Reaping the Whirlwind of Anti-PC

The Super Moon of 2014

Do you remember when not offending people was considered a good thing?  It seems like the dark ages.  Our parents would remind us that we should consider other people’s feelings before speaking.  If someone wanted to be called Bill we called them Bill, not Shorty.  If someone did not like to be singled out because they wore glasses, we did not call them “Four Eyes.”  If they liked the attention or enjoyed being “picked on” then we would playfully use such names.  But, we tried to gauge their feelings before using such “pet names.”  Sometimes we were wrong and hurt their feelings.  An apology would soon follow.  It was all part of being caring people who tried to not be offensive.

But something has happened in the last 50 years.  We have gone from not being offensive to going on the offensive!  We have confused being offensive with being offensive!

These words have two very different meanings.  The first means “Causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.”  The second means “Actively aggressive; attacking.”  We have resurrected an old weapon from the European culture wars of the early 20^th Century to fight our modern culture wars.  The offensive weapon of choice is the phrase “Political Correctness.” 

I found these tidbits in Wikipedia.

“In 1934, the New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits ‘only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct.’”

“As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase (political correctness) came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine, in debates between American Communists and American Socialists. “

It entered US thinking via the 1970’s Radical Left when they would refer to those who continued to support offensive views of women, minorities, or other cultures as being politically correct, using the offensive words to gain political support from the “Silent Minority” that supported Nixon and, later, Reagan.

In the 1980’s, Allan Bloom, in his 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind, called the need to adhere to a party line to be one of the reasons that higher education had failed the American People.  The Anti-PC crowd took that to mean that Political Correctness, itself, was a sign of the downfall of America and must be resisted.

Over the next few years, the phrase began to find its way into the mainstream.  Its transformation was articulated by George H. W. Bush in a speech before The University of Michigan graduates in 1991 when he said, “’The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.’"^[45]  In other words, being offensive had become a legitimate path of going on the offensive!

From there the phrase became a rallying cry for every reactionary conservative in the country.  Talk Radio championed the need to go on the offense by encouraging name-calling in the name of truth-telling.  PC soon became the ultimate pejorative that sought to silence or discount anyone who dared to disagree with this pre-Tea Party right-wing, i.e. Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots.

For the last 20 years this idea of being openly, offensively offensive has led us to reap the whirlwind of this Anti-PC movement. 

The 2016 election was fought and won primarily because Anti-PC had become mainstream.  It was expanded into a full-blown conspiracy theory that played on the fears and insecurities of an older, white and mostly male dominated culture.  According to this mythology, the Left was taking over and would take up arms against or otherwise take away the “rights” of those who opposed them.    The Left was seeking to take away the guns of those who would defend “lady liberty.”  The Left had organized the US military to round up dissidents under the code name Jade Helm.  The Left had installed a Kenyan-born president to establish sharia law in place of the Constitution. 

This Anti-PC movement found an unlikely champion in a TV reality host who used it to demonstrate that he alone, among all of the candidates for President, was honest enough to speak the truth.  Since his election he continues to advance the Anti-PC agenda by uncovering and “courageously combatting” the “deep state” that is destroying America’s greatness. 

Do not get me wrong.  I do not believe this is some Right-wing plot to establish fascism in the USA.  It is simply an idea that has become a cancer, preying on the fears and insecurities of a white majority that is losing power and control.  The Anti-PC movement is the last gasp of a dying 20^th century idea that needs to be abandoned to history.  It is a whirlwind whose end is coming, but not yet blown itself out.

I recently was reminded of just how far this whirlwind of Anti-PC has gone when I heard an older, white gentleman tell me about how hearing people use PC “makes me sick.”   Such a visceral description of his feelings spoke of how deeply he needs others PC to help him deal with all his fears and insecurities.  For him, PC steals away his joy and hope.  It renders him incapable of empathy for people unlike himself.  It makes him sick!

We are reaping the whirlwind of the anti-PC movement.  Any movement that condones, encourages, and emboldens insensitivity, callousness to other’s needs, and anger against those with whom we disagree cannot long endure.  Our society was founded on human dignity, justice, and equality under the law.  Either the anti-PC movement will be swept into the dustbin of failed ideas or it will sweep away our foundations. 

As has always been the case, history requires that good people stand up and do what is necessary to defend the rights of humanity.  However, until we find ways of going on the offensive without being offensive, we will be furthering the Anti-PC movement.  We will use the same weapons used by the Anti-PC movement; disparaging others motives and refusing to take others feelings into account.  We will unknowingly further the interests of those with whom we disagree.  But, when we can genuinely say that we love those with whom we disagree, and resist going out of our way to offend and disparage them, we will watch the broom of history sweep away the Anti-PC movement. 

