1
   

Conservatives adopt the identity politics they once scorned

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 06:59 pm
One point of view, thought-provoking enough possibly:

Quote:
TRB FROM WASHINGTON
Morally Correct

by Peter Beinart

Post date: 11.18.04
Issue date: 11.29.04

Once upon a time, conservatives considered "sensitivity" a dirty word. In the 1980s and 1990s, when African Americans and other campus minorities claimed they were victims of racism and demanded greater respect from white students and faculty, conservatives popularized a term for this group whining: political correctness. They gasped when campus radicals tried to silence criticism of affirmative action by saying it created a hostile climate for black students. They worried aloud that university administrators--in their efforts to spare minority students' feelings--were stifling debate. For a time, combating this culture of punitive sensitivity was one of the right's primary concerns.

Not anymore. In the wake of their recent triumph at the polls, conservatives have found their own supposedly disrespected minority: evangelicals. And they are playing victim politics with a gusto that would make campus radicals proud.

One of the things that galled the right during the "political correctness" wars was the way leftists casually threw around terms like "racist" and "bigot." For conservatives, some of whom knew firsthand how much harm those accusations could cause, it became axiomatic that such pejoratives should be reserved for only the most egregious, clear-cut examples of racial or ethnic animus. After Trent Lott--a man who had long consorted with white supremacists--praised Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential bid, many conservatives called him dumb and embarrassing. (To their credit, some called for his removal as Senate leader.) But very few were willing to call him a bigot. Few would pin the label even on Jesse Helms or Thurmond himself. Extreme scrupulousness about such epithets seemed like a touchstone of the conservative worldview.

That's how it seemed, anyhow. In recent weeks, prominent conservatives have been anything but scrupulous in charging Democrats with bigotry against people of faith. Just before the election, Christian Right leader James Dobson called Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy a "God's people hater." On November 8, talk-show host Joe Scarborough condemned "Democrats who take solace in their bigoted anti-Christian screeds." Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin recently blurbed a book titled Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity, noting that "Persecution exposes the hypocrisy and bigotry of the secular, anti-Christian Left." And, last Sunday, Mary Matalin chimed in on "Meet the Press," claiming that "people of faith, in the election process, they have been demonized and they have been treated with disdain and contempt." Imagine if James Carville, who was seated next to her on the show, had made the same claim about African Americans (who, although they are one of the most religious groups in America, vote Democratic, and thus don't fall under Matalin's "people of faith" rubric). Within 15 minutes, the conservative blogosphere would have accused him of politically correct demagoguery.

To be fair, occasionally liberals do treat evangelical Christians with condescension and scorn. Conservatives frequently, and justifiably, expressed outrage at a Washington Post news story that called followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command." (They tend not to note that the story is eleven years old, and the Post issued an immediate retraction.) On November 4, in The New York Times, Garry Wills suggested that America now resembles the theocracies of the Muslim world more than it resembles Western Europe, which is offensive, not to mention absurd.

But, most of the time, what conservatives call anti-evangelical bigotry is simply harsh criticism of the Christian Right's agenda. Scarborough seized on a recent column by Maureen Dowd, which accused President Bush of "replacing science with religion, and facts with faith," leading America into "another dark age." The Weekly Standard recently pilloried Thomas Friedman for criticizing "Christian fundamentalists" who "promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad," and Howell Raines, for saying the Christian Right wants to enact "theologically based cultural norms."

This isn't bigotry. What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there's something dangerous in that. And they're right. It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological.

Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. (Christian conservatives sometimes argue that embryonic stem cells hold little scientific promise, or that gay marriage leads to fewer straight ones. On abortion, they sometimes cite medical advances to show that fetuses are more like infants than pro-choicers recognize. Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate.) But, since the election, the airwaves have been full of a different kind of argument. What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals' identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination. It's no different than when some feminists say that, since the right to abortion is a critical part of their identity, opposing abortion disrespects them as women. When George Stephanopoulos asked Dobson to justify his charge that Senator Leahy is an anti-Christian bigot, he replied that the Vermont senator "has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe." In other words, disagree with me and you're a racist. Al Sharpton couldn't have said it better.

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.


Peter Beinart is the editor of TNR.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,380 • Replies: 40
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 07:36 pm
Interesting!

Want to come back to this.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 12:18 pm
Quote:
Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.


So do I. However, having benefited from the tactic, I'm afraid many Republicans are now committed to it. This creates a larger hurtle for non fanatical Republicans to attempt to take back their party, without committing political suicide. Not to mention eating some crow.

