Green Mountain Daily - Recommended Diaries

It's a Democratic Thing, and Not Just For Democrats

Caoimhin Laochdha — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:15:00 GMT

Good catch by jvwalt regarding the slurs against Representative Floyd Nease and Democrats in general in yesterday's Rutland Herald.

The anti-Democratic policy slurs appeared in the Herald’s article about Governor Douglas’ latest anti-working family policy decision. In a nutshell, the Governor is hopelessly committed to keep spending taxpayer money on political/public relations staff while simultaneously cutting badly needed funds to support child safety/daycare help for working Vermonters balancing the burdens of family responsibility and working long hours during a Republican recession. See article.

The Rutland Herald refers dismissively to Representative Floyd Nease, the Ass’t House Majority Leader, and other “Democrat lawmakers.” Hmmmm?

Admittedly, this notoriously focus-group tested and Republican marketed type derision, when just a one-off thing, can sometimes be an innocent typo. If the person does it repeatedly, it is hard to see it as anything but a slur.

The Herald article goes pretty far into the muck . . . (more below)

Hendrik Hertzberg explained the reasoning behind Republican-American's strategy of demonizing Democrats by their strategy of substituting the noun for the adjectival (Democratic) when refering to a person's or a policy's party affiliation:

    There is 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. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. . . . And no doubt there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signaling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.

    * * *

    In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax*com, . . . William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began. . .

     . . . among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,”

The first time I see someone write this, it is not necessarily a slur unless the context makes it obviously so. Rather, it is a signal to keep an eye on the reporter/commenter etc. to see whether they are being objective or subversive.

In this particular case, the Herald reporter threw down the sign three times in the article.

This is the effect of "nouning" (if I may take verb privileges) an adjective

This is what the article says:

Efforts to trim $32 million from the state budget turned political Monday when a prominent Democrat lawmaker criticized Gov. James Douglas

AND

The public-relations positions funded via the executive branch budget have come under fire perennially from Democrat lawmakers.

AND Finally

". . . the administration had already agreed to chop $500,000 in non-union salaries over fiscal years 2008 and 2009, largely in response to Democrat criticism over the number of public relations employees appointed by Douglas . . ."

Rather than use an adjective to describe the type of "criticism" (Democratic criticism) the type of "fire" (Democratic fire) or type of "lawmaker" (Democratic lawmaker), the article uses, one can only surmise deliberately based on the repeated hits, a dismissive slur against Rep. Nease.

At the same time, the Herald gives the Governor’s staff a free shot at Democratic motives for Nease's advocacy of placing a policy priority on maintaining what mild assistance to working families the State already has. The forum the Herald gives for the Douglas administration to take shots at Rep. Nease also come at the expense of - and as a substitute for - any visible attempt by the Herald to make the administration justify its spending priorities. Nice.

Here is another offensive and even more glaring example of a particular noun/adjective slur I’ve heard far too often. It is grossly bigoted as well. Take the following nouns (Democrat, Jew) and the following adjectives (Democratic, Jewish). Now, read the Herald’s dismissive sentences again (substituting a noun for the appropraite adjective) and see how this sounds:

Example 1:

Efforts to trim $32 million from the state budget turned political Monday when a prominent Jew lawmaker criticized Gov. James Douglas

AND

The public-relations positions funded via the executive branch budget have come under fire perennially from Jew lawmakers.

AND Finally

". . . the administration had already agreed to chop $500,000 in non-union salaries over fiscal years 2008 and 2009, largely in response to Jew criticism over the number of public relations employees appointed by Douglas . . ."

Instead of, for example, “Jewish lawmaker” or “Democratic lawmaker,” the Rutland Herald gives us “[noun: Democrat, noun: Jew] lawmaker,” which reads just like the slur it is intended to be.

The legacy media have tacked pretty far to the right for well past a generation now. The faux balancing in political reporting is particularly glaring when the “expression of contempt” is so, literally, black and white.

The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged

LeftField — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:51:40 GMT

(Cross posted at Broadsides.org)

The so-called blogging revolution is dead. Yep, stick a fork in it. And it died in Denver in the lap of the Democratic Party - purring happily and doing nothing at its death but holding a mini-cam in its paws so as to document its last, pathetic moments.

Let's face it: Blogging is the new opiate of the current activist generations. Instead of hitting the streets, disrupting the conventions, confronting the power elites or penning their own Port Heron statements, the new blogger generation is busy taking photos of those taking photos of them while they all race to the nearest wireless connection to be the first to upload the photos of nothing really in particular. But they were there! And they've got the photos to prove it, damn it.

Quick, someone put out the memo: Blogging is NOT activism. Because simply telling someone about something doesn't mean you did anything about it - no matter how fast your Internet connection or your prowess with YouTube is.

