Political Correctness

I am not entirely sure what people mean when they complain about "political correctness."  At one level, there is the political correctness that one might find in a totalitarian regime, where "political correctness" is adherence to the overt dogma that defines the regime, and the converse "political incorrectness" is a critique of the overt dogma that defines the regime.  I might add, right up front, that we have long been familiar with this sort of "correctness" in religion.   There is the religious doctrine, and then there are various forms of apostasy.  John Rawls had something to say on this topic, though by indirection, when he discussed "comprehensive doctrines."  Though my thinking on this is influenced by Rawl's, to be frank, I haven't given much thought to where it aligns and where it diverges, and my copy of Justice as Fairness was lost to our Chicago flood, so I can no longer verify.  So, given that, very loosely defined, a "comprehensive doctrine" is one that encompasses, or is purported to encompass, all aspects of life, whether economic or social.  One sees it exemplified, in historical political discourse, by a "communist world view," where adherence to the Marxist-Lenninist doctrine is seen, not only as indisputably correct, but the final arbiter of dispute.  Of course, the world is a dynamic place, and Marxist-Lenninism does not apply itself to developing circumstances, so those empowered to "correctly" interpret its doctrine held both political and legal power.  One sees it exemplified, in current political discourse, by a "biblical world view," where the bible is seen, not only as indisputably correct, but the final arbiter of dispute.  Of course, again, the world is a dynamic place, and the bible does not interpret itself or apply itself to developing circumstances, so those empowered to "correctly" interpret the bible either do, or should, hold political and legal power as well.  One can adduce any number of examples, each with their own nuance, but my point is simple.  The fundamental dynamic is the same for both political and religious "correctness," and indeed the two have over-lapped through much of history.

Political correctness, in this sense, both arises from and supports the continuation of authoritarian regimes.  I have talked elsewhere about an "authoritarian" mind set, and I have implied at least individuals may well be "predisposed" to "authoritarian" mind set, but here, let me just say, that it too is "comprehensive" -- that is, if one inhabits an "authoritarian" mind set, all actions of others are interpreted from within an "authoritarian" mind set.  Consider, for example, the differing liberal and conservative relationships to science.  On the liberal side, there is a sense that the "truth" emerging from science is both contingent and provisional, and because it is contingent and provisional, it is "progressive."  Yesterday's accepted "truths" around climate change, for example, can be modified, even overthrown in a copernican revolution, and as a consequence we have a "better" understanding of climate change today than yesterday, and will likely have an even "better" understanding of climate change and what to do about it tomorrow.  On the conservative side, however, one imagines "science" to be not unlike religion, and often opposed to religion, as a comprehensive doctrine.   Science must be, not only indisputably "correct" once and for all, but the final arbiter of dispute.  Those empowered to "correctly" interpret "scientific fact" MUST arise from within and support the continuation of an authoritarian regime.  So you get this from the conservative nominee for president: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."  There is, of course, no basis in fact or observation for this claim, and I doubt that the scientists working on climate change have given much thought to China, except insofar as China is one of the largest producers of carbon emissions and consequently a chief contributor to the "green house" effect first noted by Joseph Fourier in 1824.  As a conspiracy theory, however, it is as good as any other, since any claims about climate change MUST be motivated either to support or to change the current power relationships.   If the secular "science" dominated world view of Obama currently holds power, Trump can cast himself as an enemy of a "political correctness" that MUST insist, in an authoritarian way, on climate change and steps to correct it, not because it is simply part of the developing consensus among scientists and presents a threat to the planet, but because it arises supports the anti-American regime of an illegitimate president.    

I am suggesting that all discourse around "political correctness" arises from an authoritarian world view.  If one is in power, one must maintain the "politically correct" discourse, and we are all familiar with the ways in which authoritarian regimes maintain the "politically correct" discourse.   The Fox News headline -- "Turkey shuts down 130 media outlets after failed coup"-- says it all.  Take control of the media and the available means of disseminating a criminalized, "politically incorrect" discourse.   If one is seeking power -- if one is a part of the coup -- one must rail against and undermine the "politically correct" discourse.  Those seeking power are the first to decry the limitations of the media, the first to demand a more "open discourse" without prohibitions on speech, but the intent ultimately is not "open discourse" but rather the substitution of one political correctness, one orthodoxy, with another.  Once in power, those who engineered the coup must maintain their "politically correct" discourse, and we are all familiar with the ways in which authoritarian regimes maintain the "politically correct."  One turns in the widening gyre.

Having said that, first Trump (because I am developing a Trump obsession not unlike a baptist preachers obsession with the devil).  Trump rails against political correctness and seeks to undermine the "politically correct" discourse because he is part of the coup against the existing democratic presidency.  I mean "democratic" both in the party and the systemic sense.  On the one hand, there is a sort of "political correctness" within the democratic party, and to deny it, as Sam Harris points out, can be counter-productive.  At one level, of course, there's just the "political correctness" of civility.  I don't call a black man "boy," because he will find it offensive.  I don't call him a "n****r" for the same reason.  To use denigrative language within political discourse is offensive, and because it's use cannot be interpreted as anything other than the intent to offend, it is an empty provocation for the sake of provocation and undermines any hope of civil discourse. At another level, however, the "political correctness" of civility can be taken a step too far.  Consider, for example, what I have called "disconfirming" data.   The Washington Post outlines, "there were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black."  At first blush, it appears that a police officer is more likely to be killed by a white perpetrator than a black perpetrator, but "the black population in America ranged from 11.6 percent to 13 percent between 1980 to 2013.  Compared to that percentage in the population, the percentage of black offenders who killed police officers appears to be disproportionately high."  As the Post points out, there are a number of reasons to caveat and question the data, but what if, after extensive research that removes the questions and caveats, it still plays out that the number of black perpetrators remain "disproportionately high?"  To avoid offending the black communities, should we ignore the data because it points to an inconvenient conclusion?  Should we dismiss the data as yet one more example of "institutionalized racism?"  To do so would not only inhibit any real solution to a perceived problem, but plays into a conservative dog whistle narrative that authoritarian liberals are suppressing the "truth," that the black community is a greater threat to civic order and those that enforce it, that officers are justified in profiling the black community as a greater threat, et cetera.

I am suggesting two things:

First, of course, it is extraordinarily difficult to have a conversation about race and the issues surrounding race.  Is it "racist" to point out "disconfirming" data of the sort I outlined above?  If it is "true" that "the percentage of black offenders who killed police officers [is]  disproportionately high," it might help explain -- explain, not excuse -- why officers too quickly revert to unnecessary deadly force when dealing with black suspects.  Would it be "racist" to include this data in the discussion?   Regardless how one answered the questions, you can see just how fraught the discussion is from the outset.  

Second, there is a deep irony in the conservative charge of "political correctness" against the democrats.  I suspect democrats are less likely to use language like "n****r," or "c**t" or "b***h" when talking about women, or "w*****k" when referring to Mexicans, or "t********d" when referring to muslims, or any of the empty provocations aimed at "sub-classes" of people.  As I have mentioned before, I can find it easily in comments to Breitbart articles, but I cannot find the same in comments on the liberal sites, with the possible exception of provocations against conservatives as conservatives, the most common epithet being "stupid" and its various synonyms.  Of course, along with the racial and misogynistic comments, there are provocations of liberals as liberals on the conservative sites, the most common epithet being "stupid" and its various synonyms.  Ultimately, it is all stupid and a call to revel in stupidity.  Such language does not have a rhetorical purpose, only an inflammatory purpose, and it curtails even the possibility of the civil discourse that might lead to something resembling solutions to our problems.  

The conservatives, however, do have a point when the desire to avoid offense precludes anything and everything that might "cause offense," particularly if it precludes or dismisses out of hand the discussion of disconfirming data that points to legitimate problems within the black community.    That liberal propensity to "avoid offense," however problematic on occasion, is not the deeper irony.   The conservatives, in their attack on "political correctness," are not attacking "political correctness"per se, they are attacking a particular, secular-progressive "political correctness."  Perhaps I should say "a particular, secular-progressive political incorrectness," an apostasy, that they would see replaced with "a particular theocratic-conservative political correctness."  As I have mentioned elsewhere, the conservative party has become less a secular-conservative party, more a theocratic-fundamentalist party, complete with a comprehensive doctrine that allows for no more political compromise than a fundamentalist religious doctrine allows for religious compromise.  Ted Cruz is perhaps its purest representation, wanting to re-instate a theocratic-conservative "political correctness" in place of the secular-progressive "political incorrectness," but Donald Trump has, so to speak, upped the ante.  It is one thing to dog-whistle white resentment, racism and various forms of misogyny -- one can do so more or less behind the curtain of civility -- but Donald Trump has erased even the boundaries of civility.  The race baiting and name calling that has been "not OK," has become simply "OK."  He has erased along with civility even the possibility of the civil discourse that might lead to something resembling solutions to our problems.

One might say that Trump, by throwing aside the curtain of civility, has revealed the problem for what it is, and there would be some truth to that.  In the recent issue of the Atlantic, Peter Beinart, discussing "The White Strategy" in California, writes that "Since the 1970s, political scientists have demonstrated that whites who express a higher level of resentment toward African-Americans are more likely to identify as Republicans.  Since the 1990s, as the political scientists Zoitan Hajnal and Michael Rivera detail in a 2014 paper, a similar correlation has emerge between resentment toward Latinos and Republican partisanship."  Nixon, and then Reagan, capitalized on white resentment rather cynically when the demographics were in their favor, and when the resentment was directed primarily at a "sub-group of people" who represented little more than ten percent of the total population.  The  "embrace of white nativism" and overt counter-factual, anti-immigrant racism against Latinos, Beinart points out, "turned the Republican Party into a permanent minority" in California, and threatens to do the same for the GOP nationally.  We have known, in other words, for quite some time that the republican party is the party of white resentment, and despite the "autopsies" of the 2012 election cycle, little was done, or little could be done to ease away from "white resentment."  