This is a very good, clearly written article and it helps define what is wrong or unfair about the fanatical religious right's participation in American politics. It's one of the arguments used against me on these threads since a year ago when I first started writing about the fanatical religious right. It goes like this, "since you're obviously prejudiced against Christians (which I'm not) it's clear that you're distorting the facts." An ad hominem if I ever heard one.

I'm curious how coordinated the effort has been to label liberals as "Christian haters." Whenever I see first this one make a claim, and then that one and then yet again another, it causes me to wonder. It seems to fit a general Republican tactic I've been noticing since Newt Gingrich's book. (I have forgotten the title for now) In the book, Newt advises conservatives to use powerfully negative adjectives when referring to liberals. His reasoning was that for many people the label of liberal would forever be associated with that adjective. He even suggested a list of adjectives to use. So it would go like this. "Liberals hate Christians (Christian hating liberals) therefore the word liberal becomes a synonym for Christian hater.

Since the religious fanatics actually are trying to establish a theocracy, they are dangerous. And they will be hard to defeat because they are secretive about the real intentions of the candidates they put forth.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 12:47 am
Interesting read Nimh, but rather bias I'd say. What it doesn't say is the secular left really is attacking the Christian right. Look at all the silly Christmas protests for instance. I have no horse in this race, but pretending this is just some evil plot by the rightwing genius (Rove) is not only silly, but dangerous to the future of the Democratic Party.

Democrats had better figure out that whining they lost because the religious right is stupid is going to win them no votes next time either. Trying to ban depictions of Christ on His birthday, is probably not a good idea either. Certainly there's some valid church/state separation battles to be fought, but limit the damage by not doing silly stuff... like banning legal documents from classrooms because they mention God. God is on our money. God is something the majority of this country still believes in (believe it or not). God is prominently mentioned in every America Song I can think of. It is a foolish thing to try to remove Him from our traditions at the same time you're trying to win back the Whitehouse.

Most importantly, stop telling yourself and others that it's the religious fools that elected Bush. Those, are minds you will not change. The minds you might be able to change, find the suggestion that they're religious fools rather offensive... whether they're even religious or not. I know, because I am that man. You may have noticed, the near constant derision of Bush voters hasn't exactly been convincing me to second guess my decision. :wink:

There is a way out. Stop attacking things that aren't mission critical for four years, drop the paranoid delusions that we're becoming a theocracy, and find someone that is as likeable as John Kerry wasn't. Has it escaped everyone's notice that the more likeable guy has dominated the office since... well I was pretty young but my guess would be since Nixon... or was he most likeable too? The John McCain crossover has some promise because he's very respected on both sides of the aisle... but he's not really all that likeable. The best thing to do would probably be to fool the Republicans into thinking they had the right guy and then steal him at the last minute because he is the best of both worlds. A man who's not afraid to say Merry Christmas AND believes in Stem-Cell research. A man that will scare the bloody B-Jesus right out of the terrorist scum (or should that be into them?).... In other words... you guessed it folks... I'm talking about this man:













http://www.opengroup.com/sports/images/(SC)Arnold_Schwarzenegger_Photo.jpg
Here he comes to save the dayyyyyy! Razz
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 01:07 am
I know plenty of liberal Christians
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 01:29 am
So the Republicans have take a page from the Democrat playbook. As distasteful as it is to stoop to that level, it does seem to be working.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 10:19 am
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 12:03 pm
Quote:
So the Republicans have take a page from the Democrat playbook. As distasteful as it is to stoop to that level, it does seem to be working.



It does indeed. So much for "family values" and all that rot.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 01:40 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Trying to ban depictions of Christ on His birthday, is probably not a good idea either. Certainly there's some valid church/state separation battles to be fought, but limit the damage by not doing silly stuff... like banning legal documents from classrooms because they mention God. God is on our money. God is something the majority of this country still believes in (believe it or not). God is prominently mentioned in every America Song I can think of. It is a foolish thing to try to remove Him from our traditions at the same time you're trying to win back the Whitehouse.

Most importantly, stop telling yourself and others that it's the religious fools that elected Bush. Those, are minds you will not change. The minds you might be able to change, find the suggestion that they're religious fools rather offensive... whether they're even religious or not. [..]

There is a way out. Stop attacking things that aren't mission critical for four years, drop the paranoid delusions that we're becoming a theocracy, and find someone that is as likeable as John Kerry wasn't. [..] A man who's not afraid to say Merry Christmas AND believes in Stem-Cell research. [..]

