Speech is Free – But Only If Politically Correct
The truth hurts, and that's why it must be avoided at all costs, especially in Democratic presidential politics, writes Jules Crittenden.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Democratic Party, its two remaining presidential candidates and their campaigns for the important lessons in sensitivity and political correctness they have offered in recent weeks.
Political correctness is not simply the denial and dispute of facts or subject matter, but more practically the denial of the right to speak them, due to their objectionable or politically inconvenient nature. It’s generally wielded as a weapon against opponents. But it is more fascinating to watch it swung as a cudgel against allies. And in a campaign in which the strongest points … hope, change, experience … have tended to be a little vague or tenuous at best, the most memorable moments turn out to be about what must not be said, when we’ve seen that cudgel come down.
Of course they have platforms. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have attempted to outbid each other with your money. There are subsidies for universal healthcare, giveaways to newborns, that kind of thing. It theoretically gets paid for by taking from the rich, but stopping the war. Though that of course depends on what your definition of rich is, and whether the war can stopped, a question highlighted last week by ousted Obama advisor Samantha Power’s revelation that there is no plan to stop it.
The true substance of the campaign, that part which resonates, has been the most ethereal, the twin mantles of hope and change at which both candidates tugged.
Obama won, and got to keep them. Hillary got the booby prize … sorry, bad choice of words … of experience, such as it is. The first viable woman candidate for president has been in the awkward position of having to highlight a lifetime spent in the shadow of and then on the coattails of her husband’s career. That has regrettably turned out to be as insubstantial as Obama’s change-hoping, but that doesn’t really matter, because as we’ve seen, what matters is the words themselves, and not what they stand for.
So the real campaign has been fought over words. But there are some words that must not be spoken. Power called Clinton a “monster,” and within two days was bounced from the campaign. It didn’t seem like that big a deal. An offhand remark that both the speaker and the campaign could easily downplay and move on. But in any case a worthwhile topic for discussion. A large part of the right-half of the American electorate probably agrees with Power, and it is fascinating to see the same sentiment emerging on the left. So is Hillary a monster or isn’t she? What constitutes monstrous behavior? Forbidden.
Geraldine Ferraro, with the good grace to acknowledge that her own place on the 1984 ticket was due to gender, stated that Obama would not be where he is if he were not black. It’s a fair point that has been obliquely remarked upon in various quarters, but generally a point no one wants to make a big deal out of. After all, look what happened to Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro when they went near that third rail. They were denounced as racists. Bill was shoved in a closet till it blew over. Ferraro was shown the door. Race — for all the advances that have been made in the United States, the leading nation on Earth in aggressively addressing its atrocious history of race relations — remains a subject that cannot be freely discussed in this country. The fact that one of the least-experienced candidates in the race with the most insubstantial message, may have attracted attention from the start because he is a charismatic black man is a fact that must not be stated. You may state that he is the embodied of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, and that his candidacy offers hope because he is black, but you may not state that he has arrived at a position of prominence in the race for that reason, or even that it may prove a hindrance. The racial element of heavy support for Hillary Clinton by blue-collar Democrats in Ohio, for example, was reported on by the Associated Press in a painstakingly awkward fashion as a reaction to Obama’s strong support among blacks, rather the fact that he is himself a black man … in an article that rather offensively linked its indirect suggestion of racism directly to Reaganism.
It’s not clear how anyone can transcend racial prejudices, racial preferences and the full range of racial issues when an open discussion is not allowed, but the political party that claims the mantle of the civil rights movement has deemed it so, and there seems to be general agreement in the larger society, so there we are. Speech may be free. But this speech is forbidden.
Political correctness cuts a lot of different ways. A lot of people on the right have been offended when Gloria Steinem — the latter talking up Hillary — made remarks perceived as anti-military. Rather than demanding apologies, we should welcome this kind of speech. By their words and deeds, after all, shall we know them.