Take, for example, the bloggers and the current Democratic Convention. If only half of those filling the bloggers' official home in Denver - known as the "Big Tent" - put down their cameras, their Blackberries, their laptops, and their cutesy "look where I am!" commentaries long enough to actually join in the protests and the activism going on under their noses, the Democratic Party might be forced to actually address some important issues. You know, things like the war (remember that?), health care, global warming, the housing crisis, and - oh yeah - jobs.

Instead, the bloggers (for the most part - because there are some exceptions) are ego-bent on making the story in Denver more like a remake of a Chevy Chase vacation flick than a chance to actually provide some insight into the struggles, the challenges, the power, the privilege and the activist possibilities of it all.

While digesting more coverage of the convention than I thought I could stomach, I've been particularly struck by the coverage of the protests outside. Specifically, I've noticed how few protesters there are compared to how many people are standing around documenting the protests. Sadly, somewhere along the line, documenting attempts at change became "cooler" than actually risking something and participating in change.

The Howard Dean-led Democratic National Committee took it all one-step further, too: They made the blogs fight for the "one pass per state" to come into the convention as "official" participants. And so, like little fish fighting for the hook, they trampled upon each other and lunged for the almighty bite of - say what? - an inside ticket. Ah, bait 'em with "access," bring 'em in with a ticket and then own 'em. Because, once inside, they know who's buttering their bread.

The result, of course, has been one gooey-eyed report after another from the "anointed bloggers," gushing continuously about "the history," "the enthusiasm," "the celebrities" (oh-my-God, is that Walter Mondale?) and the absolute "importance" of it all - with photos and video!!!! Mission accomplished, Mr. Dean, the blogger lapdogs have been neutered.

It's more than sad to think that the more media - mainstream and citizen - that there is at this convention has equated to less meaningful coverage. I mean, how much have you read about the rallies, the protests or the issues? Instead, we know more than we'd ever want to know about the mood, the cheers, the celebrities (is that Susan Sarandon?) and how "exhausting" it all is for the poor, insider bloggers.

For the most part, blogging has become about witnessing. And the more people are merely witnessing - especially with tickets to the inside - the less people are "doing." Indeed, "instant" messaging has replaced "effective" messaging.

Ding-dong, the blogging revolution is dead.

Will the new hopeful Democratic Party do anything about this?

Rama Schneider — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:07:59 GMT

No, they won't. And the reason is simple: as demonstrated by decades of approval and cowardly acquiescence, the Democratic politicians in general approve of this.

We can be shot and killed, tortured with tasers, and beat for no reason ... and the Dems will gather in corporate infested Pepsi Center (see here) to tell us how much hope we should have for change.

Myopic merriment ... yeah ... that describes it. Self indulgent, self (undeserved) congratulatory, and self delusional.

Real change comes from actions, and words based upon nothing mean nothing. To date the Democratic Party politicians have demonstrated they love big corporations and big corporate power (go Joe Biden), they love big military and big military spending (Obama's own plan here), and while the claims are made to protect voters and voters' rights past votes have put that to a lie.

So while the Colorado cops brutalize women dressed in pink and peaceful demonstrators and arrest them "before they could break any laws" (Protesters challenge Monday arrest by police in Denver, Denver Post story reprinted in Times Argus but not on web site, 08/27/08), Democrats will enjoy their corporate welfare inside the comfy environs of unreality.

To paraphrase dumbya Bush, "Nope, no change we can believe in under here."

While everyone's blogging from the convention...

JulieWaters — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:21:21 GMT

I'm having fun in Vermont with my new web cam :)

Douglas Clean and Clear

BP — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:40:40 GMT

"We must have both jobs and a healthy environment in order to realize the true promise of Vermont." Sept.2003 press release
Gov.Douglas announced in 2003 Clean and Clear an effort to clean Lake Champlain that balanced regulations and voluntary efforts to reduce pollution and not slow or put harmful restrictions on development .Five years later how's that working out Governor ? The Governor's people have unveiled a plan to dredge and treat part of St.Albans Bay floor with alum.A strategy reportedly that will cost millions of dollars and only have short term effects as pollution continues to flow into the water .

September 30, 2003

Governor Douglas Announces Clean & Clear Water Action Plan"After more than a decade of discussion...we can, and we must, act now.".........."I believe strongly that our environment is not an inheritance from our ancestors to be spent down; it's a loan from our children and we ought to be prepared to pay it back with interest," Douglas said.

August 2008.........

"We were playing basketball here last week and the ball went into the water. My friends were like, 'Don't get it, don't get it,' the water was so gross. We spent like 20 minutes trying to fish it out with a stick,"

St. Albans City resident

http://governor.vermont.gov/to...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress...
link for Blue-Green Algae in Lake Champlain info from State Health Dept.
http://healthvermont.gov/envir...