Sounds all fine to me ... dunno how it actually addresses the thing/pattern/issue raised in the article much, seems more like a separate train of thought to me, but as such, yeah - minus the Schwarzenegger foolishness, I'd say you have a winner strategy for the Dems there. All pure common sense to me.

That dont negate the weird, new patterns of discourse on the right analysed in the article though, or its internal inconsistency with the same right's previous rhetorics on/against political correctness, which still all exists in this odd cognitive dissonance right alongside it. Article dont care what the Democrats should do or how to win elections. Just observing something striking in current-day social development, sthing worth picking up on.

The religious right has created its own PC police - and has as a result trapped itself in this weird logical contradiction, crying PC every time another group is all too hastily taken into protection against their jokes or remarks, but at the same time insisting their group be protected against such (perceived) offences in much the same way. That stuff we can observe here on A2K all the time now, the whining about how they're so unfairly treated, and targeted and marginalised and censored - with every strident dissent from their position taken as just yet another attempt by "the man" (the liberal media, academia, elite) to silence them ...

Yeah, so - your points re: the way to go for the Democratic Party are well taken. But I dunno how that should stop us outside observers / commentators from breaking down some new development in public discourse when we see it. Just like - you can feel, when it comes to partystrategisms you're discussing, that the Reps would be better off and elecorally healthier ditching the Santorum/Coburn-type gay bashers in the long run -- yet still write an article observing / marvelling / muttering about these weird trends you can observe on the Democratic left, the theocracy-phobia for example, or all the petty stuff you just observed. Observing the one dont preclude observing the other.

I dont think, for one, that the Dobsons and Scarboroughs have just taken to their right-PC whining because they were forced to, you know, by that evil Maureen Dowd. I see it more in the context of - the rhetorics of victim politics has worked great for the Reps in the 90s, just as it did wonders to mobilise minorities in the 70s/80s. The Gingrich '94 landslide was fuelled by the talk radio-driven myth of the threatened conservative / christian / white male, always put upon by them evil liberal coastal intellectual elite knowitalls. By now, of course, the Reps themselves are in control of government, Senate, House, most states, etc - but hey, the mentality still needs being milked - its what made the religious right, in particular, big. Hence the indignant outcry over every little incident. Article is right - the religious right has its own Sharptons now, minus the wit. Probly indeed not an electorally wise idea for the Democratic Party to go on too much about it - but that dont make it any less true, or interesting for us all to remark upon.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 01:47 pm
O'Bill, though you say you have no dog in this fight, I can't help but notice that the things you say sound increasingly party line.

Interesting article, nimh. It explains something that I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 03:41 pm
I guess I wasn't clear. I think the article is mostly bunk, so I responded with what I believe the truth of the situation to be. Yes, there are PC Police-like right-wing whiners but, and this is a big but, they are not taking over the PC policing business in general. PC-Police defend virtually every downtrodden group there is; gays, woman, Muslim, black, you name it... accept, seemingly, the Christian Right. Now, does the fact that Christian Right is defending itself in the same fashion the PC Police of yesteryear defended everyone, make them the new PC Police?

I don't think so. I think it is plain to see that the Secular Left is attacking the Christian Right with unprecedented fervor. (They don't want Christ on Christ-mas for Christ's sake! ShockedLaughing). This, in a country as Christian as this, is going to be met with a fight. Now, is the Christian right going overboard in seeking protection? Of course... but when didn't they and why wouldn't they? The middle of the tug of war is decided by pulling on the ends.

I think the truth is, the Christian Right is not taking over for the PC Police, because they're still focused on themselves, not everyone. And, this story is a biased portrayal that seeks to make the label fit where it doesn't belong in hopes that it excuses the Secular Left's behavior... which is of course to tug hard on the other end of the rope. I don't blame them for doing so, anymore than I blame the Christians for their behavior. I'm sure the Secular Left is enjoying returning the sentiment, but I really don't believe it fits.

Hence, I advised the Secular Left to drop the charade and concentrate on something of substance. I believe that if they keep pushing this type of nonsense (whether they believe it or not), that they are going to become nothing but weaker by alienating more and more people. Now, since I don't want the delusional left's fears of living in a theocracy to get any closer to being realized, I want a strong enough Democratic Party to at least force the Republicans to run a Moderate instead of another nutty-fundi. Constantly deriding Bush supporters as religious fools will accomplish the opposite of my wishes as well as theirs, so I took the opportunity to advise them accordingly. That's the only response to the story that makes sense to me, I guess because I think it's bunk.