For this to happen, we must learn to love, understand, take into account the feelings of others, and resist with all our might those who truly believe that PC is destroying our way of life.  We must show them a better way.  We must walk with them as they take that first step toward the new, non-offensive life that awaits them.  Do they have to agree with us?  No.  Do we and they need to learn to be kind to each other and love each other anyway?  Absolutely!  That is what legitimate correctness, political or otherwise, is all about.

Bob Dees

(Next month I will be dealing with another facet of this topic, “The High Art of Taking Offense.”)

But something has happened in the last 50 years.  We have gone from not being offensive to going on the offensive!  We have confused being offensive with being offensive!

These words have two very different meanings.  The first means “Causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.”  The second means “Actively aggressive; attacking.”  We have resurrected an old weapon from the European culture wars of the early 20^th Century to fight our modern culture wars.  The offensive weapon of choice is the phrase “Political Correctness.” 

I found these tidbits in Wikipedia.

“In 1934, the New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits ‘only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct.’”

“As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase (political correctness) came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine, in debates between American Communists and American Socialists. “

It entered US thinking via the 1970’s Radical Left when they would refer to those who continued to support offensive views of women, minorities, or other cultures as being politically correct, using the offensive words to gain political support from the “Silent Minority” that supported Nixon and, later, Reagan.

In the 1980’s, Allan Bloom, in his 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind, called the need to adhere to a party line to be one of the reasons that higher education had failed the American People.  The Anti-PC crowd took that to mean that Political Correctness, itself, was a sign of the downfall of America and must be resisted.

Over the next few years, the phrase began to find its way into the mainstream.  Its transformation was articulated by George H. W. Bush in a speech before The University of Michigan graduates in 1991 when he said, “’The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.’"^[45]  In other words, being offensive had become a legitimate path of going on the offensive!

From there the phrase became a rallying cry for every reactionary conservative in the country.  Talk Radio championed the need to go on the offense by encouraging name-calling in the name of truth-telling.  PC soon became the ultimate pejorative that sought to silence or discount anyone who dared to disagree with this pre-Tea Party right-wing, i.e. Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots.

For the last 20 years this idea of being openly, offensively offensive has led us to reap the whirlwind of this Anti-PC movement. 

The 2016 election was fought and won primarily because Anti-PC had become mainstream.  It was expanded into a full-blown conspiracy theory that played on the fears and insecurities of an older, white and mostly male dominated culture.  According to this mythology, the Left was taking over and would take up arms against or otherwise take away the “rights” of those who opposed them.    The Left was seeking to take away the guns of those who would defend “lady liberty.”  The Left had organized the US military to round up dissidents under the code name Jade Helm.  The Left had installed a Kenyan-born president to establish sharia law in place of the Constitution. 

This Anti-PC movement found an unlikely champion in a TV reality host who used it to demonstrate that he alone, among all of the candidates for President, was honest enough to speak the truth.  Since his election he continues to advance the Anti-PC agenda by uncovering and “courageously combatting” the “deep state” that is destroying America’s greatness. 

Do not get me wrong.  I do not believe this is some Right-wing plot to establish fascism in the USA.  It is simply an idea that has become a cancer, preying on the fears and insecurities of a white majority that is losing power and control.  The Anti-PC movement is the last gasp of a dying 20^th century idea that needs to be abandoned to history.  It is a whirlwind whose end is coming, but not yet blown itself out.

I recently was reminded of just how far this whirlwind of Anti-PC has gone when I heard an older, white gentleman tell me about how hearing people use PC “makes me sick.”   Such a visceral description of his feelings spoke of how deeply he needs others PC to help him deal with all his fears and insecurities.  For him, PC steals away his joy and hope.  It renders him incapable of empathy for people unlike himself.  It makes him sick!

We are reaping the whirlwind of the anti-PC movement.  Any movement that condones, encourages, and emboldens insensitivity, callousness to other’s needs, and anger against those with whom we disagree cannot long endure.  Our society was founded on human dignity, justice, and equality under the law.  Either the anti-PC movement will be swept into the dustbin of failed ideas or it will sweep away our foundations. 

As has always been the case, history requires that good people stand up and do what is necessary to defend the rights of humanity.  However, until we find ways of going on the offensive without being offensive, we will be furthering the Anti-PC movement.  We will use the same weapons used by the Anti-PC movement; disparaging others motives and refusing to take others feelings into account.  We will unknowingly further the interests of those with whom we disagree.  But, when we can genuinely say that we love those with whom we disagree, and resist going out of our way to offend and disparage them, we will watch the broom of history sweep away the Anti-PC movement. 

