KO PC PDQ

Vice President Joe Biden got into trouble with the political police recently for referring to the “Orient.” He should have said “Asia,” the correctors said.

A letter writer told the Washington Post that the paper was wrong for citing Biden’s remark as insensitive to those who would control his as well as the speech of others. Orient is a perfectly good word, the writer argued, giving some good examples, including contrasting it with Occidental. East and West are the accepted definitions, referring to the areas east of the Mediterranean and Red Sea, and to the Western Hemisphere and (surprise) Europe. Other definitions would cover the area from India on to the Philippines for the Orient. Often, of course, the terms Near East and Far East are used to cover the great expanse of Asia.

But, hold on! Orient is offensive to some people, so one dare not use the term.

Who says so?

The true question is: Who arbitrates what constitutes political correctness?

No person, no one group can be cited. There is no authority for political correctness. The press in its broadest sense, however, carries water for the cause, which is espoused by those with pet peeves.

PC is the construct of unidentified persuaders that wish, ultimately, to control speech --- public and private – and the thoughts behind it.

People intent upon communicating with each other – regardless of medium – must not allow such manipulation for their own good. They must not dodge politically incorrect conclusions expressed fearlessly. That is the sum and substance of the rejection of political correct speech.

But someone might be offended!

That is the summation of the defense of political correctness. But is that defense used by, let’s suppose, those without social agendas? One can hardly have much self-confidence if easily offended. Or, one’s high regard for self must lord over the pitifulness of less-educated creatures.

Google listed search requests it had received for the politically correct substitutes for “third world country” “midget”  “retarded” “handicapped” “native american” [sic] “deaf” “homeless” and “poor”.  The list itself indicates the problem. Those words or terms, with the exception of the PC term for the original American Indian, are descriptive without insinuations one way or the other, and were for centuries.

But there are long-standing, effective regulators of speech. Courtesy. Good manners. Etiquette.

Racial slurs have existed forever and are of a different order. That does not make them right or acceptable. People of “good breeding” – to use an old cliché – would not use them. If they did, they meant to offend; they were – and are -- prejudiced. Some are still with us, whether cultured or “white trash.” (Is that politically or socially incorrect? As an aside, racial or ethnic jokes once were enjoyed, even on network TV, without rancor.) Real slurs transcend social acceptance and should be criticized.

Intention is everything. Intention is controlling in criminal law. Intention is controlling in determination of sin. Intention is considered by people of good will in their dealings with others.

Good ol’ Joe Biden undoubtedly did not intend to hurt anyone, but . . .

Intention is completely ignored by those wishing to police the language of others. Look at the public figures whose futures have been completely changed by some word or phrase. Use alone doomed these people. Their apologies went for nil. Their livelihoods were endangered.

No need to prove them guilty of a deliberate wish to offend. Maybe some did so deliberately, but proof was not required. Some spoke in private. One who did speak in private is said to suffer dementia. Without benefit of legal charges, trial, or judgment he lost membership in a sports league and was forced (the law was involved, but not regarding his speech) to rid himself of the franchise. Two billion dollars was involved.

Names of those punished for their words could be run off at this point. The purpose here is not to argue particular cases of political incorrectness. The purpose is to argue consequences of this growing, encompassing problem.

Newspeak, according to Wikipedia, is “a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought.” This fictional language was the work of George Orwell in his novel, Nineteen Eighty Four. But politically correct speech is becoming compulsory in the United States and elsewhere in what had become to be known as the Free World.

Compulsion should be feared and combatted. Especially when government barks.

E-cigarettes may offer a good example without getting into the frightening possibility of totalitarianism. Tobacco smoking is now prohibited by governmental regulation in nearly every place of public accommodation and sometime in public spaces in and out of doors. The harm of smoking was perceived long before public opinion developed overwhelming against it. The phrase “coffin nails” dates back to the 19^th century. The surgeon general’s report in 1964 led to widespread criticism of smoking and to many smokers quitting. Then arrived advertising limitations and warnings on packages, outright bans on smoking in public, even threats of prohibiting puffing in one’s own castle. So, e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine but no tobacco, are being targeted by people who would control other people’s behavior.

