The Phrase “Politically Correct” Has Fallen on Hard Times
A reader notes that the ascendancy of Donald Trump is due in large measure to the fact that people are tired of being led by someone who sees the need to be politically correct.
For whatever reason, I’ve never viewed the phrase “politically correct” as a pejorative. I know it has been bastardized to mean “mealy-mouthed” or “sugar-coated,” and it almost always has that connotation when used today, but to me it simply means having good manners. The reason we don’t do politically incorrect things like engage in hate speech/overt racism, warmongering, pledging to become president and perform criminal acts and violate human rights, etc., is that they are stupid and profoundly offensive to others. Ultimately they are self-destructive as well, but that’s not the point. It’s just bad manners.
The phrase “Politically Correct” does not mean the same thing to everyone; it has no standard definition. It’s primary function seems to be obfuscation. Therefore it is best avoided.
Perhaps being “politically correct” is like the study of law where intent can make the difference between a punishable act or something that should be tolerated. Are we calling someone a “sanitary engineer” instead of a janitor to make them feel better or to make ourselves better while we offer them no gratitude, deference or increase in pay?
I have a Spanish friend who privately finds the strain we use for words referring to race amusing and very different than what exists in other countries. It starts because the word for “Black” in Spanish is “negro.” This is just a fact, but to point out that fact, as a fact can be considered “not PC.”
Perhaps it is good when we carefully examine our intentions. But I am less optimistic when such a thing might lead us to ignore facts because they are not generally acceptable. It is then just a short hop to the media ignoring the candidacy of Bernie Sanders because it is not politically acceptable.
Trump is not politically “uncorrect” in an effort to be more truthful with facts. Like swearing it is a technique for shock and allows him to be viewed by some as daring to go against the common “safe” trend. Used in this way it is really nothing more than hate mongering. Trump is above all a salesman who is very good at making some like his brand. Should a salesman have control of nuclear launch codes? I would rather see someone who might not be as good a salesman but has better personal control to keep themselves from going nuclear.
I believe it’s incumbent to those who are addressing a Hispanic audience to learn in advance the acceptable way of saying “black person” — again, driven by the quest for good manners. The correct word is what people in that group want to be called. Calling them anything else is offensive, like calling African Americans “negroes.” They just don’t like it, and therefore it shouldn’t be done if we are to treat one another with kindness and respect.
So I would call this “politically correct,” in that it’s what polite society does.
Your are right in stating that offensive words, language, and labels should be avoided as a matter of courtesy. However, the problem with calling all blacks African Americans is that not all blacks are African American; their ancestry may be from Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, or some other area other than Africa. Many blacks refer to themselves as black. The “N” word and its several variations are another matter; they are definitely considered offensive and should not be used.
Some people do not understand why the “N” word is offensive. OK, they don’t have to understand it. Sometimes, to avoid being offensive, we just have to accept things that we don’t understand.
Your point about Trump is exactly correct, which is one of the main reasons he’s going to get clobbered. I can’t fathom why this is, but most people haven’t had this thought yet. Eventually there will be discussion that goes: “Do you REALLY want Trump, with his love of getting revenge for even the slightest insult, in a position where he’s capable of starting World War III?”
As I tell my friends overseas who can’t believe what’s happening here, “Don’t worry. We’re stupid, but we’re not THAT stupid.”
Craig,
A lot of your readers seem to feel that the mainstream media’s obsession with Donald trump is because the journalist are all secret Republicans !
In fact, 90 % of the news coverage is negative! Some journalists are almost hysterical in their hatred for this candidate. It’s that very reaction Trump capitalized on to portray himself as an”everyman” , unafraid to refuse grovelling to the press for approval.
Trump may surprise everyone by winning the candidacy as a maverick, with outrageous opinions, but good-humouredly moderating his more extreme views and adopting a more thoughtful positive and statesman-like campaign for the Presidency.
He’s probably the only candidate whose supporters would accept such a transition. His main advantage is having no party baggage. His “policies’ have always been vague, and he has no real ideological commitment.
A more controlled, shrewder and more moderate Trump backed by a few well constructed policies could easily him elected. He would gain the type of popularity always bestowed upon bullies who seem to become nicer.
Let’s face it, Bernie Saunders would never have been a contender if HC wasn’t so damaged by recurring scandals.
However in reality, Trump will probably become even more outrageous during the campaign and HC will romp in with the same sort of win enjoyed by LBJ over Barry Goldwater.
That’s exactly right. Sooner or later, Trump supporters are going to ask themselves if it’s a good idea to provide a mean-tempered carnival barker access to our nuclear weapons arsenal.
Craig,
I wish that I could be as sure of that as your are. Unfortunately I think that Trump could be elected even if the probability is low. It is also alarming that there are so many people who actually support him. I’m convinced that he is very clever and knows exactly what he is doing. Why he is doing it is less clear. Perhaps his success in getting a large following boosts his ego even if he doesn’t expect to be elected; obviously he has a king-sized ego.
Perhaps it is actually a good thing that Trump is running. It is revealing things about a segment of the American population that was previously less obvious. It is also making it clear that many people are very dissatisfied with their economic position; that may result in a change in policies which will reduce the excessive gap between rich and poor.