Ps… purely aside: Obviously Arnold isn't going to be available for the next election, that part was a joke (He will be in the future, mark my words Idea). But I do believe he now embodies the soft side of the "Right" and if the "Left" doesn't come up with a soft side of their own, and damn soon, they are going to disappear into irrelevance and we'll be voting for which side of the right we want for President. If they continue to make it, or allow it to be made, a battle between Left/Right Extremes they will always lose. The majority of people in this country still believe in God and as long as that's the case, the Secular Left cannot defeat the Religious Right… and frankly, IMHO, they're fools for trying. Running pretend-to-soft-left liberals like John Kerry isn't going to work. Neither is Hillary Clinton. (Ross Perot barely got her husband elected, and he's an extraordinary politician.) The party needs a real moderate to save them and a crossover or Independent is probably their best bet. Pitty Arnold can't run (yet :wink:)… he'd win in a landslide not seen since Reagan. Idea Believe it!

Freeduck: I have no dog in the fight... as far as the religious tug of war is concerned, because I'm not a religious man. I'd very much like to see Religion fade away altogether because I think it's a harmful superstition, but attacking it directly is a fools game. Crucial to the Secular Left's success in this endeavor is to attack policy, NOT the religion itself or it's faithful. When I oppose this behavior, it's self-serving... not anyone's "party-line".
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 03:54 pm
Yes, Nimh - I have noticed - and have been laughing at - this stuff, for a long time.

I wouldn't be laughing so much if the right did not make such a huge "thing" about being anti-PC. If there IS bigotry, I have no problem with it being protested about, by anyone, left, right - or brindle.

I think, though, with the fundies having such a bigoted agenda (like anti-gay etc) and, temporarily, one hopes, such a lot of power, then extremely robust debate about their agenda needs to occur.

I have no way of really knowing whether this debate in the US routinely displays bigotry towards christian extremists - if it does, well, name it. I think there need be no holds barred in confronting their beliefs, though, if they are trying to force those beliefs upon the whole country.

It IS funny, though, watching 'em condemn PC while using its language to attempt to confront what they believe is a wrong.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 03:58 pm
Er Bill - any evidence that the christian right IS down-trodden?

Can they not get good jobs? Not allowed in the military? Not promoted at work? Beaten up on the streets? Imprisoned at a hugely greater rate than non-fundy Americans? Killed on death row at a much greater rate? Pogroms? What?

Can you outline the actual disadvantages they suffer - except people not liking their fundamentalism?


Not sure why you are so unhappy with downtrodden groups being defended, BTW???
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 03:59 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Crucial to the Secular Left's success in this endeavor is to attack policy, NOT the religion itself or it's faithful. When I oppose this behavior, it's self-serving... not anyone's "party-line".


But that's what the article is about. When people attack the policy, or expose that it's the religious right behind it (and it is), that is considered Christian-hating. I think the middle of the article does an especially good job of illustrating that.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 04:44 pm
dlowan wrote:
Er Bill - any evidence that the christian right IS down-trodden?

Can they not get good jobs? Not allowed in the military? Not promoted at work? Beaten up on the streets? Imprisoned at a hugely greater rate than non-fundy Americans? Killed on death row at a much greater rate? Pogroms? What?

Can you outline the actual disadvantages they suffer - except people not liking their fundamentalism?

Pretty much.

Blacks in America faced all of that - and still face part of it - and yet, when the "PC police" first surfaced to protect Blacks from hate speech and the perpetuation of racist stereotypes in education, media, politics etc, the Right was scornful. They're just being politically correct! What about free speech! They should just be able to take it!

Now, a decade later, all the religious right faces is a group of seculars who wont stop saying "I think you're full of ****" - cause thats what they think - and who'll throw up the occasional (admittedly silly) block against, I dunno, having a Christmas tree in the school or some such silly trifle; and the very same Right goes, "Help! Stop the thief! We need protection! We're being persecuted! Somebody stop them from engaging in their virulent Christian-hating! There should be a law against it!". As if the anti-Christian KKK is, err, burning crosses or something.

