The Sheriff is Near! Some Misgiving on Political Correctness
It’s a bright summer day, and as the fresh blue sky hangs over the town like an open stage, the gathered townsfolk await in anxious anticipation for their new sheriff to arrive. The band plays as hands clap, and the town drunk intently scans the horizon until a rider on horseback approaches. He yells.
“Hey, the sheriff is a—”
GONG! tolls the bell.
“What did he say?” the townsfolk mumble to themselves. “The sheriff is near” one replies. Satisfied, they continue their cheerful clapping.
The town drunk stomps his feet in frustration, screaming: “No dagflabbit! I said the sheriff is a—”
GONG! the bell tolls again.
The band continues as the sheriff proudly strolls into town, but then, sudden silence. Unphased, the rider silently nods to the townsfolk’s gaping mouths, and Mel Brooks effortlessly establishes one of the most politically incorrect scenes in cinematic history. (Sad to think they don’t make movies like he did 36 years ago.)
What is it with our society today? Ever since I can remember, it’s as if we live in a sterile world where the status quo is to worry incessantly about hurting others’ feelings, and it’s written into the First Amendment: “Thou shall not offend”. Everywhere we turn, we must use a specially selected group of inoffensive words so every social group feels good about themselves. (Except for the Christians.) At this point, I imagine that the readership splits into two groups:
The first wholeheartedly supports this stifling orthodoxy. Overemotional in their approach to life, they are guided by an unseen standard that judges the “Tolerant” from the intolerant. But don’t make them mad! They won’t hesitate being intolerant of your “intolerance”. By contrast, the second group finds themselves in my boat, carefully using language to please the first, lest they offend a random social group like unknowingly swatting at a bug on the endangered species list. Political Correctness (PC) is used not for it’s aspiring ideal, but only for political survival.
If you have not guessed by now, the subject matter is indeed PC, and from here I will be blunt. (This lets the first group leave before ever questioning themselves, the second to realize they are not alone, and the apolitical to reaffirm why both sides miss the point.) In the article, we will explore PC and why it is bad. In the first section we will examine PC as an action used to suppress discussion, while in the second we will examine it’s partisan undertones. In the end, if you are so inspired to have discussion, my point is proven and my mission was accomplished. But let us keep some things in mind.
First, pleasing everybody is impossible. In terms of ideologies, trying to satisfy polar opposite viewpoints will create a flavorless message that is tasty only to the bland. Second, our interpretation of reality—i.e., how we view the world—is called our bias. Everyone has one, and some are closer to reality than others. Fourth, people are called insane because they see things contrary to reality. Lastly, my cynicism tells me that everyone only acts to fulfill their own agenda. Let grace and unwarranted kindness be what they may.
1. To best explore PC as an action, I direct you to an example that occurs every year after the Winter Solstice. This special season, when Christians celebrate the birth of Christ and most everyone else, including Christians, celebrate the arrival of Santa Claus, is called “Christmas.” So it’s effectively two holidays in one, a religious and a secular holiday. Got it? It must serve as no surprise that the topic is the usage of “Happy Holidays,” but keep an open mind and think with me for a moment.
The reasoning behind “Happy Holidays” is fairly straightforward: Since there are multiple religious holidays occurring in the same span of time, it only makes sense to create a universal greeting that makes everybody happy, including the secular humanists who coined the terms. But let’s examine it’s utility in promoting peace:
Say you are at Wal-Mart, rushing to find that last minute gift. After asking a fellow shopper for advice in the toy aisle, you show your sincere gratitude by happily wishing them a “Merry Christmas.” Oops! But, you figure, even if they are a devout, religion-fearing atheist, they were shopping in the toy aisle so you called it as it is. Merry Christmas! (Luckily for us, they returned the gesture.) Say this happens again when shopping for mashed potatoes, but this time, the shopper you wished “Merry Christmas” was a devout Jew. And this time, they become agitated. What now?
