Democrat, Democratic, Democratical.

Today, I encountered a word I'd never noticed before: "democratical." I was writing about the "common sense" meme and arrived at the Thomas Paine pamphlet "Common Sense" and John Adams's criticism of it as "so democratical, without any restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium or counter poise, that it must produce confusion and every evil work."

The OED defines "democratical" to mean the same thing as "democratic," and it gives some usage examples going back to 1589 and continuing only to 1850:

1589   ‘M. Marprelate’ Hay any Worke for Cooper 26   It is Monarchicall, in regarde of our head Christ, Aristocraticall in the Eldership, and Democraticall in the people.
1608   D. Tuvil Ess. Polit. & Morall f. 4v,   Ostracismes practiced in those Democraticall and Popular states of elder times.
1686   in Coll. Scarce & Valuable Tracts (1748) I. 111   The Democratical Man, that is never quiet under any Government.
1791   J. Boswell Life Johnson anno 1775 I. 460,   I abhor his Whiggish democratical notions and propensities.
1850   G. Grote Hist. Greece VIII. ii. lxiv. 231   The levy was in fact as democratical and as equalising as..on that memorable occasion.

There are also a 3 examples of "democratical" as a noun, defined to mean the same thing as "democrat." 2 of these are by Thomas Hobbes:

1651   T. Hobbes Leviathan ii. xxii. 122   Aristocraticalls and Democraticalls of old time in Greece.
1679   T. Hobbes Behemoth i, in Wks. VI. 199   The thing which those democraticals chiefly then aimed at, was to force the King to call a parliament.

What, you may ask, is the "-al" ending doing after the "-ic" ending? When do suffixes double up like that? This seems related to the present-day controversy about using the word "Democrat" as an adjective, when GOP types refer to the "Democrat Party," instead of the "Democratic Party." There's an insult perceived in leaving off the "-ic" ending, but, oddly, in the case of "democratical," there's insult in adding more letters — "-ic" plus "-al."

Does "-al" have any meaning? "Forming adjectives with the sense ‘of or relating to that which is denoted by the first element'" is the OED definition, which seems to say, it's just a way to turn something into an adjective. But that doesn't explain "-ical." The "-ic" already made the adjective. What's up with "-ical"? What are the other "-ical" words? Comical, radical... logical...

I know what you're thinking: "The Logic Song" by Supertramp!

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful, a miracle, it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily, joyfully, playfully, watching me
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible, practical
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual, cynical...
I said now, watch what you say, now we're calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable...
But I'm thinking so logical ...

Am I thinking too logical? So... musical interlude over. What does "-ic" mean? It's just another ending used to make an adjective and means "in the manner of" or "pertaining to" or some such generic way to say what differentiates an adjective from a noun. So what's with the suffix pile-up in the "-ical" words? Wonderfully, magically, the OED has an entry for "-ical":

Sometimes forming an adjective from a noun in -ic, as music, musical, but more frequently a secondary adjective, as comic, comical, historic, historical. Its origin appears to have been the formation in late Latin of adjectives in -ālis on nouns in -ic-us, or in -icē, e.g. grammatic-us grammarian, grammaticē grammar, grammatic~āl-is grammatical, clēricus clergyman, clerk, clēricāl-is clerical. So in medieval Latin, chīrurgicāl-is, dominic-āl-is, medicāl-is, mūsicāl-is, physicāl-is. In French, adjectives of this type are few, and mostly taken directly from Latin formations, as chirurgical, clérical, grammatical, médical, etc. But in English they are exceedingly numerous, existing not only in all cases in which the term in -ic is a noun, but also as the direct representatives of Latin adjectives in -icus, French -ique. Thus we find before 1500 canonical, chirurgical, domestical, musical, philosophical, physical. Many adjectives have a form both in -ic and -ical, and in such cases that in -ical is usually the earlier and that more used. Often also the form in -ic is restricted to the sense ‘of’ or ‘of the nature of’ the subject in question, while that in -ical has wider or more transferred senses, including that of ‘practically connected’ or ‘dealing with’ the subject. Cf. ‘economic science’, ‘an economical wife’, ‘prophetic words’, ‘prophetical studies’, ‘a comic song’, ‘a comical incident’, ‘the tragic muse’, ‘his tragical fate’. A historic book is one mentioned or famous in history, a historical treatise contains or deals with history. But in many cases this distinction is, from the nature of the subject, difficult to maintain, or entirely inappreciable.

