March 31, 2006
Political Correctness Again Posted by Joshua Zeitz at 10:15 AM EST A few weeks ago, I entered into an exchange on this page with my colleague John Steele Gordon over the idea of “political correctness.” I suggested that “what conservative critics often dismiss as ‘politically correct’ is little more that polite. . . . In short, what many critics dismiss as ‘political correctness’ is no more than a belated attempt to recognize that we live in a more democratic, pluralistic and inclusive culture than 100 or even 25 years ago.” In response, John Steele Gordon wrote: “I think that Joshua Zeitz is setting up a bit of a straw man with regard to political correctness. . . . Those opposed to ‘popular democracy’ (what other kind is there, come to think of it?) and ‘pluralism’ are only a subset of the population, and a very small one. They are not to be confused in any way, shape, or form with ‘conservatives,’ most of whom are every bit as fair-minded and respectful of others as liberals.” First, my apologies to Mr. Gordon for the long delay in my response. This morning I searched for a few examples, drawn from three mainstream conservative news outlets—The National Review, The Weekly Standard, and Fox News—of the tendency to equate pluralism and inclusion with “political correctness.” The task proved a simple one. It took me only ten minutes. Here are a few examples: In an article on Hilary Clinton’s prospective run at the presidency, Douglas MacKinnon mocked the “smoke-free, racially diverse, politically correct back rooms from which” the Democratic party’s high officials operate. (The Weekly Standard, February 20, 2006.) Is MacKinnon advocating a world populated only by white smokers? Probably not. But in lambasting the Democratic party’s self-conscious embrace of racial diversity as “politically correct,” he clearly makes the connection between pluralism and “political correctness.” During Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s Senate confirmation hearings, liberal Democrats raised concerns over the nominee’s prior affiliation with Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that bitterly opposed opening the university’s doors to women and minorities. A typical editorial in Concerned Alumni’s newsletter read: “People nowadays just don’t seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they’re black and Hispanic, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.” Referring explicitly to this article, Henry Payne wrote in National Review Online: “It does sound just like the strained satire Prospect’s student writers often engaged in. And it would be just like politically-correct, feverishly anti-Alito Democrat staffers to take it out of context.” Yes, Payne distances himself from the thrust of the editorial, which he finds clumsy and in poor taste. But he also writes off as “politically correct” anyone who finds serious fault with bigoted rantings and ravings against African-Americans, Latinos, and gays and lesbians. (National Review Online, January 13, 2006.) Writing in The Weekly Standard, Mary Eberstadt hailed a New York Times article that found many college women contemplating marriage and family instead of (rather than in conjunction with) careers. “A funny thing happened to the kids raised on Sesame Street and all the other fare touting politically correct notions of the family,” wrote Eberstadt. “They grew up—and as they did, a significant number looked at their own lives and found progressive happy-talk about the family coming up short.” So, in short, Sesame Street, with its emphasis on diversity—as well as reading, writing, and rubber duckies—is also a “politically correct” media invention. Does this one need further explication? (The Weekly Standard, October 10, 2005.) In an article in The National Review, Andrew Stuttaford took on J. K. Rowling for characterizing her Harry Potter books as “moral.” “Moral?” Stuttaford begins. “In the sanctimonious world of contemporary children’s literature, that’s a frightening word, all too often a synonym for ‘politically correct.’ Rowling does her best to oblige. Minority characters are carefully included in a saga that is otherwise inescapably Anglo-Saxon. Unusually for an English boarding school, Hogwarts is coeducational.” I have some bad news for Mr. Stuttaford. I teach at Cambridge University in England. Your England, Mr. Stuttaford, is dead. The new England is racially and ethnically diverse (just take a ride on the London tube and you’ll see what I mean), and many of the old boarding schools and sixth-form colleges are coeducational, as are all but a handful of women’s colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. But I digress. Like so many other conservatives, Stuttaford equates gender diversity and racial or ethnic pluralism with political correctness. (The National Review, October 11, 1999.) On Fox News, the host Neil Cavuto wondered whether “we [are] getting too politically correct here” in scoring California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for calling opponents of his policies “girlie-men.” Maybe this is a question of humor and taste. Liberals presumably have none, while conservatives have lots. But is it “politically correct” to take exception to comments that equate weakness with femininity? Guess so. (Fox News transcript, July 19, 2004). Finally, there is the example of conservative conniption fits over the Liberal War on Christmas. Typical of the conservative rhetorical strategy, Fox News’s John Gibson wondered whether “Wal-Mart’s politically correct Christmas policy [will] hurt their bottom line,” (November 11, 2005). In effect, uttering “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” in a polyglot nation that prides itself on accepting immigrants from different traditions and faiths, amounts to the high crime (or misdemeanor?) of “political correctness.” On behalf of all the congregates at my synagogue, I apologize for the inconvenience we’ve imposed on Mr. Gibson. What I found, above all, is that “political correctness” is a sloppy, over-exposed term that conservatives use to lambaste everything they hate. It means everything, and it means nothing. But when it means something, it often means diversity, pluralism and inclusion.
|
