Struggling with who's in control
By Doug Fisher
From the e-mail inbox this month comes a request for help that many desks
haven't had to consider for some time: "We're arguing about the proper
way to refer to the House and Senate. We see Democratic-controlled a lot
on the wire, but it's controlled by Democrats, not 'Democratics,' so shouldn't
it be 'Democrat-controlled'?"
On the surface, that analysis seems simple and straightforward.
End of discussion. But things are seldom so simple, especially
when language and usage are mixed with a hefty serving of partisan politics.
A Google News search on either of the terms shows how we
struggle. It turns up numerous examples – many from the nation's
largest papers – where "Democrat-controlled" and "Democratic-controlled" are
mixed in the same story (an editing problem for sure; at least be consistent).
The problem is illustrated by a story in the Jan. 25 Daily
Cavalier at the University of Virginia:
- The headline deck: "University
community members voice opinions after president addresses
Democratic-controlled Congress."
- The lede: "President
Bush delivered his annual State of the Union speech Tuesday evening
to a joint session of Congress, marking the first time that Bush has
addressed the Democrat-controlled Congress."
The AP wire isn't much help, either. From story to story it flits back
and forth.
Let's pause a second and think about how we usually describe
things. A company controlled by China isn't usually called
a "China-controlled" company
but "Chinese-controlled." Things are French-controlled, or Mexican-controlled,
or Canadian-controlled, or Albanian-controlled. Other constructions are
similar, such as a Swedish-based corporation.
OK, so "Democratic-controlled" it is?
Well, maybe. First, in one of those maddeningly idiomatic
things about American English, when we talk about our own
country, we revert to the noun form (a Virginia-based company, for instance).
And then there's another way to look at those constructions like Chinese-controlled.
Are we talking about the country – or the people? We can just as
easily say the phrase means the company is controlled by the Chinese as
we can say it is controlled by China.
So we're back to the "controlled by Democrats" argument.
But wait one more time. Google News shows "Democratic-controlled" outnumbering
Democrat-controlled about four to one, and this may reflect our political
climate as much as our linguistic one.
In the past two decades, Republicans have often used "Democrat" as
a way to deprecate the adjective Democratic, for instance, calling it
the "Democrat" Convention and the "Democrat" Party.
This issue is serious enough to Bryan Garner that in Garner's Modern American
Usage he devotes several hundred words to the tactic and stresses, as
a result, the desirability of using Democratic as the adjective. The New
York Times, more to the point in its stylebook, notes the deprecation
and proscribes using "Democrat" as an adjective. Neither Garner
nor the Times, however, deals specifically with the hyphenated form.
Clearly, this is a usage in flux. You won't necessarily
be wrong if you favor "Democrat-controlled," and you will find
a lot of traditional, like-minded company. But the weight is shifting
to "Democratic-controlled."
With the campaigning already under way, it sounds like
a perfect time to make your choice, update your local style
guide and then explain it to your readers.