As the PC police would tell you, since you hurt another’s feelings, you should probably kill yourself. But what if by accidentally offending, you instead opened the door for discussion? What if, by wishing them “Merry Christmas” they in turn had the guts to discussion Judaism with you, and in the end you actually learned something useful? Is there harm in making a new friend? Even if they wished you “Happy Hanukkah” and angrily stormed off, in the end they cared enough about their own religion to show it too, right? (And note no one was proselytizing!) But since we as a society are to assume that every stranger during Christmas is Jewish or otherwise non-Christian, we instead cower in fear of offending, never once daring to forge new understanding through discussion
This brings us to a major definition of PC as an action: The constant and irrational fear of hurting another’s feelings, as expressed by the weak attempt to be inclusive to everyone. In practice, this includes making broad assertions, stating just enough of the truth to make everyone happy. But this approach ignores reality, in that life is unfair, mean, and divisive. The very fact you hold an opinion on anything entails that someone will disagree with you. And that—heaven forbid—could lead to quarrel! Remembering that life is a mean, nasty place should give us the freedom to speak without fear of hurting another’s feelings, accepting that some people are just thin-skinned.
(In passing I want to make note of a second major definition: Attempting to disguise reality—again to protect feelings—by calling it not as it is. Think of it as insanity via lying. As an example, we could look to the Ft. Hood shootings, when the mainstream media, instead of reporting that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was motivated by his Islamic extremism, instead called it another senseless rampage motivated by poor healthcare. In order to be PC and protect feelings, they lied by reporting a half-truth, and spun the news to fit their own agenda.)
2. Now let’s discuss PC as an ideal. In order to judge anyone via PC—and yes, it IS judging—there are a few implications that should scream at us immediately. First is the fact that in order to call an action politically incorrect, one must first posses a standard by which to judge. Second is that if we want to get an idea of what this standard is, we need only look at the ones correcting and the ones being corrected. Third with PC so prevalent in today’s society, the answer should be fairly obvious. But to spoil the surprise, I will again ask you to think with me in yet another hypothetical situation.
Once when I was hypothetically at DePauw, conversing with a former high school classmate, her friends started talking about gay marriage and they asked for my opinion. Uh oh. After taking a deep breath, I calmly and politely explained that marriage is a non-negotiable institution, as created by God himself, that applies to one man and one woman, lasting until divorce (which is discouraged) or death (which happens). I suggested the rights they want are a construct of the state, and they can have them; but hell better freeze over before they ever call it “marriage,” since as a religious institution that would be a contradiction in terms. And what was their reply? I’m an intolerant homophobe… who should die.
As an ideal, PC is the visible manifestation of Tolerance. Let me differentiate “Tolerance” from “tolerance.” Lower case “tolerance” is simply one’s capacity to put up with another. For instance, since I have the capacity to put up with poor cooking, I am “tolerant.” “Tolerance” is the standard for PC, identified by the de-facto identities of the homophobic, xenophobic, racist, Tea Party conservative and the non-judgmental liberal. For instance, by not agreeing with the Tolerant standards of the Left—the only standards they have, mind you—I am not PC and therefore intolerant.
In the interest of space, I will direct you to a possible case in point by asking the last time you saw a conservative act PC without totally looking like he is lying. Though not conclusive as evidence, when conservatives act PC they cannot do so with a straight face, and look as uncomfortable as Bill Mayer praying the Sinner’s Prayer.
To conclude, I end with the following closing statements:
A. While I think PC as a whole is idiotic, there are genuinely heinous words that should not be used—hence the introduction. Although we find this scene funny today for its open mocking of PC, the word in question is detestable and is a clear indicator of racism by its users. So where do we draw the line?
B. The line between the genuinely detestable and the PC can be drawn by examining the words the Left can use and get away with (“The sheriff is a—!”) and those words Tea Party folks use in genuine hatefulness. In fact, they may even match up! Words and phrases used against Bush though (such as fascist, Hitler, etc.) do not count.
C. I liken the willing use of PC to self-incurred tutelage. As beings with reason—notice I did not say reasonable beings—we should be encouraged to think where questions takes us and to step outside the box. Even if we are wrong in questioning the paradigm, at least new realms of thought were explored. I am confident that if Kant were able to see the closed minded world of academia today, he would be rolling in his grave.
Related posts:
