1

Why Political Correctness Is Political Cowardice

Written by Alexander Zubatov

If you spend any time online, whether on mass media or social media, you might be forgiven for believing that an overwhelming majority of Americans believes in political correctness, affirmative action, and identity politics.

But the reality is that most Americans have a very different view of these issues, even though they do not voice that view. They stay silent.

Well, take this as my appeal to all of you: it’s high time for your voices to be heard.

I live in New York City—the place Ted Cruz famously denounced as having “New York values.” I don’t know exactly what that means, but I have a sneaking suspicion it means “liberal.” As is typical in this diverse melting pot of a city, I have friends who are white, black, Asian, and Hispanic … and most of them are, indeed, “liberal.”

But here’s the thing: among all my friends, acquaintances, family members, and extended family members living in this notorious bastion of liberalism, I can think of a grand total of one person who is a fan of so-called “political correctness” and identity politics. Again, in case you missed it, that number was one.

We Aren’t As Politically Correct As We Pretend To Be

I know that isn’t exactly a scientific survey. You want science? Here’s science. According to a Pew Survey on the topic of political correctness, 59 percent of Americans believe “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use,” while only 39 percent think “people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.”

Among whites, those numbers are 67 percent versus 32 percent respectively, while among blacks, the numbers are more or less reversed (30 percent versus 67 percent). Older people are actually more likely to support political correctness than their younger peers: Seventy percent of Democrats 65 and older “think people should take greater care to avoid offending others”—compared to 58 percent of 30 to 49-year-olds, and 56 percent of Democrats under 30. Meanwhile, “a majority of Republicans across age categories say people today are too easily offended by language.”

Now let’s consider race-based preferences. Surely, now that even the Supreme Court has come down squarely on the side of permitting race-based university admissions, it must reflect the beliefs of most Americans, right?

Not only is that dead wrong—it’s wrong for Americans of all races. According to a Gallup poll, 65 percent of Americans disapproved of that 2016 Supreme Court decision (Fisher v. University of Texas), with only 31 percent approving. According to the same poll, 70 percent of Americans believe college admissions should be based solely on merit (with 76 percent of whites, 50 percent of blacks, and 61 percent of Hispanics sharing that view). Sixty-seven percent of whites, 57 percent of blacks, and 47 percent of Hispanics said race or ethnicity should not factor into college admissions at all.

We Aren’t Huge Fans of ‘Multiculturalism,’ Either

What about multiculturalism? Haven’t most Americans embraced the party line that says we ought to accentuate our vibrant racial and ethnic identities, focusing on what makes us unique?

If you believe that, here’s another Pew Survey to disillusion you: “Among whites, more than twice as many say that in order to improve race relations, it’s more important to focus on what different racial and ethnic groups have in common (57 percent) as say the focus should be on what makes each group unique (26 percent).” Even among blacks, a slightly higher percentage (45 percent) believes the focus should be on “commonalities” rather than on “differences” (44 percent).

So what gives? If popular opinion leans so clearly in one direction on these issues, why does public dialogue lean so clearly the other way?

The dispiriting answer is that political correctness is succeeding in its objective: it’s shutting people up. Political correctness bullies, shames, and silences those who have dissenting views on various sensitive issues—even if those with dissenting views represent a majority.

Prominent moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes that in “liberal” environments—elite East- and West-Coast schools and universities, academic institutions and think-tanks, major coastal cities such as New York and San Francisco, left-leaning media organizations, etc.—whites, conservatives, men, straight people, and others who were way too historically oppressive feel like they are “walking on eggshells.” They don’t feel they can discuss topics such as race, gender, or homosexuality, and tend to stay silent.

Opposing Political Correctness Poses A Huge Risk

This should not be surprising. The consequences of not staying silent can be devastating. Making racially insensitive remarks in private conversation, using the N-word during a decade-old sex tape, admitting to using the N-word at some point in the past, using a word that sounds like the N-word but has nothing to do with it, writing an e-mail telling university students not to be so politically correct, or writing a single misinterpreted tweet with racial overtones: these things can get you fired and ostracized. In such an environment, why would it shock anyone if people choose not to speak out?

Once again, I can furnish some anecdotal support for this suggestion. A Pew Survey has revealed, for instance, that white people tend not to talk about race on social media: “Among black social media users, 28% say most or some of what they post is about race or race relations; 8% of whites say the same. On the other hand, roughly two-thirds (67%) of whites who use social media say that none of [the] things they post or share pertain to race.”

It could be that this racial gap reflects the fact that race matters more to blacks than it does to whites—and surely this is part of the picture. But with our media’s 24-7 focus on racial issues in America, I do not believe only eight percent of white people have thoughts on the subject. Clearly, something else is going on—and political correctness is the number one candidate for that “something else.” These white people are afraid to say what they really think.

Why You Shouldn’t Stay Silent

Consistent with this conclusion, among all my family, friends, and acquaintances — among whom, again, only one is generally supportive of identity politics — no one, other than that one (and he is black), speaks publicly on this topic. Many of those same people have advised me to stop sharing my views about these issues, for fear something I say will come back to bite me.