And by the way, many of those same would-be controllers probably are perfectly willing to see marijuana legalized, as has been done in Colorado and Washington. Some 20 other states and the District of Columbia have some form of medically approved cannabis or other relaxed regulations on its use. The recognized health dangers of marijuana use bring little concern among its supporters.

A leader of the campaign against tobacco was behind an effort to get the Federal Communications Commission to deny broadcast licenses to stations using the name “Redskins” in referring to the Washington football team. And outside of government, Facebook surrendered in permitting drag queens to use their professional names instead of legal names on their sites.

PC regulation is both governmental and private. Enforcement, in general, is through attempted embarrassment.

Regardless of partisan views, a majority of citizens would – at least for the time being – oppose governmental imposition of speech controls. Not everyone realizes constitutional recognition of the rights to freedom of speech, communication (press), assembly and petition for redress of grievances are there to protect citizens from their government, not mention religion. We count on elected officeholders and, in turn, those appointed carry out policies or to judge acts as protectors of those rights.

Still protection of free speech calls for individual strength. One must not cower before those who would tell us how to express our thoughts.

What might happen when standing up for what is right?

Early in his chapter entitled “Take Courage,” Ben Carson in One Nation asks four questions about standing up to political correctness. What are the best and worst things to happen from taking action, and from not taking action? He writes:

  Let’s consider these questions with respect to being courageous enough to go against the flow of political correctness and demand your constitutional rights. What is the best thing that happens if we refuse to abide by the dictates of political correctness? I believe that we could return to a nation that truly cherishes freedom of speech and freedom of expression. A nation where people are unafraid to express their opinions and beliefs are eager to engage in intelligent and constructive conversations about their differences. A nation where we value even those with whom we disagree and work together to accomplish common goals.
  What is the worst thing that happens if we oppose political correctness? I believe that every attempt would be made to silence those who oppose political correctness and to make examples of them to discourage others. World history demonstrates that it is very difficult to eradicate every single fighter for freedom.
  What is the best thing that happens if we don’t oppose political correctness? I believe we would achieve a very homogeneous society with little original thought but complete harmony. What is the worst thing that happens if we don’t oppose political correctness? I believe we could see a dictatorship with brutal domination of any individual or group that opposes the leadership. The worst things that can happen if we don’t take action are considerably worse than the worst things that can happen if we do take action. Therefore we must take action.

This is one man’s opinion. It is, however, reasonably argued and worth considering. But Dr. Carson is a controversial man because he has spoken and written his beliefs. His life’s story of rising from the Detroit ghetto to that of a famous neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins brought him to public attention. His attention to public affairs has brought him both praise and disparagement. His career and reputation are examples of the very thing he writes about above.

A quick history: Wikipedia says “politically correct” appears in a 1793 Supreme Court case where it merely means “in line with prevailing political thought or policy.” In the 1940s and ‘50s Socialists used the term pejoratively against the Communist “party line.” In 1970 Toni Cade wrote in The Black Woman, “A man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too.” William Safire cited that in his Safire’s Political Dictionary. The Wikipedia entry also cites conservatives criticizing leftists in academia in the latter part of the 20^th century.

The practice of calling for PC usage heated up in the last quarter century or so; the heat intensifies. More frequently public figures are being attacked for their lapses. Charges arise from various sources. Adjudication is practiced in the news media and by pundits rendering decisions. Businesses and organizations are imposing penalties.

One even may be corrected in ordinary talk by another guzzler over a beer.

Efforts to control what others say, browbeating them into a construction perceived acceptable for some real or fancied cause, should not be tolerated. Such should be opposed with rigor and solid logic. Any elected official trying to enact political correctness in any form should be opposed at public hearings and at the polling place.

All opposition should be expressed in reasonable tones without rancor, but with anchor firmly set in the might of right. Start with friends and family.