It's a little silly, and very heavy in irony. Pity even a guy like O'Bill cant see that anymore. He's normally pretty good in looking/laughing right through such BS. P'haps FreeDuck is right.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 04:57 pm
Dlowan, how far out of your way are you willing to go to not get what I'm saying? Defending yourself is not the same as defending everything, which is what the PC Police do. That, is what makes them (you) the PC Police. The arguments aren't what make them the PC Police. That has nothing to do with the title-PC Police. It's the fact that they butt into every injustice they see, to point out the Politically Incorrect behavior in it that makes them (you) the PC Police. Every group has always defended itself, including the Religious Right. Simply being overzealous in this endeavor is not what the PC Police is about. Whether you agree or not, if you can't see the difference it's because you're going WAY out of your way not to. Most likely, because you are the PC Police and are enjoying a little payback.<shrugs>

FreeDuck wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Crucial to the Secular Left's success in this endeavor is to attack policy, NOT the religion itself or it's faithful. When I oppose this behavior, it's self-serving... not anyone's "party-line".


But that's what the article is about. When people attack the policy, or expose that it's the religious right behind it (and it is), that is considered Christian-hating. I think the middle of the article does an especially good job of illustrating that.
It does. because it's the best way to defend controversial arguments (good and bad). That fact in itself has nothing to do with PC Policing… because it's all about self-defense or self-offense if you will… but it's not about butting in all over which is what PC Policing is all about. I was studying logical fallacies earlier today, and I believe this article relies on Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

What the article is doing, is trying to pretend simple self-defense constitutes PC-Policing because of the same tactic used, and fallaciously presents this as proof. This is fallacious because the means of the defense is not the reason for the term. (The butting in everywhere is.)

[URL=http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html][b][i][u]Cum hoc ergo propter hoc[/u][/i][/b][/URL] wrote:
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" The problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence (e.g., the President may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth), or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e.g., the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents), or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e.g., downsizing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing).
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 05:04 pm
Er - Bill, all the capitals and such aside - you appeared to be complaining that the left will defend all the downtrodden except the christian right.

I asked you how they were downtrodden. You have made no answer.

I also asked you why you were against defending the downtrodden.



Perhaps if you got a little less ariegated with your politically correct dislike of political correctness you might see the questions.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 05:18 pm
dlowan wrote:
Er - Bill, all the capitals and such aside - you appeared to be complaining that the left will defend all the downtrodden except the christian right.
I asked you how they were downtrodden. You have made no answer.
This is a detail that is beside the point, but since you seem unaware I'll answer as an aside. For the first year, ever, a Christian Church was not allowed to put a Float in a Parade. Had that been any other group, the PC Police would have went berserk over the discrimination based on religion.

dlowan wrote:
I also asked you why you were against defending the downtrodden.
I'm not... Do you still beat your children?

dlowan wrote:
Perhaps if you got a little less ariegated with your politically correct dislike of political correctness you might see the questions.
Perhaps if you tried to understand what I write, you wouldn't be asking me fallacious questions.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 05:19 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dlowan, how far out of your way are you willing to go to not get what I'm saying? Defending yourself is not the same as defending everything, which is what the PC Police do. That, is what makes them (you) the PC Police. The arguments aren't what make them the PC Police. That has nothing to do with the title-PC Police. It's the fact that they butt into every injustice they see, to point out the Politically Incorrect behavior in it that makes them (you) the PC Police.

You seem to be totally reinventing the term political correctness, Bill - and to neatly suit your argument in this particular instance, at that. Nothing new there - "politically correct" has basically come to mean whatever bad thing one wants it to mean at any old time, nowadays. But in all the different guises I've seen the word, whether scornfully or defensively, come by, I've never heard the "if it's about yourself, it's not politically correct, it's something else" distinction before.

I mean, c'mon. Al Sharpton going on about how everyone who is not for affirmative action is a racist, isn't that political correctness in its worst form? Some Afro-American academic who insists that if you call him just "black" rather than "African-American", you are, say, "perpetuating the cycle of racial demonisation" and thus "yourself guilty of the racist powerstructure" - wouldnt that kind of nonsense be typically something you'd ordinarily have derided as overly politically correct? Or, wait a minute - I got a better one still - a group of blacks trying to get the word "negro" out of the dictionary - I've read about it, it happened! - wouldn't be anything to do with politically correctness, because it's about themselves?

Nonsense. In none of the times I've seen you rail about or ridicule the so-called "PC police" or any of that, have I seen you make this distinction. It looks suspiciously like a whatchamacallit - there's some nice Latin term for that one too - a making up or at the spot modifying of a discussion's parameters, in order to make them fit the argument you're making about them.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 05:26 pm
Nimh, you are substituting Political Correctness for PC Police. Not the same thing. The Police is the part that makes it different. Al Sharpton was indeed using political correctness as his weapon of choice. But, does that make him the PC Police?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Conservatives adopt the identity politics they once scorned
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/19/2021 at 12:44:03