insurgent49
  updated weekly
 home - contribute - donate -  message board - events - links - contact us - archive
October 7, 2005
The Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford

Politically Correct

     A common accusation hurled by reactionaries is that their opponent is being “politically correct.” This charge is typically made when the opponent is trying to avoid or prevent slanders against weak and oppressed minorities. The implication is that the only basis for objecting to such slanders is a mindless form of groupthink that no rational person would go along with. Yet the original meaning and use of the phrase “politically correct” came not from right wing critics of the left, but from internal debate within the left. As is typical of their ilk, the reactionaries have stolen the concept, and used it as an ideological weapon that they point in only one direction. Properly understood, it applies to everyone.

     I first encountered the phrase “politically correct” as a college student in the late 1970s. I was taking a sociology class that involved quite a bit of political discussion. One of the other students in the class was a radical lesbian, who once made a passing reference to not wanting to be politically correct. She was asked about that comment by another student, who was puzzled by her comment. “What is wrong with being politically correct?”

     Her explanation was that in some of the separatist feminist circles she hung out with, it was not considered politically correct to associate with men, or to speak to them, or even to treat them like human beings. Although she was a radical feminist, she did not agree with that philosophy. She did not want to be politically correct, as that concept was practiced by some other women. Then as now, “politically correct” was a pejorative that expressed an implied disagreement with an idea which is held by a group of people. The phrase came into existence because many free thinkers on the left disliked all forms of authority, even when it came from within their own ranks.

     It is an idea that could never have originated with reactionaries. They like authoritarian systems that tell them how to think. It saves them from needing to do any thinking of their own. If Jerry Falwell tells them that the Teletubbies promote a gay agenda, they are happy to believe it and repeat it as gospel. If Bill O’Reilly tells them that Saddam Hussein was involved in the World Trade Center attacks, that becomes a political fact which must be repeated everywhere. If George Bush tells them that they must sacrifice their eldest sons to the god of war so that Iraqis can enjoy the spoils of democracy, they ship Junior off to the Middle East without blinking an eye.

     I would never claim that there are no excesses of political correctness on the left. The fact that those excesses exist is why the phrase came into existence in the first place. To call a short person “vertically challenged” to avoid hurting his or her feelings is ridiculous. But those occasional excesses pale in comparison with the twisted use of language inflicted on us by businesses, politicians and bureaucrats. In the business world, I found this example. “Enhance shareholder value by managing supply chain collaboration strategically.” Or how about the use of “facility and cost rationalizations” to mean “firing people”? The Bush administration is one big example: “Clean Skies Initiative” to describe a bill to reduce pollution controls; “Healthy Forests” to describe a bill to increase logging; and “Free Trade Agreement” to describe special interest and protectionist trade bills. Bureaucrats have their own special language. When 450 cattle were slaughtered because of mad cow disease, it was said that the government had decided to “depopulate the bull calf operation in Mabton, Washington.” I am sure that you all have your own favorite examples of such nonsense.

     These are all examples of people trying to soften the harsh impact of what they are really saying, by using euphemisms. No one part of the political spectrum has a monopoly on this practice. I believe that the worst examples come from those who have the most power, and hence the most ability to harm other people. The right tends to use euphemisms to hide corporate welfare and abuses of power, while the left tends to use
them to avoid insulting the oppressed. At least the left recognized the problem in itself, and coined a phrase to describe it. You are not likely to see similar introspection among reactionaries.





Kevin Morford is a political activist and an attorney in private practice in the Anchorage area.  He can be reached at kmorford@insurgent49.com.
- Columnists -

Editor's Desk
by Aaron Selbig

Red Alert
by Soren Wuerth

Alaskan In Exile
by Neil Zawicki

The
Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford





Copyright 2005 Insurgent Media. All Rights Reserved.
in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership.