Defining '"PROGRESSIVE"

Visit the Facebook Page
the New Progressive Party

REMEMBER MY FORGOTTEN MAN

The standout song from Gold Diggers of 1933 with Busby Berkeley in full creative flower.

The most evocative voice is that of Etta Moten who was not merely the original "Bess" in Porgy and Bess, she was Gershwin's inspiration for creating the character in the first place.

The theme, of course, is so appropriate for our era, too.

Working Hard Working Americans

One of the most vexing problems for a would-be 21st Century Progressive Coalition is the reluctance of White, less-educated (H.S. diploma or less), Christian (mostly Evangelical and Roman Catholic) who tend to dwell in rural, small-town, or exurban areas. Many are prone to accept Acts of Capitalism in the same manner they accept Acts of God--painful but beyond the purview of mere mortals to control.

Another factor contributing to their reluctance to coalesce with progressives is the perception that liberals are elitist snobs who hold them in disdain. When criticism of religious bigotry becomes a blanket denuciation of all relgion, it becomes itself a form of religious bigotry that can make a potential ally feel unwelcome. The same can be said of use of terms like "redneck", "cracker", "hillbilly", or "trailer trash" to name but a few. If a sufficient number of people are offended by such terms, it is important not to give unnecessary offense by being perceived as disrespectful and insensitive. For that reason, I will henceforth, and with great reluctance, give up the use of all forms of "teabag", at least in public discourse.

Russ Douthat is one of those rare reasonable conservatives. He argues that working class Whites belong in the Republican coalition. I disagree with his conclusions but his analysis of the facts is worth our consideration.

Talented Guy Seeks Complement

Aging Boomer (Stageworthy), endowed
with 1st Class Voice, Flair for political commentary/humor/graphic design, English as a Second Language, occasional poet, pretty good writer, and the best damn Santa Claus ever.

Would like to expand my skill set to be able to capture video from cable TV and remix for my creative purposes. We could start with YouTube uploads but—who knows where it could go from there?

If you have a strong technical skillset and share similar interests and objectives, please shoot me an email. Even if not, please pass this along as you see fit.

• Do you represent a political campaign or a cause to which I am sympathetic? (Check the links and you’ll see I’m on the side of the angels.) I will consider donating my voiceover services for the purpose of growing my portfolio and reputation.

• Or, are you interested in using my art as posters, t-shirts, bumperstickers, etc.? If you can handle manufacture, distribution, and other business elements, I can do creative and marketing.

. . . and thank you again for your support.

Why Playing Chess With a Teabagger Is Irksome and Futile

Mr. Lincoln sez:

Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds opinion is greater than he who enacts laws. • Abraham Lincoln

What Kind of Music Do You Make?

Dissent is healthy and noble. It challenges assumptions and clarifies ideas. Sometimes synthesis and synergy result from creative dissent.

Dissension is unhealthy and ignoble. Its adherents value conflict and annihilation over resolution and consensus. Opponents become enemies and enemies are to be afforded no respect. Dissension kills associations, movements, and even countries.

It does raise a lot of money and sell a lot of advertising spots, though.

PRESENTATION MATTERS: The Epstein File

“When Brian Met the Beatles”

Then Brian came in one morning and told me he’d seen this poster at the bottom of Mathews Street advertising The Beatles “direct from Hamburg”, and of course Mathews Street is where the Cavern Club was. We’ve been accused of knowing they were from Liverpool. Well, we didn’t. We weren’t interested in pop music. But he said, “I’m intrigued.”

So we decided to go see them during our lunch hour. It was an awful club. There was condensation running down the walls and it smelt. There were these four guys onstage in black leather, wearing what we call bomber jackets today, black trousers, black T-shirts, and they were so loud. There was smoking onstage and they were joking with the girls in the audience and it was just like, “Oh my God, what are we sitting here watching?” I mean we were in suits. And these guys were just so awful. They really were. It was quite appalling, really.

It took about half-an-hour for Brian to decide to manage them. We went for lunch and he asked me my opinion first, and I said I thought they were awful but there was something there. He said, “They are awful but I think they’re fabulous.” And then he suddenly said, “What do you think about me managing them?” And it was as quick as that. That was 9 November 1961.

