It’s become a scourge. But it didn’t begin that way.
Not so long ago in America, there was total freedom of speech. Not only technically, according to our Constitution; but also in daily practice. In fact, a popular phrase regarding the right of expression was, “especially unpopular speech.” The liberty to speak one’s mind was a primary American value.
Then came political correctness. At first, it was merely an idiotic idea coming from the fringe. It was mocked.
Although more people glommed onto the idea, it was still something most thought was ridiculous.
Eventually, political correctness was a topic of civil debate — some thought it had merit, if adhered to within reason.
As it gained more popularity among the cultural Left, the debate became less civil.
Still, a debate was there. Many proponents of the idea believed it must be tempered. Even liberals would say things like, “This is political correctness run amok.”
Heck — in the 60’s, liberals were behind the free speech movement.
But the times, they are a-changin.’
I fear that now, due to the activism of the Left and the evolutionary extremist leftism of the media, an entire generation has grown up perceiving political correctness to be an agreed-upon correct principle of behavior.
One of the biggest problems is that — despite its name — it isn’t a principle at all.
The combination of those two words — “political” and “correctness” — suggests the term means “what is the least offensive to the greatest number.” If radically enforced, the concept still stands in the face of freedom of speech. However, that logical definition bears no resemblance to what, in effect, political correctness is.
Rather than being an applied principle, political correctness is a very selective belief system. It is pro- some things and anti- others. It affirms certain ideas and castigates others. It is as discriminatory as any other ideology. Despite its name, it is neither political nor (many would say) correct.
It is supportive of Islam, with no embrace of Christianity. It is in favor of illegal immigration and against border enforcement. It endorses homosexuality and vilifies the opposing view. It celebrates “people of color” and excoriates whites. It champions women yet denigrates men.
All of the above subjective positions are perfectly valid, and to be defended in a land of freedom. However, there is great danger in the social, political, and legal enforcement of them (like this).
Ironically, PC preferences tend to err on the side of the outnumbered. They are, therefore, the opposite of political.
Here's Cleesey on the lunacy of political correctness being taken to the nth degree. pic.twitter.com/fhJO9pZPOR
— Alf Garnett (@MrAlfredGarnett) June 1, 2018
Political correctness is a very narrow point of view. It is a point of view which is liberal; it is one that is counter-cultural. Its selective preferences are entirely legitimate; but there is nothing less valid and less American than forcing them upon friends, family, students, teachers, ministers, employees, employers, entertainers, athletes, or citizens.
And perhaps we, on this side of the aisle, are participating in the spread of this malady by calling it what it truly is not. It is cultural tyranny. It is averse to liberty. It is a growing monster of world domination. We must stand against its cultural Marxism. Young people have grown up believing in its merit; I can’t help but think that is in part due to the words themselves. By using them — even in opposition — we have suggested there is a correctness within. We have affirmed the parlance.
Therefore, I propose a moratorium. Call it what it is: thought policing, tyranny, despotism, totalitarianism, fascism, oppression, repression, radical leftism, anti-First Amendment, unconstitutional. Call it anything but politically correct.
Because it isn’t.
Check out my coverage of a recent story which exemplifies the danger of “politically correct” ideological enforcement.
And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter.