Of what are you really afraid?

We have all heard of Political Correctness.

According to Wikipedia, political correctness:

is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Conversely, the term politically incorrect is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

The principle of political correctness (PC) is to encourage tolerance, openness, and sensitivity. It is a way of welcoming others. It’s being nice.

Many forces hate it. In principle, the Right-Wing hates it because of one simple reason: they are afraid of openness. They reject the principle out of hand. They argue that inclusive language excludes them. The rational brain begins to hurt over such a suggestion, but fundamentalists live in exclusion: it is their bread and butter. The implication, then, is that all liberalism, with its love of inclusion, is not only wrong, but it is forcefully wrong. Censoring hate, they suggest, is the worst kind of censorship. This distracts us from their position: censorship is good.

This breeding of an unnatural connection between the pursuit of compassion with fascism pushed the discussion into the mainstream, making it very popular to be anti-PC.

A while back, I heard a short essay on NPR in which the writer suggested that we haven’t seen political correctness in any real form in decades. It was a concept from the 60’s, not the 90’s. And besides, what is really wrong with being nice? What is wrong with encouraging politeness and concern for one’s neighbor? What is wrong with trying to figure out what another person wants to be called? Why struggle so vehemently on behalf of ignorance and intolerance? Why be the one fighting for the lazy and hateful that would rather use condescending hate-speech, with which they are already familiar, than use new and tolerant references?

The real answer is this: defamation.

In his article, “The Art of the Hissy Fit,” Digby articulates the primary tactic of the Republican Party and the Right-Wing Fringe alike: the hissy fit. Fake outrage and sanctimony with the particular interest in defamation and character assassination. He begins:

I first noticed the right's successful use of phony sanctimony and faux outrage back in the 90's when well-known conservative players like Gingrich and Livingston pretended to be offended at the president's extramarital affair and were repeatedly and tiresomely "upset" about fund-raising practices they all practiced themselves. The idea of these powerful and corrupt adulterers being personally upset by White House coffees and naughty sexual behavior was laughable.

They are “so good at [it],” he suggests, “they now rely on it as their first choice to control the political dialogue when it becomes uncomfortable and put the Democrats on the defensive whenever they are winning the day.” This tactic is more than mere mudslinging, however, it is a means of taking control. It is a form of Ritual Defamation or Humiliation that has domination and control as its main properties. Digby quotes Laird Wilcox in describing this concept:

Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a person or group of persons by unfair, wrongful, or malicious speech or publication. For the purposes of this essay, the central element is defamation in retaliation for the real or imagined attitudes, opinions or beliefs of the victim, with the intention of silencing or neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so as to discourage similar independence and "insensitivity" or non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized and skillfully applied, often by an organization or representative of a special interest group...

The suggestion that defamation—illegal in any arena but politics—should be an appropriate tactic in a politician’s arsenal is beyond ridiculous and in the most dangerous of territories

So what does this mean? It means our fundamentalist elements are using this tool to control and manipulate society. It the same way they take no issue with decrying political correctness for being exclusive in its inclusiveness while simultaneously censoring and rejecting openness and sensitivity, they are manipulating the political and intellectual realms with terrorist tactics of fear and intimidation. It isn’t the tactic of a civil society, but a schoolyard bully or fascist dictator, controlling the nature of the message.

The most recent use of this: Graeme Frost, the 12 year-old who spoke on behalf of the Democrat’s expansion of the SCHIP—the children’s health program—by $35 billion, which is just a fraction of the Iraq budget. Overlooking the fact that Graeme and his sister were in a car accident, spent months in the hospital, that one of his vocal chords is permanently paralyzed and that he was able to be here today only because of SCHIP, Republicans and their fundamentalist talking heads went on an unsuffarable character assassination campaign, quoting each other—not sources—and pushing lies as truths. The effect was to muddy the waters and give safe harbor for enough Republicans to vote against the overthrow of a presidential veto. What it really means? The most craven, destructive (and dare I say, evil?) tactics witnessed in modern politics are being used to prevent the expansion of health care for children. They don’t want to cover those families that don’t get health care from work and can’t afford to pay $20,000 or more per year for it. And what about those places where health care is offered, but every doctor and hospital is ‘out-of-coverage’? Instead of arguing about the merits of the bill, and instead of doing what the minority party usually does, they went after a kid.

Next time you here a derisive comment about political correctness, ask them “of what are you really afraid?”