WIKI

Although Epstein had had no prior experience of artist management, he had a strong influence on their early dress-code and attitude on stage. When Epstein discovered the band, they wore blue jeans and leather jackets, performing at rowdy rock ‘n’ roll shows where they would stop and start songs when they felt like it, or when an audience member requested a certain song.

Epstein encouraged them to wear suits and ties, insisted that they stop swearing, smoking, drinking or eating onstage, and also suggested the famous synchronised bow at the end of their performances. McCartney was the first to agree with Epstein’s ideas, believing it was—in part—due to Epstein’s RADA training. John Lennon was against the idea of wearing suits and ties, but later said, “Yeah, man, all right, I’ll wear a suit. I’ll wear a bloody balloon if somebody’s going to pay me”.

Epstein began seeking publicity by “charming and smarming... the newspaper people”, as John Lennon said in 1972. According to McCartney, “The gigs went up in stature and though the pay went up only a little bit, it did go up”, and that the band was “now playing better places.”

And from Brian Epstein’s alteration of the Beatles’ presentation, the trajectory of the universe was thenceforth permanently altered. Presentation does matter.

A Parable

Recently, a most disagreeable little man of my acquaintance (Let’s call him “Chaz Patricio”) burst into my living room unannounced and without knocking. Unsightly under the best of circumstances, Chaz was disheveled, unshaven, and it appeared that his clothing had been worn continuously for the previous 48 hours. He reeked of what smelled like equal part of body odor, stale urine, and rose water. He stomped his mud-caked boots across my Persian carpet, farted loudly, then abruptly dropped his weight into my antique silk-upholstered armchair. He lit a cigar and then launched into a vociferous denunciation of my wife and how she had been unfaithful to me.

When I told Mr. Patricio that I found his charges difficult to believe he lunged up from his seat, grasped my lapels and not only insisted that he was correct, he then demanded to know what I was going to do about it. At that point, I was angry and disgusted and demanded that Chaz Patricio get out of my home immediately. As I was leading him to the door he called me a “blue dog” and a “bully” and told me that my writing was “pedestrian”. (A commentary, I wondered, on my recent essay on walking the sidewalks of New York.)

Some time after that, I learned that my wife had not been altogether faithful. There were some extenuating circumstances and, it turns out, she had not actually slept with the guy but her inappropriate behavior caused some problems in our marriage that we’re still trying to sort out.

If Chaz had made a less repugnant exposition of his concerns, it may ultimately have made no difference at all. However, now I am angry, hurt, and disgusted at both of them. Presentation does matter a great deal when you’re delivering a message.

How Much Has Really Changed in 100 Years?

NEGRO MUSIC

This notice circulated in and around New Orleans during the mid-60s. White kids listening to "negro records"!? Which artists drove the author around the bend? Motown? Stax/Volt? Aretha? Jackie Wilson? My guess is that it was James Brown.

Of course, they were right. This is the music that changed America forever and for the better. Thank God for them.

SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH!

Note to President Obama's Critics on the Left

Our nation’s problems are so deep-seated and systemic that one person at the helm will be very limited in effecting change merely by the force of their* personality or the compelling moral rectitude of their positions. Does anyone really think that President Kucinich would be more successful in effecting a comprehensive progressive agenda? I don’t.

It’s sexy and exciting to get involved in the immediate thunderstorm of electoral contests. However, rather than merely suiting up for today’s weather, progressives would do much better to focus on the mid- and long-term political climate. We need to concentrate on two aspects:

1. Make our democracy more democratic. It is impossible to mount a viable campaign for office at any level without having to make accommodation not only with one of the major parties but also with the myriad special interests who provide the necessary financing to fund the endeavor. Make the parties and megadollars less necessary and candidates will be in a much better position to represent the people and (we like to presume) a more progressive agenda. At the very least, it will help break the grip of the corporatist oligopolies that dominate the governance of the U.S.A.
   


2. 
   Change the frame. For at least 30 years a critical mass—probably a majority—of American voters has bought into the narrative that government is intrusive and ineffectual, taxation in any form is to be rejected, and being pro-Businesses is the same as being pro-business. To stand for progressive ideals like green energy and social justice is to be contemptuous of “regular” (i.e., less-educated, low-information, non-urban White) citizens. To point out that the corporatist agenda is harmful to the interests of regular Americans is to invite heated denunciations of “class warfare”.
   

Unless and until we can find a way to bring about these structural changes, we will continue to chew the acrid cud of our Groundhog Day existence: (a) the bitter disappointment of losing most elections to the greater of two evils or (b) the cold comfort derived from the occasional victory of those whom you want to like but who cannot deliver on the agenda you want them to pursue. Nevertheless, trapped in the conundrum of Einstein’s description of insanity, we keep working the shopworn cycle and wondering why we don’t get better results.

Stop looking for the deliverer who will fix it for you. Change the system. Change the narrative. Accept that compromise, negotiation, and consensus are necessary to build the type of coalition that can break the grip of the status quo. Advocate specific positions and make it broadly known that there are more menu options available than the spectrum routinely presented by the mainstream media but remember that nobody will buy your dog food if their dogs won’t eat it.

I still yearn to transform America and the world into Dr. King’s Beloved Community. However, insisting on ideological purity and demanding more than you can reasonably expect may bring some small measure of personal satisfaction but do little to bring the change you desire. Throwing out barbs and childish insults (“President Shamwow”, really?) makes you not only irrelevant but quite immature. Leadership is essential to the process but in the absence of a popular buy-in we’ll just be strutting around admiring ourselves in a mirror. It’s really just a form of narcissistic masturbation.

*******************************
*Yes, I used the ungrammatical “their” as an alternative to the sexist “his” or the clumsy “his or her”. That is this writer’s choice.

God's Side

I am for peace & justice. I am for the peoples of our planet learning how to live in harmony and mutual respect. (OK, I’ll take surly tolerance if everyone gives up their blood feuds and other lingering grudges. We can get to the rainbows and unicorns later.)

If God exists . . . and if God has a side, then that is God's side, I am sure. Please do not attempt to persuade me to another side.

C.S.A.: An Evil Regime

I posit these statements as facts:

• The Civil War began when the southern states established the Confederate States of America. While the areas of disagreement between the regions may have been manifold, the most compelling factor was that the entire economy of the South was based on an agriculture system that depended on slave labor for its profitability. When the first Republican president was elected on a platform to prohibit slavery’s expansion into new states, slave state leaders were alarmed that they would soon lose their stalemate in the Senate and the United States would soon be on the slippery slope to prohibition. Secession was a preemptive move to maintain the pro-slavery status quo.

• Many scholars believe that Lincoln personally supported abolition but as a practical politician could not do it universally by edict. Yes, there are a couple of asterisks that need to be applied but the Emancipation Proclamation was a momentous document that had to be supplemented with the 13th and 14th Amendments. Even so, it took another century for Black Americans to be given equal rights of citizenship. Of course, things like the GOP’s voter suppression efforts continue to work counter to this ideal.

• Abolitionists existed in the South. Most Whites in the North had views that would be considered quite racist today. Many were indifferent to the slavery issue. Any analysis of the people of the two “nations” would not find that either population to be morally superior to the other.

• There can be no similar equivalence offered for the two regimes that were at war. The CSA waged a brutal war against the United States. Its officers betrayed their oaths of loyalty to the USA. While the U.S. Constitution was silent on the issue of slavery (silence infers consent?), the C.S. Constitution was quite explicit in guaranteeing support for the peculiar institution.

• If the goals of Reconstruction had been adhered to, if the promise of 40 acres and a mule had been honored, America would have reached racial reconciliation a hundred years sooner. (not that we’re there yet, BTW).

• At some point late in the 19th Century Americans made a grand bargain. We would honor the heroes from both sides of the conflict. Southerners would cling to the wistful melancholy of their beloved lost cause and we all* could get back to being one American people again.

