Political correctness is not what it seems

Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s militant Islamic attitude was overlooked because of what has been called “political correctness.” That is, out of deference to the idea that people with views departing from the norm should be given a wide berth, many looked the other way.

Americans generally have a live-and-let-live attitude, not because they are indifferent to opposing points of view but because they believe that our constitutional system can withstand many and severe shocks, which they are willing to endure for the sake of individual freedom.

But there are limits to this, not only when a dissident resorts to violence like Hasan did at Fort Hood last month, but when he declares, as Hasan did more than once, that his religious commitment entailed hatred of the United States. Subsequently, this man put himself into a combat role, in effect, by gunning down dozens of his fellow soldiers.

Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, almost immediately after Hasan’s attack, expressed hope that the Army’s commitment to “diversity” would not suffer as a consequence. Overlooking human differences while subordinating them all to military discipline is one thing. But prizing those differences more than the common mission is quite another.

It is odd that unqualified commitment to racial and religious diversity should be called “political correctness” for two reasons, one amusing and the other not. As Americans of good sense and good nature often do, we have been making jokes about political correctness, but indulging hatred of the country by those wearing the military uniform is no joke.

But let’s have a laugh first. I first heard the term “PC” at least 20 years ago while listening to music on a “progressive” FM radio station. A young man sung of how he was trying to make time with a UC Berkeley coed who would tolerate his advances only if he shared her left-wing political views. “Po-li-ti-cal-ly cor-rect,” he sang over and over again in West Indian style, emphasizing his frustration with this romantic challenge.

Unfortunately, many in our universities, schools and government, with as little humor as the coed who responded more to political buzzwords than expressions of affection, have taken that PC mantra and made it official policy. Of course, that meant that the dissidents were now the establishment, which made them uncomfortable.

Not long afterwards left-wingers (and lame comedians like Bill Maher) were professing to be politically incorrect so as to cling to their cherished outsider role, however much the evidence was to the contrary. A predominance of Republican presidents supported the leftist illusion, but those who have toiled, as I have, in the institutions dominated by the left, do not share that illusion.

While it is useful and fun to tease the dogmatic and imperious attitude of the left by pinning the label of PC on its minions, ultimately it is misleading, for it implies that correctness (as opposed to mere stiffness) is not desirable. But “correct” is, after all, another word for “true,” and we Americans are blessed by virtue of living in a nation founded on the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” in their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The American founders had every reason to believe that they were doing the correct things by overthrowing the British monarchy and establishing independence, followed by the framing of the Constitution which “secured the blessings of liberty to [them]selves and [their] posterity.”

In doing these great deeds, they made clear that Old World despotism was not politically correct and indeed was based on lies like the alleged godlike status of rulers and the supposed inferiority of those over whom they ruled.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “the palpable truth [is], that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god.”

Hence, the left wing dogma that racial and religious minorities cannot get justice under our Constitution and require a sprawling, meddling bureaucratic state to manage their lives — while rejecting the political and religious opinions of the vast majority — is not correct. It is a lie.

Lies can only be countered with the truth, which is that only governments that provide equal protection for the rights of all citizens are legitimate. The corollary to this is that all citizens must accept the authority of the civil government as the condition for enjoying their freedom. Hasan did exactly the incorrect thing.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause”  (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.