Adjectives of locality, nationality, and language, as Baltic, Arabic, Teutonic, and those of chemical and other technical nomenclature, as oxalic, ferric, pelagic, dactylic, hypnotic, megalithic, have usually no secondary form in -al.

That's long and complicated, though interesting as hell, but I boldfaced the bit that's most useful to understand what John Adams and Thomas Hobbes were getting at. It might be helpful to consider what it would mean to say: This political movement is not democratic. It's democratical. My sense is that democratic would refer to the principle that each person to be governed ought to vote. Democratical nudges us to worry about the chaos and disorder of attempting to let everyone decide everything.

This brings us back to why Democrats prefer the adjective "Democratic" (rather than to have the noun "Democrat" used in the combination "Democratic Party"). Presumably, they want to appear to be imbued with democratic values, rather than simply to be a party composed of Democrats.

A "Democrat" is, in the U.S. political sense, "A member of the Democratic party," as defined in the OED, beginning with this choice 1798 quote from none other than George Washington: "You could as soon scrub the blackamore white as change the principle of a profest Democrat."

There are times when all the world's asleep/The questions run too deep for such a simple man...

One year into Obama's presidency, David Brooks wrote "he has come to seem like the sovereign on the cover of 'Leviathan'..."

"... the brain of the nation to which all the cells in the body and the nervous system must report and defer."

Brooks is talking about the bookcover that illustrates the previous post ("Romney, the man who says 'marvelous'"). He writes that "the illustration shows the British nation as a large man. The people make up the muscles and flesh. Then at the top, there is the king, who is the head and the mind."

Does Brooks marvel at Obama visualized as a large man and  we us the People as the muscles and flesh that constitute his body? Did Brooks abase himself and slobber that much?

In many ways, Barack Obama has lived up to his promise. He has created a thoughtful, pragmatic administration marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate. When Obama makes a decision, you can be sure that he has heard and accounted for every opposing argument. If he senses an important viewpoint is not represented at a meeting, he will stop the proceedings and demand that it gets included.

Oh, brother.

If the evidence leads him in directions he finds uncomfortable, he will still follow the evidence. He is beholden to no ideological camp, and there is no group in his political base that he has not angered at some point in his first year.

But his has become a voracious pragmatism. Driven by circumstances and self-confidence, the president has made himself the star performer in the national drama. He has been ubiquitous, appearing everywhere, trying to overhaul most sectors of national life: finance, health, energy, automobiles and transportation, housing, and education, among others.

He is no ideologue, but over the past year he has come to seem like the sovereign on the cover of “Leviathan” — the brain of the nation to which all the cells in the body and the nervous system must report and defer.

Oh, my lord. Defer! Defer has been a big word these past 2 weeks, as the Obama administration demanded deference from the judiciary.

The country is now split on Obama, because he is temperate, thoughtful and pragmatic, but his policies are almost all unpopular....

Many Democrats, as always, are caught in their insular liberal information loop. They think the polls are bad simply because the economy is bad. They tell each other health care is unpopular because the people aren’t sophisticated enough to understand it. Some believe they can still pass health care even if their candidate, Martha Coakley, loses the Senate race in Massachusetts on Tuesday.

That, of course, would be political suicide. It would be the act of a party so arrogant, elitist and contemptuous of popular wisdom that it would not deserve to govern. Marie Antoinette would applaud, but voters would rage.

Oh, really? How's that rage going these days? Rage or deference? What are you seeing?

If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life. Even in blue states like Massachusetts, voters want a government that is energetic but limited — a servant, not a leviathan.

But as brooks are not oceans, Brooks is not Obama. And Obama did not take that advice. "Political suicide" was committed. Is it noticeable? The health care bill was passed, even after Ms. Coakley lost. And now, the people — who made it perfectly clear at the time and continue to make it clear that they did not like Obama's policies — look to the Court to save them from the Leviathan, and the Leviathan says defer.