• The price for this bargain was paid by African Americans. When federal troops withdrew, former slaves lost their franchise along with the rest of their civil rights. They were subjected to brutally enforced codes and random acts of domestic terrorism. This created, in functional terms, the reinstitution of slavery. [recommended reading: Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-Name-Re-Enslavement-Americans/dp/0385722702 ]

It is right to celebrate southern people and their culture. Those who died in their war against the United States are to be afforded our respect and honor. However, I will not pretend that the Confederate States was somehow benign. It was an evil regime created to perpetuate the peculiar institution of slavery. Its symbols became tools which were used to enforce the subjugation of African people well into the 20th Century. It may cause discomfort among good people in the 21st Century, but this is something that can never be sugarcoated.

*all the White people, that is.

IMMIGRANT NATION

You Can't Spell NAZI

Not On Our Dime, CUCCINELLI

Great Moments in Science

Drugs, Immigration and "Papers, Please"

There are two distinct problems –somewhat related but hardly synonymous– that accrue from our inability to control the flow of goods and services across our border with Mexico. The free market demand placed by Americans for drugs and cheaper labor frustrates even our most effective efforts to limit access into the USA. (This is not to claim that our efforts thus far are as effective as they may be; it is just that even the very best programs will never enjoy very high rates of success, ultimately.) It is the folly born of one’s refusal to recognize the raw power of the market that marks socialists, communists and ultra-nationalist xenophobes as ineffectual dreamers who would presume to bend human behavior to transform it into something more to their liking.

Those who are drawn across the border in search of a better standard of living for their families are NOT the same as the remorseless murderers who glibly administer mayhem and terror in their efforts to secure a greater market share of the U.S. recreational drug market. As we search for solutions to both of these problems, it is dishonest and immoral to conflate them. It is not yet known who killed rancher Robert Krentz in SW Arizona but it is absurd to think that he was most likely murdered by a band of wanna-be day laborers.

See Daily Kos article: “Catalyst for Hateful Arizona Law Had Little to do with Immigration Issue”

Join the American Progressive Party

Become a fan on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-American-Progressive-Party/195858376158

Jesus Iscariot

But His Birth Certificate Says: "MARLBORO COUNTRY"

The Great Fake of 2008

Someone in the conservative bloggosphere flipped a photo of then-Senator Obama and photoshopped a cigarette between his lips. Presumably, this made him seem sinister and unsavory but others think it makes him come across as a 50s era hepcat; a connoisseur(or even a player) of bebop jazz who just finished a set with Miles and Bird.

Note also that the cigarette is approximately 125% larger than normal. Scale is always the photoshopper's curse.

It IS the Moral Equivalent of War

HOW'S THAT DRILLY-SPILLY THING?

HOLD the DANDY DON ACCOUNTABLE

May I See Your Papers, Please?

SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS APPLY

ARIZONA: The View from the Other Side

Tactics, Strategy, and Coalition Building: A PROGRESSIVE MANIFESTO

Many of us are drawn to the tactical clash of politics. It’s a sport: Blue Team bests Red Team; we win news cycle or legislative victory or message war. Opportunities are presented to heap scorn and ridicule for misstatements, errors, or rank hypocrisy. Since there are effectively only two parties, we struggle to make our party more like us and less like those other guys inside our tent. It’s a fun game to play and I will never give it up entirely.

However, the most successful and most persistent strategic thinkers are those powerful interests that devote considerable resources to finding new ways to bend the system in a manner that serves their interests. They are relentless in their search for weaknesses in the system and amoral in their efforts to exploit them. The corruption they engender has infected both major parties (Republicans more so, IMO, but I acknowledge that I am not without bias) and it twists and perverts the struggles we wage at the tactical level.

HCR, for example, was a huge tactical victory for Democrats but strategically it represents only an insignificant and possibly temporary reversal of the power equation. Still, even baby steps are to be celebrated.

Strategic thinkers recognize that many of the various systems that overlay our democracy have been developed to thwart the will of the majority and to frustrate the people’s desire to reach consensus. Playing a rigged game will always bring rigged results. Third party efforts are doomed not only to fail, but will advantage the Major Party whose objectives are least in alignment with supporters of the third party (e.g., Bush v Gore v Nader). The Dems and the GOPpers are the sole gatekeepers and democracy suffers another blow.

Tactically, the smart move for progressives is to reject the Green Party and rally behind the Democratic nominee. Strategically, however, this still leaves the wizards behind the curtain with their hands on the levers. Therefore, I hope that the American Progressive Party will explore very specific reforms that will make the USA more democratic and breaks the grip of the Demo-Repo duopoly.

