| User | Post |
|
|
|
AM … I respect your thoughtful post, but must disagree. My disagreement stems from a difference of opinion on the basis of your argument, that elected officials are not leaders but rather employees. I feel that, while this might hold true in a certain sense for elected representatives, it is fundamentally flawed when it comes to the elected executive. We do not “hire” our executives. We elect them. We elect them not to work for us, nor do we elect them to lead us, precisely. We elect them to lead the government of the day. As such, I have no issue calling the president President Bush nor my governor Governor Doyle.
On the other hand, we sometimes do have hired executive leadership. I live, for example, in a moderately sized municipality that is, in its governmental structure, a village. That is, there is an elected council of at-large members that don’t represent a certain section of town, and there is no mayor. We elect the council and entrust them with the duty of doing the hiring for us, and they hire a village administrator who acts in many ways like a mayor, only less political. We do not call him or her “Administrator Smith” or whatever. In my case, my village is small enough that we call him Larry.
What’s interesting to me as both a political/government professional and a word nerd is that the language we use to describe these people reflects our perception of the nature of our government. To put it simply, I do not subscribe to the “employee” analogy, so I do not shy away from honorific titles. (I also don’t subscribe to the “government should be run like a business” analogy, but that’s a discussion for another time and another board.)
All that said, I’m with you entirely on “First Lady.” I don’t know why “Mrs. Bush” isn’t perfectly adequate.
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t see how hiring versus electing makes a key difference here and my position doesn’t depend on that distinction. In any case, the only conceptual difference between “hiring” and “electing” (literally, “choosing”) is that in the first place, one or a small number of people hold the authority to “hire” whereas all citizens hold the authority to participate in the “election.” In both cases, some body of persons makes a choice as to who will serve in a position of responsibility.
The basis of my thought here is that conceptually speaking a democracy is essentially an egalitarian program (that is, egalitarianism is essential to democracy) and thus positions of responsibility must not confer higher status on an individual, relative to ordinary citizens.
Furthermore, I don’t see the distinction you make between executives and legislators. Indeed, it seems to me that the authors of the Constitution believed that the legislature was the superior body. Whether that is true (clearly, the Constitution sees the legislature at the very least as being equal to the executive), I think that the idea that the executive represents some kind of elevated status (whether over the legislature or over the public) is one that has resulted in concrete harm to democratic values.
I also don’t believe that government should be run like a business. Government should be run as a service to the public and as a vehicle for collective action. “We elect them to lead the government of the day,” and that is a service to the public … serves the public … literally (in my mind) as a servant (subordinate) to the public. If they fail to serve adequately, they may be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
“Egalitarianism is a relative idea: no two people are equal in every aspect.”
It seems to me that if in no other aspect of life, the relationship between citizen and officeholder in a democracy should reflect the spirit of egalitarianism. A minor is unequal to a parent or a school official. An employee is unequal to an employer. A driver is unequal to a traffic cop. I see when your “no two people are equal in every aspect” applies in these cases.
However, when the nature of the relationship between citizen and official is implicated, each citizen should be treated as equal to every other citizen, and the holder of a public office should not be treated as if he or she holds a higher status.
“I don’t see anything wrong with showing respect …”
And what I am trying to distinguish here are “respect” and “deference.” Every person is owned respect. There is no disrespect in offering the same level of courtesy to officeholders that one offers to non-officeholders.
“… mere bestowal of a title upon someone is no damage to your ego …”
I don’t know why this has to become personal. My ego? (And why did you choose to address me as “Ms.”? You don’t know my gender.)
My ego is not at issue. The damage done is to the spirit of democracy. You’ll note that the Constitution specifically prohibits the granting of titles of nobility. So the Constitution does see some harm in “mere bestowal of a title.” The use of such status honorifics symbolize a recognition of differing status. Our governmental system recognizes (or should recognize) no such differences in status based on the holding of public office.
|
|
|
4:14PM
Mar-25-08
|
Wordsmith
| | | |
| posts 158 |
|
|
AM said:
I don’t know why this has to become personal.
