Thursday, October 8, 2015

Political Incorrectness: The Right's PC

     Anyone who has followed politics in recent years, or even has a cursory awareness of the same, understands the term political correctness. Although there is debate among some as to whether this political strategy is a function of the Left or the Right, most persons are aware of the basic principles behind the concept. Political correctness is not so much a political strategy as it is an ethos. The Greek definition of that word, the habits of the creature in his place, applying to those who practice political correctness on a regular basis.
     My simple definition of political correctness is the avoidance of debate on any subject with which  its practitioner can not defend with reason and logic. Although this practice has been in long standing in the world of progressives, going back to almost the beginning of that movement in the early 20th century, it has only retained the label of political correctness in the last few decades. And the case is certainly made and accepted by many that the practice of political correctness has been used to great effect by the Left to limit free speech on issues that they wish to impose on others without debate.
     But there is a sister ethos to the Left's political correctness on the Right. Being politically incorrect has actually become the Right's version of political correctness . The desire for our candidates and leaders to "blast," "destroy," and "devastate" in the most blunt and earthy terms possible, has the same effect as the Left's ethos of politically correct rhetoric. Before anyone reading starts accusing me of being "establishment" or a "Rino" and thus proving my point, allow me to explain my thesis further.
     If one accepts the concept that the goal of political correctness is to reject, without intellectual examination, an opposing view, then political incorrectness for the sake of being politically incorrect, has the same goal. I can not count the number of times I have been viciously attacked for simply suggesting a position that, while fact-based, veers off the plantation of what some consider to be conservatism. The goal with political incorrectness sometimes is to shut down speech that contradicts the practitioner's beliefs, just as it is with those who practice political correctness.
     The use of reason and the thoughtful examination of facts has always been to me one of the things that separated the Right from the Left. Conservatism is committed to the truth more than to its own ideology. At least that is the conservatism that I wish to practice, and the conservatism I learned watching, listening to, and reading those like Ronald Reagan, Jean Kilpatrick, William F. Buckley Jr., et al. I think the ethos-based ideology of political incorrectness can be just as dangerous as that of political correctness. They both have the same goal, i.e. to shut down the free exchange of ideas, whether those ideas come from someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum, or from someone right next door on that spectrum.


  1. Interesting concept this "Political Incorrectness". Not sure I totally get it. Would this analogy fit? If someone unprovoked were to attack me (Political Correctness) with murderous intent, but I defended myself (Political Incorrectness) and killed my attacker first, then I become the murderer. I don't know who came up with this PI stuff, but it sounds like it was someone who got their PC claptrap jammed up their backside.

  2. The point of my post is that suppressing speech with which one does not agree is not only a tactic of the Left, but exists on the Right as well. Do you not see an intolerance for differing opinions in some quarters of modern conservatism?

  3. Apparently you whizzed right by my analogy, but that may be my fault for not stating it as a question. I agree that everyone, Left or Right, uses the tactic you refer to, however, 95%+ comes from the Left. The Left has been very good at taking control of the language. They claim they're "Politically Correct", because being correct is a good thing. By extension, if you disagree, you're "Incorrect", which is perceived as bad thing, and again by extension, you must be a bad person to disagree with them. See how they get their enemies to capitulate and shutdown honest conversation. If you buy into this "Incorrectness" tyranny, they will have preemptively silenced you. What is "modern" conversation?