Additionally, we need to appreciate that long-lasting, effective political movements are built on broad-based coalitions. Historically, many of the components of these alliances had seemed quite incompatible with one another. FDR’s supporters were workers & intellectuals, socialists & segregationists. Reagan’s very effective governing coalition included libertarians, social conservatives, militarists, and corporatist oligarchs (does my nomenclature reveal any biases here, guys?). These coalitions endured for a number of decades because the various members were able to subordinate their various differences in order to strive toward a higher principle. The moral imperative and fierce urgency of the moment really did drive them to unite.

I dream of a new progressive coalition of combinations that haven’t worked together, at least in many decades. I envision a big tent for liberals and libertarians, workers (from Black to Brown to White and with all hues in between) and environmentalists, and the regular folk who realize that the diet of resentment and revenge fantasy that they have been served in heaping portions for four decades has done them and their beloved country a world of harm. You can come to the tea party or you can come to our party but ours is more satisfying morally and better for your children’s and grandchildren’s futures.

p.s.: Corporatist enablers —Democratic or Republican— will not be welcome.

Defining 21st Century Progressivism

Perhaps this is the time to clear up the confusion about what people at the Facebook page, American Progressive Party*, mean by the word “progressive”. Some write as if there is already a consensus, but it is evident that at least three distinct schools of progressivism are represented. My observations:

1. “Progressivism” is a synonym for “liberalism”. During the Reagan years, “liberal” took on a pejorative connotation and liberals thought they would make themselves seem less objectionable if they adopted a new term for themselves.

2. “Progressivism” is as Glenn Beck describes. It harkens back to the anti-capitalist theorists of the early 20th Century like Saul Alinsky. Top-down lines of authority, rigid ideology and quasi-religious terms like “collective consciousness” have been used by at least one of the members here. I also note that some call for radical action, even at the expense of democratic processes or consensus-building. It seems rather quaint but unless they are being disingenuous, there is a desire to rekindle an ideology based on a reformulation of Marxist-Leninist principles.

3. “Progressivism” refers to a movement for good government, accountability and structural reform. While it is quite compatible with liberalism it is also a cause that libertarians and responsible conservatives can support. This kind of progressivism sees the enemy is the corporatist oligopolies that have entrenched their hold on most of the levers of government and have corrupted both of the major political parties.

Any thoughts on my analysis? Did I miss something? Am I off-base? Most importantly, what type of “progressivism” do the fans of that page seek?

*[ http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=13620&uid=195858376158#!/pages/The-American-Progressive-Party/195858376158?ref=ts ]

Judicial Activism and Other Conservative Myths

One of the most irksome traits common to many (most?) conservatives of the early 21st Century is the catalogue of myths to which they faithfully cling despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Many of these myths are applied to people whom they are not (e.g., liberals, non-Caucasians, non-Christians, etc.). Examples include the “wisdom” that liberals love taxes and desire to appease terrorists and other enemies and that character, values, and choices are the most important determinants of one’s relative wealth or poverty.

Another type of conceit in which conservatives like to indulge is the myth that their positions are determined by godly principles that are at odds with the self-serving expedience favored by the usurpers of the left. One particularly damnable myth is that conservatives are strict constructionists who are offended by efforts to “legislate from the bench.” This presumes:

1. that it is an easy, straightforward process to determine the original intent of the writers of words the Constitution and its amendments. There is much potential for misunderstanding and ambiguity for passages that were composed with utmost care last week. Why do they believe that there is only one correct way to understand that which was written a couple of centuries ago?

and

2. that opponents of judicial activism will, on principle, reject it even when legislating from the bench brings a decision they find favorable. Examples of this include Bush v Gore and the recent Citizens United decisions.

Conservatives should admit that honorable people can reach different conclusions about what a given written passage may mean or what the writer may have intended them to mean; if it were simple, judicial review would be unnecessary. They should also hold themselves to the same standards to which they hold their adversaries. If “judicial activism” is morally unjustifiable, then it’s also bad when the benefit accrues to the Red Team, too.

Keen Incite

Grow Up!

