Friday, May 11, 2007

The Need to Place Political Correctness in the Crosshairs

There are many others who comment much more diligently than I upon the many instances how Western culture in general, and American culture in particular, are relentlessly under attack by the Left and its shockingly complicit Establishment media. Particularly I have been impressed with how well S.T. Karnick makes that his regular concern.

A few days ago Mr. Karnick wrote of the criticism misdirected at MLB for the drinking and driving death of Josh Hancock, a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher. In comments to it, I made a quick point about how PC's intrusion into our culture has a bloody hand in making personal disasters of this sort more rather than less common.

Mr. Karnick concurred: "Until a sufficient number of people summon up the courage to speak out against this point of view, its ugly consequences will continue to plague us."

Now I'd like to make what I believe is a unique observation about PC. That is, I've not seen it mentioned even if its been noticed before, and I doubt it. PC's acceptance and certainly its persistence came into the forefront after much of Western thought turned in the 1960s to accept the notions of Thomas Malthus as revitalized by Paul Ehrlich et al. Merely fifteen years time after the unprecedented carnage of the Second World War, our intelligentsia seemed all too swift to accept the pessimistic notion that the number of humans on the planet was still unsustainable. In short, this is what is meant in high-minded parlance as the challenge of sustainability. (Considerable thought before WWII was moving in this direction. Indeed it appears to be a major feature in NAZI thought. In a world with diminishing resources, Hitler was moving to establish his race as the sole survivors. I plan to look into this further at a later date.)

It does not take a rocket scientist to notice the conflict between this concern and that of society's previously stated predominant concern of protecting human life in many different ways. In fact, by gum, there is assuredly a radical reversal in the way those who've risen to the top of society's institutions has gone about, ostensibly, protecting its members.

Of significant note is that which used to be called constructive criticism wound up in the cross-hairs of the heads of our institutions.

Instead of welcoming various sources of wisdom access to those who need the guidance, the PC crowd constantly concerns itself with how the feelings of the foolhardy might be hurt by those who wish to warn them. Rather than permit unrestricted passage of hard-earned lessons-learned, these "watchdogs" prefer that those whose feelings they claim to be protecting are better off with having their thinking (or unthinking) unfettered. "Let them learn the hard way where naive or ignorant or misguided choices will lead them" would seem to be their slogan.

Certainly, I don't think in history there was ever a group, so well entrenched in positions of authority, who -- wittingly or unwittingly -- were ever such an ally to predators as is our PC crowd.

Now surely there are many useful idiots in that crowd. But it is hard to imagine how they got there and how they manage to remain there unless there are significant numbers of the moneyed and influential class who believe that they are doing animal-husbandry-like work in letting the foolish kill themselves off. Kill themselves along with how many other handfuls of innocents who have the misfortune to be in their path on the way to their personal destruction.

So, for those who still retain an optimism for the potential of the human mind to meet any future shortages (be it for belief in The Creator's promise or simply from gaging how high we have risen in the face of all kinds of disasters), I bet you also have entertained the following question about how society is failing at its assigned task even as its leaders clamor for more control over our lives. Is it not a natural inclination, an imperative really, to look askance at how society has altered its approach to law enforcement?

Strict law enforcement being the principle means to protect innocents from predators was long established thinking in the West. Based significantly on the writings of Thomas Hobbes I believe, that was the be all and end all of the modern state: its raison d' ètre.

Heh, Heh. That is, that was before postmodernism turned up.

In response to my commentary about how, given the state of advances by radical Islam in the war on Terror, the currently disfavored view towards capital punishment is in need of review, reader RobC happened to opine with the ages old comment that those who harm innocents deserve only a little more consideration than that they gave their victims.

Within the confines of this essay, here is what I observe in response.

I used to know many like you, RobC. All of you have been marginalized out of hearing because Political Correctness has painted your views as beyond acceptable discussion.

Many blogs, as you suggest, will grant a hearing to your words. But more is needed to make the jump to where you will be heard in live public forums so that you may affect public policy.

My long term plan for this site (and my premier site should I get it working well again) will come up with ideas that will open up minds now trained (at best) to ignore you. I welcome suggestions and criticisms from readers to aid me in my quest. What doesn't ring bells, what has potential, and what will make good soundbites?

Also, I have had some success in the past at conceiving useful variations on how the political spectrum can be redrawn. However, that was during the Cold War so, although it still accurately reflects how power seekers game the system, it has less immediate use today in the War On Terror.

I have been brewing again a new way to redraw the political spectrum with soundbites that essentially say The Right loves life and The Left loves death. A preview can be read at comment #6 here.

More to follow.


  1. So: PC is a tool being used by the left in the holy name of tolerance in order to remove our right to free speech. Right?

  2. Yes Og. The shutting down of speech of which the watchdogs don't approve is simply censorship under a different name. In fact it is not PC to charge that these rat-scoundrels are censors. How you like that bit of chutzpah?

    But Political Correctness is also used by some cowardly members of the Right to shut down conservatives from criticizing the Establishment Right's pet Progressives. Men such as Senator Specter or Presidential hopeful Guiliani (because (allegedly) "they win seats in liberal strongholds").

    I say cowardly, but maybe traitorious would be more accurate. Reagan won in Democratic strongholds despite all those country club Republicans who said he could never do so and, in fact, I believe they wished he never did.

    But my more controversial charge was that PC is also used to prevent many of us who have learned the hard way about the dangers lurking in bad choices from passing the knowledge along to the next generation of targets. The more malevolent of the PC crowd do it under cover of claiming to protect the feelings of those who are making bad choices. (Most people, especially the young, don't like to be told they are wrong even to save their lives! The young think they're going to live forever, and what do you know you old fart? They think the PC crowd is doing them a favor. They will until they learn the hard way and they'll come to you Og and whine "but why didn't you fight for your right to tell me?")

    Here's an example of a really rotten Leftist. Elliot Spitzer, while he was AG of NY, would persecute religious groups for daring to warn young woman of the regrets and other consequences from aborting their baby. He used PC arguments such as charging these organizations with causing the women "unnecessary" stress for telling them the truth (though he never allowed that was what it was).

    Now some say he was doing it at the behest of the abortion industry. And that may be so. But I'm charging that he may have done for even more noxious reasons. Because he is about as far left as a mainstream politician can be. And I am contending that the Left loves death. (That includes some Republicans). Thus he had additional enjoyment in pursuing the harrassment of those information dispensing pro-life groups. QED.

    An added incentive for me redefining the Left to include all people who show they favor death was an observation by a friend of mine.

    He said: "I don't know if there are any good Democrats, but I am certain there are some bad Republicans."


View My Stats