Why the "P" (or "p") In Democratic _arty Matters

The combination of the words "democratic" and "party" gets tossed around a lot as an essentially interchangeable concept, no matter how one treats the "p" in "party" as modifying "Democratic." But that's incorrect, and worse, it does a disservice to our discussion of progressive politics and American politics in general.

Political scientists who study parties and American politics in general usually look at 'parties' per se as three entities (and I'll just refer to the Democratic (P/p)arty here, not any others really). One is the Democratic Party proper, the party organization itself. For example, I am involved in my local and state Democratic Party organizations as an activist and as an officer. I pay my dues, I raise money, I volunteer for Democratic candidates and the party itself, I attend meeting...etc. The second version of parties is "party in government," as in the elected and appointed leaders in government (legislative and executive branches) who identify as and are elected as "Democratic" candidates. For example, my Congresswoman, the fabulous Tammy Baldwin, is a Democratic member of the U.S. House and caucuses with the other Democrats there. Finally, there is the "party in the electorate," which is a much more complex concept.

The Democratic party - and here, one does not capitalize the "p," as is usually the case with party-in-government too - is, like all parties-in-the-electorate, a combination of Democratic-identifying voters (including those who register as such, and in some cases these folks are part of the Democratic Party), Democratic-identified interest groups and organizations, and the voters that support a Democratic candidate in a given election. The Democratic party as a party-in-the-electorate is an aggregation and generally a coalition of individuals and organizations that is without a concerted program or teleology - it just is as a grouping.

So when people make reference to the "Democratic party," the intent of their words really matters, especially when we consider criticisms, normative statements, and the like. My general frame of reference, as a party leader in terms of the party-as-organization, is that folks are referring to the party organization. I subconsciously move directly to that when people say "Democratic party," and I have to check myself if that's not what they mean.

I'll speak to this more in the future, but I just want to lay out that the Democratic Party and the Democratic party are distinct conceptual constructs. One is very firm - you can go visit the office of your local party organization, you can give money to the party (and you should!), you can receive mail from the party organization, you can...well, you get the picture. But one cannot say with intellectual coherence, "The Democrats should ______" because unless you're speaking about the party organization (and I believe that one can do so in this kind of statement, as in "The Democrats should put together a concerted, strategic campaign to build membership."), you are not referring to a particular decision-maker or set of decision-makers who have the ability to implement what one is suggesting.

Democratic Party does not equal Democratic party, and that distinction is critical.