John McCain was asked to distance himself from an evangelical minister whose church he did not belong to, but whose support he enjoyed, over that minister’s anti-Catholic remarks. McCain distanced himself from the remarks, but said, quite practically, he appreciates the support. No one has seriously suggested McCain is an anti-Catholic bigot, or that this represents anything but the fringe views of a person who, for other reasons, supports the candidate. Presumably we’re not going to hear much more squawking about that.
Because Obama has now asked America to allow him to distance himself from the “God damn America” and anti-Israel remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor who married him, whose church he has attended for 20 years and continues to attend.
Obama begins his argument with the curious observation that the pastor in question was a United States Marine, which suggests Obama wants us to think that is why he sought him out and joined his church. Obama insists he never heard the pastor preach anti-Americanism from the pulpit or in private. It was all about social justice and God.
Social justice, as expounded by the left, usually involves a great deal of anti-capitalism and virulent opposition to American foreign policy, much like that voiced by the Rev. Wright. Given that the last 20 years takes us back three Republican administrations, through a period of considerable public debate over U.S. foreign policy, it seems a stretch to claim the subject never came up in an activist’s church in Obama’s presence.
But fine. The offending social justice practitioner is silenced. In fact, the offending social justice practitioner has been taken out and, figuratively, shot. Obama’s pastor is no longer part of the campaign.
We are not to think the spiritual counselor of this candidate had anything substantive to do with the formation of the candidate’s thoughts, aside from informing him about God, AIDS, and social justice — whatever the definition of the latter might be. Stating actual beliefs in strong terms … forbidden.
So what has been the lesson of all this political correctitude in the ‘08 race?
In the cases of Power, Ferraro, Steinem and now Wright, what is squelched or denied is not simply some inconvenient utterances, but the massive icebergs they are represent. In the case of Power, the simple fact that politics and campaigning is a tough, not particularly noble business. The fact that racial issues are far more complex, cut across party lines, and for the most superficial of reasons … race itself … work both for and against candidates. In the case of Steinem and Wright, the pervasive sense on the far left that the United States military and that America is a force of greater evil than good in the world. Though both Clinton and Obama have expressed foreign policy views that more diplomatically support those positions, that naked an exposition is not in their interest.
The PC lesson of the day: The truth hurts. That’s why it must be avoided at all costs.
How can we ever thank the Democratic Party, its two remaining presidential candidates and their campaigns? I don’t know. But if the American people, some of whom can be fooled all the time, all of whom can be fooled part of the time, have noticed what is going on, they may well thank the Democrats in their own way.
Jules Crittenden blogs at Forward Movement.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. grubs:Obama begins his argument with the curious observation that the pastor in question was a United States Marine,……
So was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mar 16, 2008 - 7:20 am 2. Harvey Levy:Very true. The Democrats have provided the American public with two candidates whose only “true” qualification is that of breaking THE glass ceiling. It’s the ultimate act in the politically correct play the American public has been subjected to for over two decades.
Mar 16, 2008 - 8:08 am 3. Angry African:Not sure if I get this completely. The PC talk isn’t limited to the “left”. I think you might confuse PC with “bigot speak”. Then we should throw the net wider. Let’s see how the (Republican) right steps up when it comes to those Commandments we are all (if Christian) are supposed to keep. I gave it a shot at http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/09/breaking-the-commandments-republican-style/
Mar 16, 2008 - 8:44 am 4. RHM:I have to agree with the Angry African, both sides have their own “sacred cows”.
Mar 16, 2008 - 9:32 am 5. William:The people in the party of political correctness and affirmative action are eating their affirmed. And to just point out one more example to add to your great article…. When Ms. Nancy Pelosi blurted out that their dream ticket would not include both Barrack and Hillary it really is causing more confusion in this politically correct world. It is really unclear whether this race is about a woman against a woman against a black, or a woman against a black against a woman?
Mar 16, 2008 - 9:35 am 6. Ed Wallis:Now with this going on I can’t wait to see more truths uncovered and lessons learned!
