A huge off-topic discussion was fired off in the comment section here by Keith Cowing, in which he accused me (along with Mark Whittington) of having a “visceral and unwavering hatred of Democrats.” Note that there was nothing in my post about Democrats, and that I don’t now, and haven’t ever, hated Democrats (or anyone, for that matter), but never mind that (at least for now). It’s not the point.

The discussion devolved into some people wondering why I called the Democrat(ic) Party the Democrat Party. Some assumed that my intent, along with (apparently) Joe McCarthy’s, Rush Limbaugh and other “conservative” luminaries (I use the quotes because I am not, in fact, a conservative, nor do I listen much to Rush Limbaugh), was simply to offend Democrats.

No.

Now, I can’t speak for Rush Limbaugh (and no one can speak for Joe McCarthy, what with him being in the ground for the last half century or so), but I’m not trying to offend, but rather, simply to defend the language and the meaning of words, particularly since the left seems to have made it a project to utterly change them, or dilute them of their meaning to the point of uselessness (e.g., “racism,” and one on point here, “hate”).

I think that it’s important to understand, if they’re “offended” at being called the Democrat Party, why that might be. We are scolded and told they’re offended, but they never quite get around to telling us what is so offensive about being called the “Democrat Party” when it consists of people who call themselves Democrats. We are told only that it is offensive, and that that “hateful” meanie Rush Limbaugh calls them that, so it must be, and that we should therefore be ashamed of ourselves.

So what is their real problem? I don’t honestly know, but here’s my theory. In order to understand that, I think that one needs to ask why they insist on being called instead the “Democratic Party.”

A new term that was invented a few years ago, but fortunately hasn’t become very popular, is the word “bright,” to describe someone who is a non-deist, and takes their world view and belief system from science and rationality. In fact, by the definition of the people who invented it, I am a “bright.” But despite that, it would never occur to me to use such a word to describe myself.

Why? Because I recognize, unlike Dawkins and Dennett et al, that when one calls oneself a “bright,” one is implicitly saying that people who aren’t brights are…well…dim. D&D are smart people in many ways, but they’re not smart enough to realize that some people are going to be offended when they’re informed by their self-fancied intellectual betters that they’re not that smart, because only dumb people believe in God. From a PR standpoint, such a term is a disaster, if they’re trying to convert people to their cause.

Well, just as it’s reasonable for theists to be offended when implicitly told that their beliefs are dumb, it’s also reasonable to be offended when non-members of the Democrat Party are subtly told that their political beliefs are undemocratic. I don’t buy their self labeling of being “democratic” (and more so than thou) any more than I do of the self labeling of “progressives,” or of “liberals.” I don’t necessarily find the beliefs of the people who call themselves that either progressive or liberal. Nor did I buy the notion that the Bolsheviks were the majority, even if they claimed to be so by their name.

My point is that I have as much right to be offended by the name “Democratic Party” as they do by “Democrat Party” (one of the reasons, by the way, that many conservatives found Bush’s phrase “compassionate conservatism” offensive–they rightly don’t think that it needs the modifier). In fact, I think that their version is more offensive to me than mine should be to them (and I think that the comparison of it to the “n word,” as one commenter made, would be silly if it weren’t another sad case of watering down true racism and hate). I suspect that the real reason that they’re “offended” (or at least, being the inventors and promulgators of the cult of victimhood, feign to be, hence the quotes) when people do this is that they don’t like being called out on their propaganda.

[Update a few minutes later]

Based on the initial comments, I think I’ve hit a nerve.

You refuse to use the proper name, “Democratic Party,” and yet you get miffed when people call you a “conservative” or a “Republican.” Pot, thy kettle it is black.

I think you’re making a category error here. The reason that I get “miffed” when people call me things I’m not is because…I’m not. It’s a far different thing to accuse someone of holding beliefs that they don’t, or being members of a party that they’re not, than it is to simply use the name of a party that the party members apply to themselves. In any event, it doesn’t matter whether I get “miffed” or not, because I know that clueless people will continue to foolishly insist that I’m a conservative, or a Republican, or a “neocon.”

Look. I can understand why they’d be upset if I called them the “Fascist Party” or the “Gun-Grabber Party,” or the “Abortion Party” or (as Ramesh Ponnuru writes) the “Party of Death.” It makes sense to me that all those things would be offensive. I don’t understand why it’s offensive to be called the “Democrat Party.” And as I said in comments, the longer it takes for someone to provide a coherent and substantive explanation of why they insist on being called the “Democratic Party” (i.e., not just “it’s what we want to be called”), the more confidence I get that I got it right, and guessed exactly why they do. And I’m not going to play along.

[Update]

One more thought. I find it strange that, just because some group wants me to call them by the name they choose, that I’m somehow obligated to do so, and that failure to do so is legitimately offensive to them, and that I could have no other reason to do so than to offend them. But that seems to be the position of some commenters.

So, if the Klan decided to form a political party, and decided that it would be the “Superior Race Party,” am I therefore required to use that name in reference to them? If I instead call them the “Inferior Race Party,” or (more simply) the “Racist Party,” is it not conceivable that I have some reason to do so other than simply to offend them?

Words mean things, and as I noted at the beginning of the post, the left has long been known for its Orwellian newspeak tactics, from “Bolsheviks” to the various “Peoples’ Republics.” When I refuse to call North Korea a “Republic,” it is not because I am trying to offend them. It’s because I want to call things what they are, because I respect the English language, and because I want to prevent further incursions on it from those who want to debase it as a currency of communication.

And no, I’m not comparing Democrats to the Klan or the Communists. I’m simply pointing out the principle involved. I just scratch my head over the angst caused by simply substituting a noun for an adjective. Methinks the party doth protest too much.

[Saturday evening update]

Enough with the Keith Cowing bashing. In light of it, I regret mentioning him in the post. The only reason I did so was because his comment about my alleged (and mistaken) hatred of Democrats in the other post instigated the mess about nouns versus adjectives.

He has not claimed victimhood, he has not complained about the “Democratic” Party being called the Democrat Party. Most (in fact, all, other than mine 🙂 of the criticism that I see of him here looks gratuitous and irrelevant to me.