Martha once corrected a commenter here for referring to the "Democrat Party." Apparently it's a sort of playground taunt used by the party's opponents when they're feeling puerile. It was news to me, but apparently not to The Weekly Standard's Scrapbook columnist, who tracks down the term's origin in the most recent issue:
To the best of THE SCRAPBOOK's knowledge--which is pretty good, but not infallible--the phrase originated with Leonard W. Hall, a onetime Republican congressman from New York and chairman of the Republican National Committee during Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term in the White House (1953-57).
via HNN
Posted by Ben Brumfield at February 8, 2007 08:18 PMI accept that it is a taunt; what I'm much less clear about is why it's considered taunting. What is so so objectionable about being called the Democrat rather than the Democratic Party? (This is clearly different from, say, catcalls about the 'Republicons', where the offense is explicit.) Have Democrats ever considered the possibility of just ignoring it?
Posted by: Alan Allport at February 9, 2007 05:34 AMI seem to remember you at one time taking offence to having your first name dropped. Sound familiar, Allport?
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at February 9, 2007 06:02 AMI seem to remember you at one time taking offence to having your first name dropped. Sound familiar, Allport?
I still do; because I regard the dropping of the honorific as an egregious mark of contempt - and it is generally understood as such. Can the same really be said of this obscure point of grammar?
Posted by: Alan Allport at February 9, 2007 10:16 AMIn a newsroom 15-20 years ago, dropping the first name wasn't a mark of contempt, it was a sign of camaraderie.
For that matter the honorific "sir" sometimes does express contempt, as in "sir, I need you to step back from that line now," or "sir, do you have a question for the panelists or only a comment?" or "sir, drop the potato peeler now and come forward with hands raised or we will discharge beanbags in your general direction."
Apart from which, the Democrats aren't especially democratic, the Republicans are stomping our right to a "republican form of government," and we haven't been allowed to keep our bodies since at least Christmas.
Far as I'm concerned, until someone in Washington does something to resuscitate Habeas Corpus you can call the lot of 'em anything you like.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at February 9, 2007 10:29 PMAmongst Orwell's public school old boys the use of the surname alone was standard. I realize there's no single historical protocol here. But I appreciate the 'Mr.' Anyway, from August you can all start calling me Dr...
Posted by: Alan Allport at February 10, 2007 04:32 AMThe last name thing is interesting, not least because people tend to form their impressions very early in life. I tend to think of it in an athletic context, since most of my middle school and high school coaches were (or at least acted like they were) ex-military. "Boudreaux, get over here!" "Nguyen, give me another lap" "Fuselier, quit playing grab-ass and get in line!"
I find that in an "informal" workplace environment (which is to say that we've inherited the office culture of California along with the technology), the whole first-name thing is incredibly imprecise. How do you disambiguate the four Pauls, six Daves, three Jasons, and two Richards? Using final initials feels like third grade.
At my current employer, we've settled into using last names when referring to someone it the third person, and alternating between first or last names in direct address. The only people who've really had a problem with the patronyms are Brits, who apparently have altogether different associations with the useage. It's hard to believe that their experience is actually worse than an American gym class, but you never know.
"My name is Jennifer, for we are many."
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at February 12, 2007 08:23 AM