Sorry, AA, I find your argumentation weak and flawed. Sure, all humans are human – i.e. flawed…but this in no way addresses the ideologically based rubbish currently self-destructing (and not-so-coincidentally fundamental to the essence of) the Democratic Party. But, thanks, it’s always amusing to see liberals trying to cry “see-you’re-just-as-bad” in an effort to justify their destructive anti-Americanism and racism.
Mar 16, 2008 - 9:58 am 7. David Thomson:“You may state that he is the embodied of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream”
Jeremiah Wright is simply an angrier version of Martin Luther King, Jr. The assassinated leader was a radical leftist who charged the United States with conducting a racist war against the Vietnamese. King’s hostility towards America and capitalism was constant. Few people are aware of his left-wing extremism because the MSM and its allies downplayed it. Nonetheless, you need not take my word for anything. You can easily get your own copy of King’s Autobiography edited by Clayborne Carson. It’s all in there.
Mar 16, 2008 - 11:18 am 8. Nahanni:Memo to Angry African:
The “moral equivalence” card no longer works as a defense for Barak Obama or any Democrat.
You see, we are no longer ignoring the telephone pole in the eye of Barak Obama and the democrats while you screech about the speck of dust in everyone elses. As Jules said, “Political correctness is not simply the denial and dispute of facts or subject matter, but more practically the denial of the right to speak them, due to their objectionable or politically inconvenient nature. It’s generally wielded as a weapon against opponents.” And that ain’t working anymore.
Besides, as an “African” you don’t have a dog in this hunt. Unless, of course, you are worried that Obama won’t get to be president so he can use that office to assist his brother and relatives in instituting Islamofascism and the Sharia in Kenya. Or use the office to assist them by looking the other way as they commit genocide and gang rape little girls in order to do so.
Mar 16, 2008 - 12:49 pm 9. eb:two words Obama needs to use when addressing Wright’s many statements “vile” and “disgusting”.
Until he can finally bring himself to label them as such without equivocation, he can’t be taken seriously.
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:18 pm 10. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:Ex-Marines? Here are two more.
Charles Whitman.
Congressman John Murtha (D-PA).
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:39 pm 11. Ed Wallis:eb: two words Obama needs to use when addressing Wright’s many statements “vile” and “disgusting”. Until he can finally bring himself to label them as such without equivocation, he can’t be taken seriously.
Yes, though I would state it more strongly: Since Obama has been unable/unwilling over the last 20 years to break with – how did Obama phrase it, “respected” and inspiring” – Reverend Wright, EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD TAKE BARACK OBAMA VERY SERIOUSLY AND EMPHATICALLY REJECT HIM FOR CAMP-FOLLOWING THIS DIVISIVE, RACIST, ANTI-AMERICAN DEMAGOGUE.
A self-proclaimed “uniter” is highly unlikely to arise out of a bed of such stinking filth.
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:46 pm 12. Fat Jolly Penguin:I find it quite peculiar that Obama doesn’t do anything to distance himself from these kinds of problems until he actually gets burned with them. It rather reminds me of a child caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:46 pm 13. Fat Jolly Penguin:I find it quite peculiar that Obama doesn’t do anything to distance himself from these kinds of problems until he actually gets burned with them, at which point he scrambles to tell anyone who will listen that he doesn’t have anything to do with them anymore. He doesn’t apologize or attempt to explain himself; he just hides behind the reasoning that, well, he isn’t associating with that person anymore, so it really isn’t important and never has been. It rather reminds me of a child caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:48 pm 14. Fat Jolly Penguin:OOPS! Sorry for the double post! I hit the button and thought of more I wanted to say!
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:48 pm 15. Deborah:Multiculturalism + political correctness = no freedom of speech which = no freedom.
Good column, Mr. Crittenden.
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:52 pm 16. tanstaafl:Under the strictures of political correctness, only certain (pre- selected and pre-approved) kinds of speech are “free”.
Any other speech can be banned, squelched or, in the extreme, even prosecuted (as in “hate” speech).
If some lamebrained standards setter is going to try to determine what I can say or think, the battle is already lost.
The exercise in “democracy” is already finished.