For this to happen, we must learn to love, understand, take into account the feelings of others, and resist with all our might those who truly believe that PC is destroying our way of life.  We must show them a better way.  We must walk with them as they take that first step toward the new, non-offensive life that awaits them.  Do they have to agree with us?  No.  Do we and they need to learn to be kind to each other and love each other anyway?  Absolutely!  That is what legitimate correctness, political or otherwise, is all about.

Bob Dees

(Next month I will be dealing with another facet of this topic, “The High Art of Taking Offense.”)

Claiming Our Ignorance

We have become pretty lazy with our words in the last couple of years.  We throw them around without putting much energy into choosing them.  We snarl them out at those with whom we disagree.  We look down our nose with them at people we believe are of lesser stuff than ourselves.  We sling them around like a sword hoping to wound and defeat our enemy.  We misuse perfectly good words as rhetorical flourishes intended to overwhelm others.  In the process we forget that words do have a precise meaning and should be respected or else OUR word itself will lose respect among our hearers.

For example, it has become common to accuse someone of being ignorant.  It is intended to communicate that the other person is stupid, meaning that they are simple-minded, foolish, or dull witted.  But ignorant has a very different meaning.  Ignorance is not intended to be an insult, it is a simple statement of fact.  It means a person lacks knowledge – is unaware of or unacquainted with some information.

To say we are ignorant is to acknowledge that our understanding and perspective is incomplete.  We may be ignorant of the facts or new data.  We may be ignorant of how others see or feel about something.  We can be ignorant of many, many things and not be simple-minded or dull witted.  Ignorance is not a permanent state.  We can learn.  The ignorant have either chosen not to learn or have not had the opportunity to do so, yet!  We are all ignorant.  But, there is no shame in ignorance, as long as it is not due to our choosing to be ignorant.

However, ignorance can only be overcome by learning what we do not know.  Unfortunately, that requires a self-awareness that can be very, very difficult to acquire.  Ignorance can lead us to a similar word, ignore.  The ignorant may ignore the emptiness in their thinking, the holes in their reasoning, the missing pieces in the puzzles of life.  To be blissfully ignorant is to disregard or ignore all the unknowns around us.  We can dismiss them as pie-in-the-sky or outside of what we may call “common sense.”  We may look at the mysteries around us and say they have nothing to do with “real life.”  We can shunt them off to others while we concentrate on “the real world.”  We have a number of ways to justify a lack of self-awareness and our own resulting ignorance.  In doing so we choose our ignorance.

Fortunately, ignorance can be corrected by another misused word, intelligence.  This is not a compliment, it is a statement of fact relating to the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.  It is the opposite of dull witted or simple minded.  It is driven by an equally powerful word, curiosity, the strong desire to know or learn.  Employing both intelligence and curiosity results in a third powerful word, wisdom, the quality of having experience, knowledge and good judgment.  Almost everyone is capable of intelligence, curiosity, and wisdom in varying degrees.

The French called this sapience which is rooted in the more ancient word meaning to taste or to perceive.  Overcoming ignorance is a rather simple process of tasting life.  It means we keep ourselves open to and seeing what it has to offer.  Scientists have named our species Homo Sapiens, the thinking human.  Our most evident characteristic is our ability to acquire wisdom, to think.   When we recognize our ignorance, we are driven by our curiosity to acquire wisdom.  This is what it means to be human!  We seek to live beyond ignorance!  And we have the ability to be self-aware enough to be able to do so, body-mind-soul.

There are a few people who do not have that capacity for intelligence.  They cannot follow simple cause and effect relationships.  They are unable to remember or process instructions or frame goals.  These people are unable to learn and grow.  I have met very, very few of these people.  They are generally suffering from a disease like advanced dementia or have suffered some form of brain injury. 

However, I have met quite a few people who, through their lack of self-awareness, are totally unaware of their lack of knowledge.  These folks are lazy, turning away from what it means to be a human being, a Homo Sapiens.  In short, “They can’t be bothered with thinking.”  They prefer to be ignorant and have chosen that path as a lifestyle.

I believe that a little self-awareness would go a long way toward healing many of the wounds and divisions in our culture.  If more folks could respond with an honest, “I don’t know!” rather than some rote recitation of their favorite news anchor, we might actually begin to make some progress.  If more of us were more curious and less convinced, we might actually be able to have honest discussions about things that really matter.  If we sought wisdom rather than being right, we might actually develop the capacity to listen and empathize with those with whom we disagree.  It could all happen very easily with a bit more honest ignorance in our lives. 

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame,

as being unwilling to learn.”  ~Benjamin Franklin

Peace,

Bob

The Necessity of a Cultural Divide

The original motto of the USA and its’ replacement 180 years later offers an interesting glimpse into the cultural divide that exists in the 21^st century.  “E Pluribus Unum” – Out of many, One!  This was the original motto of the US.  It was never officially adopted but appeared on the Great Seal of the USA.    In fact, it still appears on the Great Seal. 

