Perhaps it's the rainy day... perhaps it's the new diet... but I think it's maybe just the times we're now in: with the left back in control of so much of the national political conversation, perhaps it's unsurprising that there's a new "political correctness" in the air.
Just to recap: the PC got an overdue, if overwrought comeuppance in the nineties, led largely by "politically Incorrect," Bill Maher's seminal effort on ABC to have discussions that didn't insist on only showing certain "safe" viewpoints (...and the net result: Ann Coulter). But "politically correct" had been bouncing around for years, an idea that, in certain circles, you were bound to follow unspoken, possibly coded "rules", usually related to appropriate language, that could not be broken - or you would be ostracized. The idea of "PC" was usually met with derision in knowing lefty circles, a sort of "I know the rules, and I don't intend to be bound by them"... but gradually, as these things do, we wound up with "politically incorrect," the annoying capacity of people who'd never agreed to the terms in the first place - such as rabid sexists refusing to moderate use of sexist or derogatory terms for women - to claim some sort of "new freedom" to do just as they'd done all along.
I've come to see all of this as more of a continuum: a little progress on language, followed by a pendulum swing too far one way or another. "Politically Incorrect" was in some ways a necessary reality check for stifling reasonable discourse (and nothing proved how truly politically incorrect Maher was like the show's cancellation). But that went too far as well, and as we moved towards the 2008 elections, it seemed clear that we were returning to some healthy boundary setting and thoughtful questioning (for instance, the way coverage of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin raised issues and greater awareness of how women are treated in the media).
But it's easy to veer in the other direction too: as the internet has changed our ways of gethering information, so too has it created new communities of like minded people who want language to be used in particular ways. One fascinating, recent unfolding of this was a long discussion (you are warned, before clicking through, I'm serious about "long") at Shakespeare Sister about "triggering" language and "safe spaces" particularly in regard to the Blog's leader, Melissa McEwan.
I like Liss; I share her feminist values, and I sympathize with ideas like safe space, and even triggers... but like a number of others - including, I was struck to discover, my closest pals - I felt there was a "new PC" lurking in that discussion. As events and discussions have unfolded, I've become steadily less thrilled with a growing sense of lefty admonishments of "you can't/shouldn't say that" starting to creep back into discussions.
And lately I feel compelled to say a few things, as contrarily as possible, like:
- I think Bernie Madoff deserved all 150 years - and then some - for his crime. I hope his wife suffers; I hope his kids are miserable too. And no, I don't think his sentence says "we don't care what happened at Enron" or "we don't find murder so big a deal." What Madoff's sentence says is "damn, guy... you really are an awful person." Which seems like the right message, to me anyway.
- I think it's ludicrous for black people to suggest - as some have - that we have to "say good things" about Michael Jackson, or raising his sordid past issues is some sort of racial injustice (or say faux gracious things about "what a man of peace he was"); the man was a drug addict with a penchant for inappropriate activities around kids. Sorry... deal with it. And by the way, he married two white women and used blonde haired blue eyed people to parent "his children." That's not my issue... it's his.
- I think when you're sleazy enough to cat around on your wife, no, you don't deserve public office; I'm all for "live and let live" on sexual choices... but hey, once we catch you with your mistress, hooker, girlfriend, etc... I'm pretty sure you're doomed. And you should be. I grow weary of this convenient sexual liberalism, espoused by many, that "we're in no position to judge." Sure we are. And frankly "I wouldn't accept that in someone I was involved with" is a good starting point. I just don't think hookers, mistresses and "girlfriends on the side" are bad people... that's my liberalism. And I'm also prepared to defend it... and live with it.
- and yes, I think there's a lot of "lefty sexism" when it comes to Sarah Palin - Letterman's "jokes" were out of bounds, some of Todd Purdum's new Vanity Fair piece goes too far... but there's also something problematic about having to avoid saying that Palin's unique political place these days has to do with being a woman, and a prominent one; and that her failures stem, in part, from the woman that she is - not the "person" - I mean woman, specifically.
- And PS, I grow weary of the language police.
Now yes, this is all coming from a tetchy place... and a politically incorrect one; on better days, I could, probably, argue exactly the opposite of each point above, and mean it - and just as pointedly, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me on anything - I prefer the tension of people passionately advocating for thier point of view, whatever it is. But still. The general failure of conservatives to essentially draw lines - to say, collectively, that something, anything is beyond the pale for them politically is partly why we're here; and it is refreshing to have some commmon sense boundary setting of "no really, that goes too far." But the fine line here is how to "watch what we say" without stifling dissent, alternative points of view, and unpopular noitons that challenge our worldviews. Sometimes, there's a polite way to do this... and sometimes there isn't. Things get ugly, people get mean, they say the "wrong" thing, they take language too far. Insisting on a political correctness, a "here and no further" approach to discourse may seem like a good idea... but I suspect it really isn't; you want a free and robust discourse, you have leave room to let it roam free. Really free... and not caged by correctness. Because mostly, I growl when caged. When really... I'm just a pussycat. Who loves to argue. :)
hmmm...so many jumping off points! :)
I just don't think hookers, mistresses and "girlfriends on the side" are bad people... that's my liberalism. And I'm also prepared to defend it... and live with it.
Not bad people, but, as in the sentences above, not people those in public office should interact with?
I think your take on the 90's PC/Anti-PC thing doesn't give enough credit to the Right for using PC to market themselves as "champions for the normal," in which case "normal" = straight, white, male.
and that her failures stem, in part, from the woman that she is - not the "person" - I mean woman, specifically.
