Last night I watched part of the Republican Presidential Debates (which was, by the way, significantly more entertaining than any political debate I've seen in a while). And aside from some of the crazier ideas tossed about, I found one thing quite vexing.
Grow the economy.
Come again?
I swear I heard well over a dozen instances of candidates promising to
grow the economy (at least it felt like at least that many). Does that grate on the ears of anybody else?
I realize this is not a new phrase, at least in my lifetime. Apparently,
grow the economy became popular after one of Bill Clinton's presidential election speeches in 1992. Politicians and businessmen heard the phrase and ran with it. It figures they'd choose one of the most awkward sounding phrases as a catchphrase for politicians and economists for the next 20 years.
What bothers me is not that it's grammatically incorrect--
grow can be an intransitive verb (does not need an object) as in these examples:
the tree grows, children grow, his head is growing. And it can be a transitive verb (can take an object), so we can say
grow potatoes, grow corn or
grow a beard. Then why not
grow the economy?
Well, first of all, and obviously most importantly, because I think it sounds dreadful and unnatural. But that's just me.
Secondly, the most common uses of
grow in Modern English (in transitive or intransitive forms) refer to raising or increasing a living thing (a seed into a plant or a child or a body part or a tree becoming taller). The OED has one instance, supposedly obsolete, from 1481 of
grow being used in the sense of increasing or expanding a non-living thing:
When David had reigned 7 years in Hebron he grew and amended much this city (in my Modern English).
So yes, I suppose since grow can be both transitive and intransitive and can refer to living and non-living entities, one could argue that
grow the economy is technically correct. But is it pretty? Hardly. Am I fighting a losing battle? Quite probably. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.