WATERLOO

Obama-Wan Kenobi

John Boner: AGENT ORANGE

Christian Nation? Islamic Republic? Jewish State?

I write this with some trepidation and great love for my Jewish brothers and sisters. While I support the right of Jews to live as first-class citizens in the land of their ancestors, I’m beginning to conclude that the concept of a “Jewish state” is not only a flawed concept in terms of sustainability but I am also troubled that a nation-state based on ethnicity and/or religion is morally indefensible. I cannot abide the concept of a Christian nation or an Islamic republic. Why, then, is a Jewish state acceptable? How are efforts to drive Palestinians out of East Jerusalem not an example of ethnic cleansing?

I don’t know the answers but I think that we’ve got to get out of the boxes we’ve been thinking in for the last 60+ years. The will be no lasting peace until all parties can buy into the bargain that is finally struck. Is it crazy to envision a secular democracy in which human rights and religious freedom are zealously guaranteed? I just don’t think the present model will ever produce anything other than a repetition of the endless cycle of bloodshed and heartbreak.

From the Archives

Nobody Loves You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsrA2fMn0sk

Nobody Knows You When You’re Down And Out
by Jimmie Cox
(performance by B.B. King)

I once lived the life of a millionaire
Spending my money I didn’t care
Always taking my friends out for a good time
Buying champagne, gin and wine.

But just as soon as my dough got low
I couldn’t find a friend, no place I go
If I ever get my hands on a dollar again
I’m gonna squeeze it, and squeeze it
Till the eagle grins.

Nobody knows you when you’re down and out
In your pocket, not one penny
And your friends, you haven’t any
And as soon as you get on your feet again
Everybody is your long lost friend
It’s mighty strange, without a doubt, but
Nobody wants you when you’re down and out.

You know folks, I once had a mansion
Way up on the side of a hill.
I’d give champagne and caviar parties
Just for fun and get a thrill.
But you know things they just can’t stay like that forever.
And now I can’t hustle up enough money
To buy a shot of gin.

But you know, if I ever get my hands on a dollar again,
I’m gonna squeeze it, and squeeze it till the eagle grins.
It’s mighty strange, without a doubt.
Nobody wants you.
Nobody needs you.
Nobody wants you.
When you’re down and out.

IT'S A STINKING PILE OF ROTTEN SAUSAGE; Pass it Anyway

Scrapping the present HCR bill does not mean that we will get a better bill. It means that we get no bill at all. The bad actors in this ugly little year-long drama are those of both parties who diluted or otherwise perverted the legislation to suit their parochial interests and their corporate sponsors in the healthcare industry. Worst of all are the solid phalanx of Republicans who, while pretending to be interested in negotiating, were determined to break the president by handing him a major legislative defeat.

Until our leaders spend the majority of their time and energy on governance instead of fundraising and posturing for the next election, the little bit of progress we manage to eke out will be flawed and very incremental. We need deep, systemic transformation of our election process before we can hope for the rest of the reform we desperately need. I am hopeful that the Coffee Party movement can move the national conversation in that direction.

Coffee Party II

Coffee Party I

I am hopeful and excited about the Coffee Party. Here's one contribution:

Will Bart Stupak Kill Health Reform?

DEMOCRACY: the Loser's Obligation

“[T]he real test of a democracy is not so much the behavior of the winners; it will be the behavior of the losers.” U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
- Christopher Hill, quoted in this week’s Newsweek

This is a test that the Republican Party has greatly failed during the last 15 months. Losers of elections are not expected to roll over and do nothing but neither should they stand in the way and use every extraordinary means at their disposal to thwart majority rule. It may produce short-term gain for their team but the very democracy upon which this nation is founded has been harmed by this immature approach to governance.

Democrat Party II

Have you ever seen an atheist write the word “Christian” as “Xtian”? When called on this, he will usually feign innocence and explain that he meant no disrespect—that “X” as an abbreviation for “Christ” is a centuries-old tradition, blah, blah, blah. In reality, everyone knows that he uses this convention to express his contempt for and make a subtle dig at a religion in which he finds disfavor. I find expressions of “It’s just a minor grammar error” in reference to the construction “Democrat Party” to be similarly disingenuous.

