So now, thanks to Ben Carson, we’re actually really having a public conversation about whether the Jews resisted the Nazis vigorously enough. The kinds of thoughts that would be just too absurd, too obscene, too flat-out stupid and deranged to even contemplate, are now just grist for the mill. They apparently require adamant and ludicrous defense from the fever swamps at Fox News; and almost as ludicrous, sober point-by-point rebuttal from those who haven’t lost their minds.
While Carson continually inveighs against “political correctness”, his nuttiness finds its echoes because of political correctness.
What is political correctness? It’s a term that’s been tied to the left, especially academia, since the late 1980’s (to my memory). But really it’s a phenomenon where there’s a rush to the political margins, away from a seemingly discredited, stigmatized “center.” It’s when the sense of safety, of identity, and mutual approval, can only come from guarding one’s outer political flank.
(I remember it well from Oberlin College in the early 90’s: The “whole foods” co-op would be paralyzed by a rump group of militant vegans who would accept no compromise in the ingredients of bread. No white flour. No honey – it’s an animal product. The worker bees must own the means of production! This was in spite of the obvious preferences of seemingly everyone else, who just wanted bread that was tasty and not the consistency of sandstone. And then there was the male feminist writer who warned that men were merely posing as feminists to get laid. Good times, I tell you. Now we’re responsible for the advent of “trigger warnings” in case you might read a book or hear an account of some event that might provoke strong feelings. Never change, Alma Mater.)
What circumstances encourage this rush to the margins? The faction has to be seen as under threat. There has to be little satisfaction, numbers, or “safety” outside of the margins, so that those who might be uneasy with maximum guns (say) keep their silence. There has to be the threat of ostracism — or at least unpleasant friction — for insufficient fidelity to the outermost view. The core must be protected. And so you will see very little vocal demurral from GOP luminaries. Particularly during a primary, it’s more controversial for them to disavow even the nuttiest statements of the fringe candidates, than to simply swallow it, excuse it, or look the other way.
But what does this mean, from the outside? It’s evidence of a shrinking political movement. With every further outrageous statement, Carson, Trump et al carve off a little more of the conservative coalition. One could make the case to an old-school, 70th-percentile Reagan Republican … These folks are not your friends, buddy. You don’t identify with this, do you? Do you really want to stay in this club? New England used to be full of these Republicans. Now right-wing Political Correctness has sorted our region into, say, Paul LePage Republicans (including many in the NH legislature) … and, say, Vermont Republicans, who generally have left the party, leaving our neighbor to the north even more liberal (yow!) than our own Bay State. Even here, when Charlie Baker ran as a fiery “Had Enough??” conservative, he lost; when he played down ideology, he won.
And indeed, since the Iraq War, much of the old Reagan coalition has turned, however reluctantly, to the Democratic fold. This makes the Democratic coalition less orderly, weakly ideological, and less satisfying for those of us 80th-percentile liberals. It also makes it easier to win national elections.
jconway says
It makes it easier to win national presidential elections, the midterms are lousy, precisely since the right recognizes they rely on base turnout to win while we still run to the center, and lose, by making races that should be about economic fairness, social decency and foreign policy competency into more generic races of moderate v extremist. Didn’t stop Ernst or Gardner from becoming Senators, since the strategy doesn’t work for telegenic, on script extremists.
It’s why the Sanders campaign could be interesting, since it’s restoring our ‘brand’ back to it’s economic fundamentals, the New Deal Democrats are back, and the Third Wayers are increasingly playing out of a dated playbook. Even Hillary Clinton has recognized this. Simply being ‘not crazy’ is no longer sufficient to win an enduring majority.
nopolitician says
When people refer to “not being politically correct” these days, they mean to say that they do not like the fact that they can’t put down gays, blacks, women, and any other minority group without being criticized for it.
People want to be Archie Bunker, without the irony. They want to be able to call black people the n-word. They want to be able to call them lazy. They want to be able to call a Hispanic a “beaner”, or to tell a woman to “just sit there and look pretty”.
But they can’t, because they now get criticized for it. It costs someone political points when they walk into a room and tell a dumb blond joke. So they feel silenced, and this makes them mad.
What is the difference between “political correctness” and “intolerance”? I’m not sure, but I think it has something to do with treating people with respect and dignity. That means it is not politically correct to use a watermelon joke when it comes to the president, but it is not intolerant to call someone out for doing so.
Christopher says
In the 1990s especially, it seemed to get ridiculous. “Blind” became “visually challenged”; short, vertically challenged; bending over backwards to use gender-inclusive language regardless of the syntax and grammar acrobatics it sometimes requires despite context usually being pretty clear as to whether or not both genders could be meant. It’s people getting upset over holidays because not everyone celebrates them, or shielding people from any religious or historical references that might be the least bit uncomfortable. It need not and should not be all or nothing, Archie Bunker or these examples. I find that the coming back around to the Golden Rule usually works pretty well.