For nearly two centuries it served as a reminder that our nation rose out of many different peoples from all over the world.  Some of us were born here before the first Europeans arrived.  Some of us came in search of a new life.  Some were brought here in the chains of slavery.  Others came here as refugees fleeing persecution; religious, cultural, and political.  Some came to be with family who has already found a new home. 

“E Pluribus Unum” – Out of many, One!  It served us well until the 1950’s when we became frightened by our own diversity.  At the end of WWII, our under-current of Anglo Saxon superiority began to be challenged by changes.  Jim Crow had held firm against the cultural strongholds of racism until July 26, 1948 when President Harry S. Truman issued an executive order establishing equality of treatment and opportunity in the U. S, Military regardless of race.   The march toward civil rights had gained a tenuous toehold in the American Culture.  This along with women beginning to use the right to vote that they had won four decades before as well as the increase in non-European immigration following the war made the ruling caste of white males very nervous.  Many felt that they had personally defeated Japanese, German, and Italian Dictators and therefore had earned the right to govern not only the government but all segments of society. 

Internationally, tensions between the former allies in WWII, namely the USSR, began to grow.  A junior Senator from Wisconsin capitalized on the growing fear and began a high-profile campaign to root out the Communists in our government.  The stalemate in Korea when the Chinese joined in pushed our country past fear and into sheer terror of those who were not like us. 

In 1956, the U. S. Congress adopted the first “Official” motto, “In God We Trust.”   The Words “under God” were also added to the Pledge to the flag.  The words were added to all currency of the US in 1957.  It was a way of distinguishing the U. S. from it’s greatest enemy that supported state atheism.  It was promoted as a way of gaining God’s favor in protecting us from the changing world of ideas and people in the United states.  Until the 1950’s Socialism was an accepted political orientation that included people like Helen Keller, W.E.B. Dubois, and Upton Sinclair.  But it became the tar that led to the casting out of anyone who did not support the policies and beliefs of the Anglo-Saxon, male ruling class.  Diversity was no longer tolerated.

We have been fighting this diversity/anti-diversity war for the last 70 years.  Every step toward acceptance and tolerance has had a strong backlash.  In fact, the recent history of our nation is a catalogue of this on-going cultural divide.  The Civil Rights and Feminist Movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s were met with the anti-diversity response of the Reagan Years in the 1980’s. 

The growing resistance to discrimination against LGBTQ and the rebirth of the Women’s Movement in the 1990’s saw a corresponding backlash that was fueled by the paranoia that grew out of 9/11.   The election of Barak Obama declared that a diverse population would be heard at the ballot box.  To which the Tea Party and other 1950’s John Birch Society members came together, looking toward 2016.  The Black Live’s Matter Movement, and the move toward LGBTQ rights developed their resolve even more. And with the nomination of a woman, the latest round of an anti-diversity movement culminated in the election of the 45^th President of the United States.  The battle continues as everyone is now gearing up for 2018 and 2020.

Our divisions are the result of an historical pattern of disagreement in both political and cultural goals.  The more closely we examine these two facets of American life, the more divided we appear.  But, if we will take the time to pan out a bit we can see much more that unifies us.  Both of these perspectives are vital to our way of life.

Why are the divisions so important?  As a wise friend on FB noted, unity without diversity is mere uniformity.  Such uniformity is a playground for evil.  Most old ideas and the status quo go unchallenged.  As ideas and “commonsense’ slowly evolves over time, changes occur without any resistance.  In fact, the highest value becomes protecting what we have “always done” whether we have “always done” it or not.

Likewise, diversity without unity creates a playground for chaos.  Shared identity is lost, and we become a tribal cultural engaged in constant cultural wars.  We divide and divide until our fragmented society completely collapses. 

A unity that grows out of our diversity helps us to discover that which is most important to all of us.  It demands a consensus that is built on what we share.  Our unity becomes a hard-won fact of our national life.  It demands a diversity of voices to keep it fresh and alive and growing.

The men and women who believed in “E Pluribus Unum” recognized that our republic operates by the consent of the governed.  If there is no consent among the governed, no sense of unity among “We the people…” there can be no consent by those who govern.  We cannot blame our lack of unity on those who sit in Washington.  Until “We the People…” sit down and do the hard work of building a consensus with our neighbors on what unifies us, we shall continue to live at the mercy of the twin playground bullies, chaos and evil.

Start a cultural dialogue on what unites us?  Let start by identifying those parts of our life together that are most important to us and our nation.  Then let us build on those seeds and rebuild a nation of which it can truly be said, “E Pluribus, Unum!”