What's in a name? A lot when it comes to political parties

Yes, it’s as silly as thinking a bulldozer operator makes bulls doze-off into a nap because of the vehicle’s name. We shouldn’t think that police only direct their efforts toward other police when riding in a police car.

However, a name can clarify something’s purpose, as does fire truck and line truck. We could examine more examples. How about the names Democratic Party and Republican Party?

From Google:

• The American Democratic Party began in the 1830s. Founders based this name on ancient Greece "demokratia": a combination of "demo" (people) and "kratos" (power). Greek citizens voted directly on laws and policies. Our original Democratic Party focused on things like citizen participation, collective decisions and minority rights.

• The American Republican Party began in the 1850s. Founders based this name on the Latin phrase "res publica": where Romans rejected a kingship and adopted "res" (thing, matter, situation) and "publica" (of the people). Wealthy, elite Roman citizens voted on laws and policies rather than a one-man, one-vote process by all citizens. Our original Republican Party focused on things like ending slavery and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

We could ask if the parties are achieving anything close to their original initiatives and objectives for us people. They sure deserve credit for many accomplishments over the decades. But lately they seemingly just want to be in the White House (to unilaterally do anything) and achieve a majority in the Congress (to collectively do nothing), which makes getting elected their top priority. As such, Democrats direct their attention to other Democrats and Republicans direct their attention to other Republicans.

But we all should remember George Washington’s warning in his 1796 farewell address when he stated that the worst enemy of government was loyalty to party over nation. According to Washington, one of the chief dangers of letting regional loyalties dominate over loyalty to the nation was that it would lead to factionalism, or development of belligerent political parties.

When Americans voted according to party loyalty, rather than the common interest of the nation, Washington feared it would foster a “spirit of revenge,” and enable the rise of “cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men” who would “usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterward the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” (wow … did President No. 1 have a crystal ball?)

Would renaming the two political parties help us people redirect our focus back to our founding mission and purpose? Maybe: the Democratic Party could become the Citizen Participation Party and the Republican Party could become the Constitutional Equality Party.

Or even better, new party names could compliment their Greek and Latin origins: The People Power Party and The People Matter Party.

Could that help us engage in solving issues common to all; and drop the counterproductive campaign slogan: “The other political party is evil”? We should take Washington’s warning as a lesson to be learned (with actions taken becomes a lesson learned).

And after clarifying those Democratic and Republican party names we could tweak the Tea Party’s name, if that party still exists.

Jack Jerald

Prince Frederick