One doubts, however, that Trump is a democratic shill.  One doubts too that Trump is a republican shill.  Rubio yes, Trump no.  Although he is running under the republican banner, he is not really even a republican, as many republicans who have been conservative champions of small government and conservative social values have pointed out.  The disaffection of the last republican president and the last republican presidential candidate have made that abundantly clear, even if Paul Ryan's squirming has not.   Ultimately, although he has capitalized on a deep resentment of government, Trump is not even running on a Tea Party platform.  Johnathan Rauch, in another Atlantic current article, Trump is the perfect candidate for what he calls the "politiphobe," or "those who believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country's problems are out there for the plucking" and the "reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt or self-interested."  They "do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists" and believe that "politicians could easily solve our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas."  Trump, of course, provides simplistic solutions to complex problems -- e.g. build a wall, and make the Mexicans pay for it, and deport those who are illegal.  Since money and power are the motivation for most of the craven self-interest one sees in Washington, Trump portrays himself as one who "knows the system," one who has already "paid off politicians to get his way," but because he is already rich and powerful, one who is beyond the reach of the corrupting influences.  He is the one (and the ONLY one) who can solve the nation's problems.  He can do so, not only because he has a "big brain" (wealth being a sufficient proof of his intelligence) but also because he has no "craven personal agenda."  Unlike his opponent, he has "no political record to defend," and he has "no political debts or party loyalty."  

Trump is not running on a party platform.  He is running on a messianic platform.  He represents an authoritarian politiphobe's idea of a national savior, and he may win because of it.  I have asked this question before, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose he DOES win.  Anyone capable of moving beyond first level thinking will see that his "solutions" are untenable.  First level thinking says "build a wall," second level thinking asks, "just how much will that cost?"  Trump is certainly aware that there are reasonable ways of determining the construction costs of such a project, but to dismiss those costs by saying the Mexicans will pay for it, just distances the question one remove.  How, then, will you "make" the Mexicans pay for it and for the inevitable cost over-runs associated with such a massive project? Moreover if it were successful, it would be short term and how would we pay for the on-going costs associated with maintaining and policing the wall.  Where will the money come from if it doesn't come from Mexico.  Will it come from increased taxes, which the candidate has promised to decrease, or a displacement from existing programs whether social or military, both of which the candidate has vowed to protect?  The whole notion has been picked apart before, in more detail, and one quickly arrives at intractable difficulties or contradictions.  Suffice it to say, the wall is simply not a "viable" policy position.  If Trump wins, he will inevitably join the ranks of those politicians who make large campaign promises, only to break them, disappointing his supporters while consolidating the democratic resistance against him.   The republican party could survive a Trump loss, particularly if that loss is to Hillary Clinton, but one wonders if it could survive a Trump victory.   Beinart's optimistic prediction that the GOP could become a permanent minority platform for the foreseeable future could well come true as it seems to have come true in California.

All of which assumes we continue to have democratic politics -- in the systemic, not the party sense.  I do have an existential fear of a Trump presidency.  He has known failure and left a string of broken promises in the past, but one need only follow the history of his casino deals in Atlantic City to understand that one can benefit from "failure" and survive the resentments.  The headline for a NY Times article says it all: "How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions."  His claim that he would govern the country in the way he ran his business should give us pause (should always give us pause, but in his case should give us particular pause).  Taking him at his word, his past behavior lends credence to Trevor Noah's joke that Trump, if successful, would be America's first African president -- that is to say, a dictator unconcerned with the success of the enterprise so long as he can, in his words, treat it as a personally enriching cash cow.  Beyond that, of course, are his personal characteristics, not least his thin skinned approach to opposition.  Again, not unlike the dictators he professes to admire for the "strong leadership," he does not take criticism lightly or willingly.  He has shown, through his comments on the "Mexican judge," through his proposals to relax "libel laws" against the press, through his banning of news outlets ranging from the Huffington Post to Washington Post, that he is perfectly willing to curtail first amendment rights to free speech.  How far he will go (how far he will attempt to go or how far he will be allowed to go) in suppressing opposition once in power is anyone's guess.

Which bring me back to "political correctness."   The deeper irony is this:  Trump is not running against "political correctness," except perhaps that "correctness" of civility, in whose name we sometimes err on the side of caution.  Trump is actually running FOR a "political correctness" of a deeper and more pernicious sort, where he, and he alone, is the sole arbiter of the "correct."   For the autocrat, for the messianic president, he is the embodiment of "political correctness."  Anything that comes in opposition to Trump's point of view is "politically incorrect," is political apostasy, and worthy of suppression or punishment.  I do have some faith that Trump would find it difficult to become the first African president, to actually enforce his "political correctness."  He would need the support of the military, but we see hopeful signs when a retired marine general calls out Trump for proposing illegal and immoral policy.  He would also need the broader and more disparate support of the police, and of course we see him pandering to the police in his responses to the Black Lives Matter movement, but it would be exceptionally difficult to corral the broad range of local civil authorities that control individual police departments, much less the judiciary.