Craig,
Donald Trump can’t simply be written off as a “mean-tempered carnival barker”.
Trump possesses great personal charm, often displayed by a disarming self-depreciating sense of humour. It’s these ordinary attributes which attract his followers. He appeals to the “frontier ” spirit of the sort of American who believe they are ignored and forgotten by professional politicians.
He appears to represent a kind of straightforward simple honesty. The “this is who I am, and I don’t give a damn” kind of guy. It’s not what he’s for that defines Trump, but that he gives voice to all those things which people are against, but find it too difficult to express.
Most importantly, Donald Trump doesn’t appear as a hypocrite. Weirdly, the fact that he acknowledges, but remains unashamed and unapologetic by his setbacks failures and mistakes, endears him to his followers who think it makes him seem more human.
US voters always feel betrayed when Presidents are found to have feet of clay. Donald Trump is a candidate who cheerfully acknowledges his shortcomings, and turns them into a virtue. He laughs at his own faults, his weird hairstyle, many marriages and bling tastes. When he responds to crude attacks with equally poor taste, his supporters are delighted, and only his opponents are wounded by the exchange.
He disarms opponents, the media, commentators etc, by telling jokes at his own expense. There’s only so many times his opponents can tell jokes about his hairstyle, before appearing, cliched, hypocritical and no longer amusing.
Unlike his opponents, he appears to be his own man, not the creation of slick image makers. Trump steals the limelight, because he seems original .
Shrill and even hysterical attacks on Trump, only serve to strengthen his appeal. His opponents have failed to grasp that when they sneer at Trump, they’re sneer at the values of his followers. Trump appeals to people who already feel ignored and belittled, attacks on Trump only increase his popularity.
Trump appears to be an isolationist. His foreign policy (if it exists) seems to be ” Fortress America, and the rest of the world can go it’s own way”. Many American’s believe the US has been wrong to intervene in civil wars that have nothing to do with US interests, and where American intervention has only made the situation worse.
To those Americans, Donald Trump is a very safe guardian of US nuclear weapons, since he’s unlikely to become involved in conflict.
Trumps biggest appeal is to those Americans who feel threatened within the US, not abroad. His answer is to make the US secure by strengthening the borders, isolating the US from harmful foreign influences, and stop trying to solve the worlds problems at the expense of America.
Rightly or wrongly, that message, if moderated a little and sold in a slightly more statesman-like manner, has strong appeal to many Americans, especially women, who can trust Donald Trump not to send their sons and daughters to fight in dubious foreign wars.
I’m not a Trump supporter, but I can understand his appeal. It’s just too simplistic and foolish to write off such a man as a “mean-tempered carnival barker”.
By doing so you demean the millions of US citizens who support Trump because they already feel belittled,patronized and alienated.
Marco,
You have made many good observations. However, Trump’s “foreign policy” would not necessarily be pure isolationist. In one of his speeches he advocated carpet bombing ISIS. Obviously that would be completely irresponsible at least partly because it would be impossible to carpet bomb ISIS without also killing thousands of innocent civilians.
Those opposing Trump should stick to objective and verifiable facts instead of merely insulting him. That should provide sufficient ammunition to oppose him without simply attacking his character.
Having said that, please out this, from conservative columnist Dave Brooks: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html?_r=0. It includes:
Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa. ….
Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy.
This week, the Politico reporters Daniel Lippman, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf fact-checked 4.6 hours of Trump speeches and press conferences. They found more than five dozen untrue statements, or one every five minutes.
“His remarks represent an extraordinary mix of inaccurate claims about domestic and foreign policy and personal and professional boasts that rarely measure up when checked against primary sources,” they wrote.
He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12.
OMG I wish I could write like that….
Usually when a person is elected president, he has had considerable experience as a senator, governor, or vice president. Before he assumes office he is introduced to people with whom he will need to interact to get things done. Obviously that is not the case with Trump.
If Trump did win become president, he would find himself in the oval office with no idea how to get anything done. If he wanted to introduce a bill into Congress, he would not know with whom to consult to help write it or even know the telephone numbers of people who would support and introduce the bill. In other words, he would find himself in a helpless situation and it would be some time before he could take any action at all. If he attempted to do something really dangerous and stupid probably no one would listen to him.
Craig,
Frank is right, columnists like Dave Brooks simply sound supercilious and arrogant to Trump supporters. The millions who support Trump do so because they believe he listens to them and gives them a voice. To these folk, he’s a sort of Teddy Roosevelt like character.
When attacking his character and personality, the journalists also attack the values of his supporters. This only further alienates his supporters and gains him news followers who are tired of intellectuals and politicians talking down to them.
Trump is a populist who can argue he has learned one thing, he listens to the views of disillusioned and disenfranchised American voters.
I fear that Trump’s leadership is not based on uplifting and inspiring his supporters to better participation in public affairs, but like many populists he finds himself in the odd position of being forced to follow the mob, because he’s it’s leader !
You are correct that his thinking doesn’t affect Trump supporters (except, possibly, to cause them to dig their heels in farther). It does, or at least I hope it does, communicate effectively that a Trump presidency would be a cataclysm beyond believe. I don’t think most Americans realize how catastrophic that would be, not only to the US, but to the entire world.