There is, in fact, a long history of using this term as a little insult. GOP wordsmiths Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich have urged their fellow partisans to put this mean little term into general usage. There is much to document this phenomenon:

“There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but ‘Democrat Party’ is jarring verging on ugly.”
Hendrik Hertzberg
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

“[I]t's rude to call people by a term that makes them bristle, even a seemingly innocuous one. There's also something grating and coarse-sounding about this abbreviated appellation, like saying ‘Jew’ instead of ‘Jewish’ It is, conservative wordsmith William F. Buckley wrote in National Review in 2002, ‘offensive to the ear.’”
Ruth Marcus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101223.html

“I go back and forth sometimes on usage, try to stick with Democratic Party, but I’ll shorten it to Democrat if it helps me make a stinging point.”
Philip Bryan, Communications Director, Alabama Republican Party
http://www2.oanow.com/oan/OAN_Political_Blog/comments/the_problem_of_ic/29484/

“[T]he adjective Democratic is used in its official name, the Democratic Party. Democrat as an adjective is still sometimes used by some twentieth-century Republicans as a campaign tool but was used with particular virulence by the late senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican who sought by repeatedly calling it the Democrat party to deny it any possible benefit of the suggestion that it might also be democratic.”
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English
http://books.google.com/books?id=L2ChiO2yEZ0C&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=%22Columbia+Guide+to+Standard+American+English%22+%22Democrat+as+an+adjective%22&source=bl&ots=hxxsW7dAa9&sig=71GZnCUmyH_MPW-KTvtegbp8Jps&hl=en&ei=LfeES8vGHZGENvzMqDU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You can embrace or eschew snide, snarky language as you choose. You can label my earlier 284-word post as a “dissertation” and an example of “over-the-top outrage” (I maintain that they are neither). But please do not indulge in the fake-innocent “who me?” pretense that it was just an innocent little slip. We both know better.

It's Not the Democrat Party

(from an exchange on Facebook)

You can be disgusted. You can change your mind. However, if you deliberately use a name that the named person doesn't like, you are indicating your disrespect. It doesn't matter if you think they shouldn't mind. It doesn't matter if you can construct a compelling case as to why they are stupid to object to the name you have conferred up on them. If they do mind and you are a respectful person, you will moderate your behavior, not expect them to moderate theirs.

If William doesn't like to be called "Bill" but if you continue to call him "Bill" anyway, then you are disrespecting William. I can speculate that it pleases you to irk him in that manner.

Would you call your attorney, who happens to be Jewish, a "Jew lawyer", even if his ethnicity/religion were relevant to the conversation? You would do so only if you meant to be subtly demeaning.

In the old Bewitched series, Samantha's mother often called Darren, "Derwood" --or some variation-- just because it rankled him. Her disrespect was one of the running jokes of the show.

Tip O'Neil made a point of not pronouncing the second "g" in Newt Gingrich's name, calling him "Mr. Ginrich." It was not meant to be anything but a little insult. O'Neil bragged that this was from an old Boston pol's bag of tricks.

People like Limbaugh and you who insist on calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" are being snotty and disrespectful. I am sure you already know this. I suspect that this is precisely why you indulge yourself in this little slur. There is no sincerity in your apology because it was no apology at all.

HYPOCRITICS

Do you have an employer whom you can never please? Perhaps it is a parent or a spouse or a sibling who forever judges you inadequate. It is a kind of abuse; the abuser’s reward comes from denying you the satisfaction that you are performing within his/her expectations -– expectations that shift as abruptly as Lucy moves her football.

President Obama’s conservative critics are abusive in a similar manner. They twist their principles and distort their standards so that they can wail in indignation at the most recent incompetence and/or power grab by this vaguely un-American usurper. To characterize this behavior as rank hypocrisy is to be too generous to the ravenous naysayers. These people are playing a very childish game that is detrimental to our very democracy. I realize that this is an extreme statement but I write it with no hint of hyperbole whatsoever.

Palin Around With Terrorists

If the U.S. Senate Conducted Itself Like a Jazz Ensemble

Some of the people all of the time

Palm Pilot

Republican't

Palin Reads Another Palm

Russia From My House

Schadenfreude