It seems that normally the Republican party wins the word game. Too often we allow them to define the terms of discourse - 'pro life', or 'death panels' or 'fiscal conservative' - words that don't mean what a naive reading of them would think and which use that confusion for political gain. Then again, sometimes they seem to just miss. And so do we.
The obvious example for me is that sometime in the late 90s, I started hearing otherwise erudite politicians seem to forget what an adjective is. Suddenly the opposition was the "democrat party." I knew they'd gotten this into common usage when I heard NPR anchors use the term, but to me it still seems just, well, dumb. It's too obviously an attempt to degrade democrats as a group by making the name awkward to say - and the first effect of it, to me, was to make the speaker sound juvenile. Compare that to getting everyone to call abortion opponents 'pro life'. Who wants to say "Life? No, I'm against that." They adopt the label and then promote policies that kill women. That was a finesse move. 'Democrat party'? Seriously, Newt. You're a college professor and a published author. Buy yourself an adjective.
I think, purely as a matter of effective discourse, that this obviously coordinated language missed the mark. It may have resonated with those who already think 'democrat' is a pejorative term, but it simply misses the mark as a way to swing people to your side. Good language should not only expose a weakness in the opposition, it should raise the speaker above the opposition.
What we do here is mostly talking to the already convinced, but it is not unusual to see words published here spread through social media and sometimes quotes in mainstream media. It behooves us to speak in ways that elevate our side, not in ways that make us look like Newt Gingrich having a snit.
Referring to the current republican nominee as RMoney, for example - while it may be cathartic I do not find it in any way compelling. It does not add to the public perception of him - he's pretty much defined as 'really rich'. Referring to the opposition party as "rethuglicans" I would also avoid, again because it adds nothing and only provides a point where the unconvinced will stop listening. We want the unconvinced to listen, and we want them to repeat what is said.
I understand holding the party and its nominee in contempt. The republican platform is appalling, Romney seems to have put his moral compass in a blind trust in 2008. I don't think we need to play nice, I just think we need to be mean in targeted, effective ways. We need to be sure that the language we use shows contempt for the opposition and doesn't generate contempt for us.