I have been reading a book about "political correctness" lately. It was written by a professor of history (emeritus) and I'm finding it very interesting.
I have also been thinking about how intellectually unsatisfying the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are in current political discourse. The words have lost their meaning, and do not convey reality.
For example, why should it be considered "conservative" to be married, have children, work, be religious, pro-life, and interested in fostering in my kids a commitment to life, to Judaism, a positive work ethos and Western values? What is "conservative" about it?
Similarly, "liberal" and "liberalism" are also terms that have been corrupted. Today's "liberals" do not resemble, or have views that are actually in line with traditional and historical definitions of liberalism, going back to the Enlightenment.
"Conservative" is a dirty word. Why?
Mark Steyn, when he talks about free speech always says it's not a left/right thing, but a free/un-free thing.
So, I wonder if Mark Steyn's definition of "free" and "not free" or maybe "anti-freedom" are more accurate terms to use. Or perhaps people should be categorized as "statists" or "non-statists". I know that borrows from Hayek, but those terms seem to convey more of the mindset of people's relationship to government and individual liberty and therefore much more about their politics and general outlook on life.
I just think that when we use these terms, we are giving the political, and extreme left an additional victory-that is owning the language, and therefore owning the terms of the debate. Whoever frames the parameters of language pretty much owns the debate.
This all started with a conversation with Kathy Shaidle, talking about how the actor Jon Lovitz seems to be going all Dennis Miller, and she suggested that perhaps the trigger was owning your own business. She also mentioned that Adam Corrolla said yesterday on his show, to Jonah Goldberg, that much as he hates the label, he agrees with conservatives-so that essentially makes him a conservative.
We also agree that the term "politically correct" needs a complete anhiliation. This also frames the debate using a leftist framework even though it is used as a mocking term, or used sarcastically quite frequently nowadays.
I suggest we stop using that term-entirely.
I think we need a term, a phrase, that indicates that the intention is to completely and utterly shut down the discussion of reality and observed phenomenon. It's a way of saying-hey, we know what reality is, but don't trust your lying eyes, listen and live and spout the narrative that WE say is the reality. The wishful thinking.
So I say bullocks.
What do you think about "reality censors"? Something like that? Maybe the "reality police"?
Just like Ezra Levant has coined "The Media Party" (devastating), so too, do we need to find a substitute term for "politically correct" that blows it out of the water and indicates exactly what it is.
Any suggestions?
