in front of NR's proper name.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile there are many articles in National Review, there is no article in "National Review". Just as it's not "The USA Today" or "The Newsweek".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs the Founders went to great lengths to ensure that we are a Republic and not a democracy, I think it is time we start changing the connotation of "democracy" from something positive to what it is: tyranny, or at least anti-Declaration and anti-Constitution. Why, after all, is it the Democratic party that promoted slavery and still wants to "transform" America?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse