Blog P.I.

As both a political junkie and the recipient of a degreee in English, I’ve been a longtime observer of the Republican tendency to use the noun “Democrat” as an adjective, as President Bush recently caught flak for doing in (what was supposed to be) a conciliatory State of the Union address.

In almost every case, it’s not a mere courtesy to append an -ic to the end of the word — it’s proper English. But Arnold Zwicky at Language Log points out one case where the Democratic usage is probably something besides good grammar. From the Feb. 6 New York Times:

Politicians are weighing in on the subject as never before, especially with the advent of a Democratic-led Congress.

Upon which Zwicky went to work:

My first reaction was that with “Democratic-led” the paper was bending over backward in its attempt to avoid things like “the Democrat Party” for “the Democratic Party” (a Republican practice we’ve commented on a number of times on Language Log, most recently here). And maybe it is. But “Democratic-led” actually beats out “Democrat-led” by a fair margin, despite the fact that “X-led” ‘led by X(s)’ normally requires a noun in the X slot (as do “X-V-ed” ‘V-ed by X’ compounds in general). So if this is a formation motivated by political politeness, there’s a lot of politeness going around.

Zwicky goes on to demonstrate what he means by “X-led” and the like, with the parties Democrat, Republican and Labour as examples — handy not just for language geeks but for partisans familiar with the practice but unfamiliar with the functional linguistic differences between those party names.

I certainly try to keep my “Democrat” and “Democratic” usage in order, although in speech I sometimes get it wrong. On the other hand, a few times I’ve been called out for what I believed was correct usage — so I find Zwicky’s post is all the more interesting. And woe to the commenter at a liberal blog who accidentally types “Democrat Party” in the middle of a thread.

But there is no doubt that the Republicans who would rather antagonize their loyal opposition rather than express themselves correctly have won this one, much as they have persuaded liberals that they should call themselves “progressive” instead. Not only do Democrats have to nitpick a matter of linguistics, but they’re reduced to asserting themselves as an adjective rather than as a noun. That might seem an esoteric distinction, but in politics even subtle suggestions and inchoate feelings have an impact on voters.

If I didn’t know better, I would wonder what Frank Luntz would say about that. But late last month, in (what was supposed to be) a conciliatory entry at the Huffington Post, the Republican wordsmith deployed “Democrat” as an adjective, and much like with the president, the usage was like nails on a chalkboard to Democratic ears.

Whoops! Maybe using the phrase “Democrat Party” doesn’t always redound to the benefit of conservatives.