How so?
Posted by: jinb | July 01, 2009 at 04:24 AM
First, the point of this post was to point out how "PC" notions can be used to stifle contrarian opinions. So the particular, contrary opinions aren't really the point here...
I think your take on the 90's PC/Anti-PC thing doesn't give enough credit to the Right for using PC to market themselves as "champions for the normal," in which case "normal" = straight, white, male.
Aside from not being entirely sure where you're going with this, I think at the time conservatives felt that "PC" was being used to limit debate, and to make them look bad. I think the "marketing ploy" of "straight, white = normal" was around before that and will be long after. The reason that's a loser for the right is that white people are becoming another minority in this country, in terms of population numbers, and it's perpetuated a problem for them attracting other minorities of color. In essence they marginalized themselves even as they assumed that they could sell "politically incorrect" as some sort of brave step.
I just don't think hookers, mistresses and "girlfriends on the side" are bad people...
Not bad people, but, as in the sentences above, not people those in public office should interact with?
Hey, sleep with whom you like; I just don't think the guy who has affairs, patronizes hookers etc is a hero, or somehow beyond judgment. A lot of this "Sanford has to go, not because of an affair, but because of his actions as governor..." is nice... but I'd say he should go because running off to have an affair in Argentina is, in itself, indicative; there's too much laboring to parse what parts are somehow appropriately bad versus parts that "we can't judge." Heck, I say... let's take the whole package. I'm not saying who should "interact" with whom - I am saying that, once you have interacted... and people find out about it... don't be surprised that the public has a problem with it - and by "it" I mean the interaction, not some side issue.
and that her failures stem, in part, from the woman that she is - not the "person" - I mean woman, specifically.
How so?
I think Purdum points out what a number of others who've looked into Palin do - that her success hinges on the thing that also fails her, that she's an attractive woman with audience appeal who doesn't seem to know how to be a good manager or effective executive. If she were a man, both her pluses and her minuses, I think, would be entirely different elements - really beautiful men can find the looks a hindrance, not a help (John Edwards, Mitt Romney); and ineffective male executives don't necessarily get the kind of blowback Palin has. My point being... there's a gendered element to how Palin operates, succeeds and fails that can't be ignored. I think Purtdum's piece has tremendous problems, along the lines of what Melissa points out over at Shakes; but as I said to her, I think that tied up in Purdum's problems is a complicated question of how men can criticize women as bad executives, one that really needs more sorting out... and I think Palin benefits from the discomfort that comes up, because critiquing her, and being especially critical, coming from a man, can easily be termed "sexist." Even if the critique, essentially, is accurate.
Posted by: weboy | July 01, 2009 at 08:15 AM
Hey, sleep with whom you like;
...unless of course you plan on running for office or continue to hold one.
As long as American politics require its straight elected men to be married and monogamous, we will have these scandals. I don't think these men are heroes either (??), and wasn't speaking of Sanford specifically, but this insistence on picket-fence politicians has to go.
don't be surprised that the public has a problem with it
I think you're conflating "the public" with you. Some poll came out yesterday showing that 60% or so of Americans think Sanford no worse for his affair than other politicians. The public forgives more easily than media narratives do.
and I think Palin benefits from the discomfort that comes up, because critiquing her, and being especially critical, coming from a man, can easily be termed "sexist."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "benefit." Did Hillary Clinton benefit thusly from sexism as well?
Posted by: jinb | July 01, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Hey, sleep with whom you like;
...unless of course you plan on running for office or continue to hold one.
Like I said... this isn't really an argument that I'd like to drag out; we've long disagreed on part of this, and we likely will forever. :) And the negative assessments of Sanford - including nearly every poll I've seen where majorities think he should leave office - tend to be with me, not you; if you'd like to seriously suggest that a majority of the country sees him cheating on a wife and leaving his four sons for father's day to see his mistress as excusable... well, check around, but I'm guessing I have the more common view on that one. And no, Sanford is the issue; what his case, and others say, about a randy single gentleman (or more pointedly, a sexually active young woman) holding office is interesting... but kind of tangential. I'm more specifically concerned with these "let's not judge" his affair/hookers/etc... behaviors that don't take "prudishness" to find unacceptable.
And just to - oh well - drag this out, I'd suggest that you can't solve the "prudish" issue of accepting people who sleep around without being married until you draw some lines about married people who do the same; if left to say it's all okay... you'll get the people who say it's all not. You want nuance... then be nuanced enough to say something like "that bum with the wife and four kids is no hero for carrying on an affair."
As for Palin, I'd say that being unable to call attention to Palin's woman-specific issues as a negative is the same as the way people talk about "Hillary" as if she's not a woman; the more we see Clinton as a woman, and therefore, especially strong and admirable, as a woman, is partly my point. In both cases we're partly using a(well-meaning) feminist PC as a way to limit language and ideas... when really, there are ideas being left out that really should be included.
Posted by: weboy | July 01, 2009 at 11:52 AM
As long as we insist on one type of family in representational government (those would-be bums with the 4 kids), it's going to be a long haul to get other kinds of families i.e. gay ones, recognized at all by the government these heads of traditional families run.
Yes, where are the single randy politicians?
Posted by: jinb | July 01, 2009 at 12:41 PM
p.s. for a better take on what I'm getting at, please check out this week's Savage Love. He more eloquently talks about this idealizing of monogamy and its ill effects.
absurd side note: Sandford was one of those calling for Bill Clinton to resign over Lewinsky.
Posted by: jinb | July 02, 2009 at 08:38 AM