Both Hillary and Barack would interject the federal government into your life on levels that would make the nation’s Founders shriek in disbelief.
I’m so tired of race and gender, I could shriek. In fact, I think I will.
Mar 16, 2008 - 2:49 pm 17. tanstaafl:Barack not only cites Wright’s being in the marine corps, he refers to Wright as a “religious scholar”.
Wright is heavily into the Black Jesus mantra, Jesus, of course, was a black man.
Very scholarly, that.
Mar 16, 2008 - 3:00 pm 18. Angry African:Hye Nahanni,
I am not using it to defend Obama. I am saying that if you start slinging mud then you should expect it to come back. Again. Sleeping with pigs makes you. Well, stink.
If someone wants to hold the moral highground then shouldn’t they obey their own rules? Or is it okay to break it if the other side does.
And no – speck of dust… murder, killing, lies, theft? Speck of dust.
But I agree – let’s not be PC. The last thing we want the Republicans to be. It just wouldn’t fit would it?
And I agree – I can’t vote. But have an interest. Remember Iraq? That was an interest for the US. So I am allowed to have an interest. But I have no plans to invade. Only to engage and celebrate what makes America great. The freedom. Yes. That is something to celebrate – and the people who defends that. All Americans.
Mar 16, 2008 - 3:50 pm 19. Ed Wallis:Yah. Sure, AA. “Celebrate.” “Freedom.”
Just as with the P.C. zealots on university campuses around the USA, with Hill or Obi Americans would get the finest state approved “freedom” (sic)of “speech” (sic) which only persons such as you would “celebrate.”
Mar 17, 2008 - 1:33 am 20. John (Proud of America):Every time the Reverend Martin Luther King comes up, you can always count on some Jim Crow throwback (who no doubt believes that they are “not racist”) to try to mention that King was either:
1. Socialist
or
2. Unfaithful in marriage.
Funny how they have no compulsion to expose the faults of any other American hero. None.
There is a word for what’s glimmering under the surface here, but people might howl if I use it.
MLK was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, and America would not be what it is today if it weren’t for his life and work. Period. He deserves his status as a hero.
On the other hand I am not quite sure why anyone would claim to be “shocked” that MLK would have hesitated to cheer lead for the “American way” sometimes. I mean, for example, what’s a little Jim Crow among friends?
(Anyways,
Mar 17, 2008 - 7:30 am 21. Wolf Pangloss:McCain all the way! Socialism cannot be allowed to get any more traction in this country.)
MLK was a Republican, like all the civil rights leaders of his time and earlier. He was simultaneously smeared by Bobby Kennedy’s goons in the FBI and by USSR operatives. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was “evidence” that he was guilty of any crime you care to name somewhere in the piles of disinformation that were written about him.
It does Republicans no good to smear MLK. Much more enlightening and truthful would be to claim him for the GOP.
Mar 17, 2008 - 9:20 am 22. P. Ami:Socialism is based, largely, almost exclusively on Christian interpretations of Jesus’ life. The idea of communal property, communal wives, and Utopia come from Protestants and their disillusion with the Catholic Church, its wealth and hypocrisy. That said, many Americans, especially on the Right, are realists. We recognize human error and don’t insist on responding to them each with a law or fine. We recognize that evil is different then error and that evil should be combated. We understand there is collateral damage and we hope to minimize it. We recognize that perfection is for the next world even as we struggle to achieve some level, an imperfect level, of goodness in our life. As for the Christians in Martin Luther’s time, not all the Protestants were content to live the simple life as interpreted by some of their sect nor did they create their communes and wait there for Jesus to return. Some of them found love for G-d’s creation, studied it, learned how to function better within G-d’s world and made a better life for themselves. It is these Christians that contributed mightily to making America and it is their ideal that the Christian Right, which I am not a member of, is progeny of.
Mar 17, 2008 - 12:27 pm 23. Concerned Citizen:If it’s racist to vote against someone because they are black, is it racist to vote FOR someone because he is black?
Mar 17, 2008 - 2:38 pm