Political Correctness

I’ve tried to be good, but those of you who know me … know that it was only a matter of time. I know that it is “politically incorrect” to attack “political correctness,” but I find that I just can’t help myself. Someone has to address the issue … and because it requires common sense, I guess it’s my responsibility.

I’m not sure who started the whole concept, but I think it’s important to begin at the definitional level. According to Webster’s Dictionary, “correctness” is defined as “conforming to an approved or conventional standard,” or perhaps more accurately, “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values.” I think the second definition is the better fit, since I haven’t found any regulatory authority that would “approve” of what currently passes for “politically correct” nor does there appear to be any “conventional standard.” However, we seem to have an overabundance of “specific ideologies, beliefs and values” to which we are all expected to “strictly conform.”

Now, let’s add the magic word “political” to the phrase to see what happens. Webster’s tells us that “political” means “of, relating to, or involved in politics and especially political parties.” Are you beginning to get the picture? Just put the words together … “political correctness” … and think about the blended definition: “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values of, relating to, or involved in politics and especially political parties.” To play off of Verizon’s slogan: “Do you get it now?”

Webster’s simplifies the definition as follows: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” Let’s look at the word “conforming.” Wow! That just shouts “freedom” doesn’t it? And how about “belief,” which is defined as “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.” Nothing says “independence” like blindly trusting what someone else defines as “offending political sensibilities” … a phrase that almost begs to be called an oxymoron.

So, what spawned the movement toward “political correctness?” Common sense tells me that politics were involved. We live in a society in which the government has become king (no pun intended). While the Framers began with the apparently misguided phrase “We the people” and the concept that the United States of America could offer a new and better alternative to the historically failed governmental models that vested power within the elite few, I am sure Press Secretary “Glib” would tell us that’s not what they really meant to do.

I can almost hear him now: “What the Framers meant to say was that ‘We the people’ are too dumb to manage our own affairs; that we need a strong, huge government to protect us from ourselves; from our insidious desire to work hard to achieve the American dream; from the ridiculous belief that our efforts should be rewarded based on merit; and from our senseless conviction to the premise that “legal” and “illegal” are not the same terms. And since the Framers were all from Europe, I’m sure they really wanted us to become more like Europe because they must have been homesick. I don’t even know why they left Europe in the first place, but I know the ships back then weren’t very good, so they probably just couldn’t get back home. Besides, if we apologize enough for our past successes and we model our economy after Greece’s, our health care after England’s, our military after Italy’s, our sense of loyalty after France’s, and our personal freedoms after China’s, North Korea’s or the Middle East country of your choice, the people of the world will stop hating us because we’ll be just like them, and they’ll have no reason to migrate to our country.” No one can clarify things quite like Press Secretary “Glib.”

So today, it’s "politically correct" to give passing grades and trophies to all the children so they don’t feel bad if someone else studied or practiced more than they did … or perhaps was just more naturally gifted. After all, they won’t have to face that type of competition during their adult lives.

Today, it’s "politically correct" to create a “Sanctuary City” that serves as a haven for illegal immigrants … but if you try to enforce federal law (with probable cause), you’re a Nazi-racist. Of course, it’s fairly easy to become a racist in our "politically correct" world. This could even re-launch Jeff Foxworthy’s career!

• If you think English should be a required language, you may be a racist.

• If you think that people who can’t afford a home should rent rather than be given loans upon which they almost assuredly will default, you may be a racist.

• If you think that building a Mosque near the site where the World Trade once stood and scheduling its proposed 2011opening on September 11th might be akin to opening a Ku Klux Klan Meeting Hall next to a memorial for Martin Luther King, Jr. on the national holiday named in his honor, you may be a racist.

• If you disagree with our President over anything, you may be a racist … or at least you may be half of the time. The other half, you’re probably guilty of sedition.

And forget the First Amendment. In the interest of “political correctness,” it’s basically been abolished … at least judgmentally. Freedom of religion has all but been eliminated (at least in terms of mainstream religions). Crosses, Stars of David, Christmas trees, the Ten Commandments, etc. seem to offend people if they’re displayed on public property … even though they apparently don’t have the same effect if they’re present on private property right next door. Personally, I think buildings without these artifacts express an implied endorsement of atheism and therefore violate the non-existent but often discussed “separation of church and state” clause. I just haven’t been successful in getting the ACLU to take up my cause … although I pray to God they will some day!

As for freedom of speech, it is apparently “politically incorrect” to express a dissenting opinion about abortion, affirmative action, bribing candidates not to run for public office, Cabinet Members who don’t pay their taxes, earmarks, endangered species, gay marriage, global warming, the qualifications of Supreme Court Justices, the redistribution of wealth, the right to bear arms, etc. So much for freedom of speech ... and the Second Amendment for that matter. Similarly, if you don’t follow the party line … freedom of the press disappears too, as you’ll just be deemed not to be “a real news network.”

And don’t even think about retaining the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It just wouldn’t be “politically correct!” The Tea Party is a prime example. They’re just a mob of racist troglodytes who are being manipulated by right-wing extremists. I have it on good authority. A member of SEIU told me so while he was demonstrating on the doorstep of some bank official’s home, and an activist (and, no doubt, future community organizer) said the same thing as she hurled a rock through a window and a bottle at the police while trying to make a point outside the G7 Conference.

Who needs the First Amendment anyway? Besides, it was the FIRST Amendment. The Framers probably hadn’t even gotten the hang of it, if you know what I mean. (Forgive me. I’m still channeling Press Secretary “Glib.”) For that matter, I suppose “political correctness” has pretty much wiped out the rest of the Bill of Rights as well … but all for good cause.

Just remember the blended definition of the words “political” and “correctness:” “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values of, relating to, or involved in politics AND ESPECIALLY POLITICAL PARTIES.” You see, “political correctness” helps political parties segregate the population in a way that would otherwise be … well … “politically INCORRECT.”

Think of it this way, if our politicians didn’t create class distinctions, they couldn’t foster class warfare (i.e., rich versus poor). When our politicians finally realized there was even a greater number of citizens that identified themselves as middle class, the battleground shifted to the rich versus the middle class. Since our politicians defined “rich” to mean only the top 5% of the population, they automatically began to rally the 95% of voters they purported to “protect.”

What’s really cool about this strategy is that it’s extensible. For example: race warfare can be leveraged if you create a more fragment focus; making more individuals feel like they are part of an oppressed minority. That’s why politicians have had to expand race relations in the U.S. beyond Blacks and Whites. Now, the Hispanic race has become vogue because there’s a bigger voting block if you can add Hispanics as an oppressed minority to the traditional Black minority. Add religious warfare and other social differentiators to the mix and you have an endless realm of possibilities through which to manipulate voting blocks. I just can’t wait for the day when dwarf, Reformed Druid, sub-continental Asian transvestites are in play. I bet it will send a chill up the leg of the host of a then popular socio-political show called No Balls!

As long as we allow politicians to emasculate us through the guise of “political correctness” and we consent to “conform to the strict requirements of (their) specific ideology,” we can continue to surrender our freedoms without anyone getting injured … except for the generations to come whose quality of life will have been sacrificed by our lack of courage and moral conviction.

In the forum of the Common Sense Czar, you still have the right to express your opinion. Don’t worry about whether it’s “politically correct.” I promise not to castigate you for it, to classify you in a demeaning way, or to tax you for not agreeing with the majority. Just tell me what you think. It might be your last chance.

*****

© 2010 by Dr. Terry O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.