This is my response to them, and to all of you who stay silent: if political correctness is a toxin to the health of our body politic, then political cowardice is the auto-immune disorder through which it spreads. By refusing to be bullied, by defying intolerance, by standing up to this new illiberal McCarthyism, by opposing those who want to divide and judge us based on the color of our skin, by choosing a real diversity of ideas over a superficial diversity of pigments, by rejecting the principle that there is anyone here entitled to stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree, we join the proud tradition of Americans and others worldwide and throughout history who have had the courage to oppose injustice.

Let this be a rallying cry. Don’t toe the line. Don’t hide on your silent island. Feel the wind at your back. Come sail on the rising tide that will carry us all forward into the more open waters that lie ahead.


Alexander Zubatov is a practicing attorney specializing in general commercial litigation. He is also a practicing writer specializing in general non-commercial poetry, fiction, drama and polemics that have appeared in The Hedgehog Review, PopMatters, Acculurated, MercatorNet, The Montreal Review, The Fortnightly Review, New English Review, and Culture Wars, among others. He makes occasional, unscheduled appearances on Twitter.
This article was originally posted at TheFederalist.com



Fort Hood, Gun-Free Zones and ‘Progressive’ Insanity

They say that lightning never strikes twice in the same place. Not true. It does if you stand high atop a cliff’s edge waving a lightning rod above your head during a thunderstorm. In fact, in the unlikely event you survive the first strike, it’ll keep right on striking until you climb down.

So-called “gun-free zones” are lightning rods for mass murder. It’s time we climbed down from the cliff’s edge.

America mourns yet another needless and preventable mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. When will gun-grabbing liberals learn?

In a blunt and provocatively titled, though well-reasoned post, submitted shortly after Wednesday’s shooting, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft charged: “Obama Is Responsible for Latest Fort Hood Murders – Still a Gun-Free Zone.”

Wrote Hoft:

“In 2009 Islamist killer Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood was a gun-free zone.

“Hasan reportedly screamed, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he committed his mass murder. …

“Barack Obama termed this Islamic terrorist attack ‘workplace violence.’ Complete lunacy.

“After the first mass killing nothing changed. Fort Hood is still a gun-free zone. President Bill Clinton’s gun-free policies are still in place.

“Today there was another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Soldiers were told to take cover and hide like cowards as a crazed gunman shot at least 14 Americans on base. The shooter, Ivan Lopez, then shot himself in the head.

“These deaths are the result of failed policies. These deaths are the result of a dangerous ‘gun free zone’ policy.

“The Obama administration is responsible for this mass shooting. They witnessed this before. They didn’t learn a thing. Gun-free zones are death zones,” concluded Hoft.

Of course, no one but Ivan Lopez is responsible for his own horrific crimes. Still, this Obama administration is likewise responsible for its own criminally horrific incompetence.

By maintaining his demonstrably failed “gun-free zone” policy at Fort Hood (and anywhere for that matter), Obama may as well have beckoned: “Hey, would-be mass murderers, we’ve still got some unarmed soldiers here. Come and finish ‘em off!”

This president is undeniably culpable. His reckless insistence upon preserving this obtuse, liberal – but I repeat myself – gun-grabbing policy rendered defenseless, once again, the fine servicemen and women of Fort Hood. It kept in place the same mass-murder-rich environment in which Nidal Malik Hasan committed the first Fort Hood “fish-in-a-barrel” soldier hunt.

And the only people surprised are you gun-control nutters.

Here’s the thing about liberalism, which is really cultural Marxism, euphemistically tagged “progressivism”: It’s never worked and it never will. It can’t. It’s a material impossibility. “Progressivism” can no more work than can one answer a nonsense question like, “How big is blue?” As with all similar such humanistic efforts to achieve a man-made earthly utopia, “progressivism” is a hopeless non-starter.

Why? Because “progressivism” is utterly detached from reality. There’s truth, and then there’s “progressivism.” Central to every single “progressive” policy, without exception, is the fatally flawed denial of the existence of sin – of man’s fallen nature. There’s also a stupidly stubborn refusal to acknowledge the reality of moral absolutes. “Progressivism” is built upon a utopian, relativist house of cards; and when that house comes crashing down, the results are often deadly.

This past Wednesday America witnessed liberalism’s deadly results first hand. A public policy that intentionally disarms American citizens – much less American soldiers – is a policy that creates a pond full of sitting ducks; this, whether we have a terrorist behind the trigger, or a government with designs on tyranny.

Notice a trend here? What do Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora, Colorado’s Century 16 theater, Columbine High, Fort Hood No. 1 and Fort Hood No. 2 all have in common? They’re all “gun-free zones.”

Oh, if only, rather than “gun-free zone” signs, each of these terror Ground Zeros had had a sign reading: “Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempts to harm those herein will be met with deadly force.”

Might some of those beautiful souls have still died before one or more well-armed good guys could take out the well-armed bad guys? Perhaps. But how many precious lives could have been saved?

Albert Einstein famously quipped that the definition of “insanity” is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In that sense, “progressives” are insane.

Or, if not exactly insane, they’re certainly no Einsteins.

I’ll admit that many “progressives” are generally well-meaning and decent people. I even have a handful of “progressive” friends who’ve yet to see the light. I love ‘em, but they still want what they can’t have, at least not until that glorious last trumpet sounds.

They want heaven on earth.

It’s not for lack of sincerity that “progressives” are destroying America and putting lives at risk.

It’s for failure to grasp reality.


Become a monthly supporter of IFI.  Click HERE for more information.