Who says it does? I was using “you” in the general sense. The way French uses “on” (we or one). If your (your very own; i.e., you, AM) ego is not at issue, then don’t bring it up…
As for your other claims, I’m afraid I’m just not seeing eye-to-eye with you…
You should consider starting your own blog as a means of venting your anger on this pig-headed phallocratic republic. Because, as it is, you’re making no headway here. We’ve seemingly reached a stalemate. Plus, let’s not neglect the other threads in this topic…
|
|
|
|
|
Wordsmith, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that all your responses to me (unlike Rob’s, for example) have bordered on or crossed over into the personal. I have tried to limit my comments to an issue of usage, but your first response was to wonder about my mental health. I had to invite you to actually discuss the issue. And now you take it upon yourself to suggest, using sarcastic language and implications, that I stop discussing the issue. I am new to this board and am unfamiliar with the customs, but it seems to me that on a discussion board, someone who is no longer interested in a topic can choose to leave it alone; it seems presumptuous and condescending to offer instructions to other posters in this manner.
|
|
|
1:51PM
Mar-26-08
|
Wordsmith
| | | |
| posts 158 |
|
|
Yes, you are wrong. 
|
|
|
6:54AM
May-05-08
|
Tracy
Guest
| | | |
| |
|
|
Regarding the “real-life undo” term, I came up with a hybrid of Martha Wild’s deja-undo and Rob’s e-flex (accidentally, it was before I got online): “e-ja-vu”. But I think I prefer Rob’s e-flex, since, for me anyway, it really is a reflex and not a feeling of having experienced the need to undo before.
Thanks for a great term Rob!
|
|
|
10:12PM
May-06-08
|
Joie de Vivienne
Guest
| | | |
| |
|
|
I too have heard “piker” as a term to describe a sort of country bumpkin, though it was more derogatory, what Grant calls a “fightin’ word”. It came up when I was living in Ireland as an alternative to “knacker” (when I asked what that term meant) A piker was described to me as a (usually white) person who lives in a trailer, has many cars rusting on the front lawn, and does not want to work for a living.
There was an implication of criminality, they were often described as thieves. The term seemed to equate to what would have been called “white trash” where I’m from in southern Indiana.
“Knacker” was the hip or young version of the term, whereas “piker” might have been used by their parents.
Interestingly, since I returned home, I’ve noticed that the term is being adopted by young people in Northern Ireland and England (seen on myspace and similar public forums), and used subversively to describe themselves when they’re living a sort of “starving artist” lifestyle. It’s seen as a sort of “street cred” title, particularly for those in the punk rock community.
|
|
|
5:14PM
May-07-08
|
martha
Moderator
| | | |
| posts 281 |
|
|
Joie, that’s really interesting. (And which of those two words are you saying is being adopted as a kind of “street cred” title? Knacker or piker?
And where in So. Indiana? Marengo? Paioli? Cementville? Birdseye? Huntingburg? (Pardon me while I take a little stroll down Memory Lane here….)
|
|
|
8:01PM
May-07-08
|
Joie de Vivienne
Guest
| | | |
| |
|
|
I’m from a tiny one-stoplight town called Nineveh. Well, really, we had one flashin’ light, but the bulb burned out about 7 years ago, so you’re just supposed to know to stop now  We’re about 30 minutes from Nashville and 45 minutes from Bloomington and Indiana University (I grew up always having to qualify, I’ll be impressed if you’ve heard of it).
Coming from such a small town, I had to wonder if I was a “knacker” which prompted the conversation in Ireland…
To answer your question, in my experience “piker” was a term that had been adopted by the youth to describe themselves, whereas “knacker” was still viewed as derogatory. According to the kids “round the pub” knackers are not socially aware enough to know that they are being described as such.
This last bit, mind you, came from a very small group of kids ages 12-28 in a TINY town in western Ireland (less than 75 people) –in larger cities such as Galway, the definition varied just a bit and the word knacker was completely unknown in Northern Ireland. I’d be curious to hear a native speaker’s take on the issue.
|
|
Login
Register
Search 
Forums
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Topic RSS 
