Here come the nouveau PC
“Whatever you do, don’t mention the war,” said John Cleese in perhaps the most famous episode of Fawlty Towers. He was referring to WWII, but it wouldn’t be an inappropriate sentiment now. Far from it in fact.
The war you don’t mention is Vietnam, not WWII. The Sydney Morning Herald’s wittiest columnist Mike Carlton picked up on this on Saturday:
Carlton responds, “groping about in the fog of senility,” that in both cases it was not a good idea to rely on CIA intelligence fantasies (Gulf of Tonkin, WMD), that overwhelming technological superiority does not guarantee victory, that in neither case could liberal democracy be imposed (GW Bush and LBJ both hailed new constitutions), finally, he says, both wars show you should have clear war aims and exit strategies.
But leaving the fate of Iraq aside for now, the idea that the right is creating, or rather increasingly bogged down in, a new form of political correctness is interesting. What we call PC is really just lazy reflexive thought, I think. It emerges when once vibrant systems of ideas hit their peak and start heading downhill. No matter where it comes from, it is an attempt to limit debate and discussion. Wikipedia defines it as follows:
Worst of all, they suddenly seem bereft of ideas. Look at Donald Rumsfeld’s recent performances. He is a shadow of his former self. He's becoming a girlie-man.
The war hawks suddenly appear impotent in the claws of a history they themselves created. When you do see new strategies, they are almost universally attempts to right the wrongs of the very recent past. They are initiatives the political centre and left have been calling for throughout – such as Condoleeza Rice’s recent attempts to rebuild a kind of multilateralism.
So what about some other examples of the political correctness of the right? Over at Public Address Russell Brown has spotted a few over the years such as a centre right council “wading into people’s lives” to ban alcohol consumption in public areas across the Auckland Or Murray McCully attempting to neuter a public health advertisement that “might offend a significant number of viewers”
These are, I guess, everyday examples. They are the responses of political conservatives more than of the new right. But if you have a good look at the Shrill Brigade online you will find other examples - apart from their unwillingness to mention the war.
For instance, isn’t describing someone as a feminazi as much an attempt to demonise someone’s ideas and shut down debate as describing someone as a male chauvinist pig? The shrill fall easily into using these comfortable terms – feminazi, MSM, girlie-man, surrender-monkey – largely as a substitute for thought.
It’s thinking by numbers, cut and paste logic. It’s just what they accuse their political enemies of. It’s sad and it’s increasingly weird.
Last week under the ponderous heading “A lefty writing for the MSM can’t find anything wrong with Clark’s speeding motorcade” AL (Antarctic Lemur … presumably not his real name) over at Sir Humphrey’s had a bit of a go at this post by me. He seemed mightily offended:
The irony was lost on me, I must admit. For starters, if you’ll pardon a minor factual correction, the blogger in question isn’t Australian. Secondly, if you read what he says, he isn’t actually complaining about his treatment in the dreaded MSM – well not much.
Even if he was, believe it or not, in the MSM we don’t spend a lot of time worrying about offending people. Call us old fashioned, but to some extent we consider it our job. I know, I know, that’s not very PC of us, and since we are all lefties that must be very confusing for you, Lemur. But I’m sure you’ll adjust.
When I pointed out that what I was saying in my post was exactly what the judge in the case had said (see comments to post), Lemur harrumphed a bit, as Lemurs do, and pulled his neck in:
These are the guys who used to lampoon the left’s paranoia, their tendency to look for black helicopters everywhere. I realise that some at Sir Humphreys may be, like Mike Carlton, “groping about in the fog of senility”, but Reds under the Bed? That's so, like, 1950s.
Okay, away from political weirdness and back to political correctness.
Way back in 1996, in an article titled "Mummy, what’s a feminazi?" the late Andrew Heal argued that we still talk about PC is a travesty in itself.
In the end all the recent talk of political correctness is, like what it criticises, an attempt to categorise and deride ideas, often very different ideas, without dealing with or even attacking their essence.
It’s an attempt to avoid debate. And only girlie-men do that.
Okay, be careful out there and whatever you do, remember, don’t say "quagmire”.
The war you don’t mention is Vietnam, not WWII. The Sydney Morning Herald’s wittiest columnist Mike Carlton picked up on this on Saturday:
Carlton is an Australian, obviously, but I’m sure you get the drift. He was responding to an article in the same paper by Washington correspondent Michael Gawenda who said there were no lessons from Vietnam that apply to Iraq and that boomers should get on with planning their retirement.The new political correctness of the ratbag right decrees that nobody must compare the unhappy result of the Vietnam war to the wonderful march of democracy in Iraq. Anyone who mentions the word quagmire can only be a pathetic baby boomer, dissolute and decrepit, pining for the bad old days of moratorium demos, Whitlamism, bell-bottom pants, Jane Fonda, etc.
This view is trumpeted most loudly by the thirty-something know-alls of the right-wing blogosphere, whose ferocious enthusiasm for the Iraq war is matched only by their reluctance to take part in it.
Carlton responds, “groping about in the fog of senility,” that in both cases it was not a good idea to rely on CIA intelligence fantasies (Gulf of Tonkin, WMD), that overwhelming technological superiority does not guarantee victory, that in neither case could liberal democracy be imposed (GW Bush and LBJ both hailed new constitutions), finally, he says, both wars show you should have clear war aims and exit strategies.
The American people have begun to tire of young soldiers coming home horizontally for no visible result. Eventually, whoever is in the White House will announce that Baghdad is ready to command its own destiny, blah blah. Iraq will then either collapse into civil war or become a hardline Islamist theocracy in league with Iran. It will be the fault of Dubya and the neo-cons if the US is humiliated, with the war on terrorism no nearer an end. But by then we baby boomers will be safely tucked away in the sunset home.Come on, let’s be fair Mike. There are two other possible scenarios. A new Saddam might emerge as a staunch US ally and, at the expense of untold lives and treasure, we’ll all lurch back to the 1980s. Or, unlikely as it may seem right now, the American mission may yet be accomplished.
But leaving the fate of Iraq aside for now, the idea that the right is creating, or rather increasingly bogged down in, a new form of political correctness is interesting. What we call PC is really just lazy reflexive thought, I think. It emerges when once vibrant systems of ideas hit their peak and start heading downhill. No matter where it comes from, it is an attempt to limit debate and discussion. Wikipedia defines it as follows:
Political correctness is a term used to criticise what are seen as misguided attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. While it frequently refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology and behavior. The terms "politically correct" or "P.C." are also used.Watching the right over the last couple of years has been like watching one of those time-lapse nature films. You can see them peaking and decaying before your very eyes. From the triumphalism of the conquest of Baghdad, through the incompetent management of the post-war period and the insurgency to now, the right has failed and the noise from its legion of camp followers just gets more and more shrill.
Worst of all, they suddenly seem bereft of ideas. Look at Donald Rumsfeld’s recent performances. He is a shadow of his former self. He's becoming a girlie-man.
The war hawks suddenly appear impotent in the claws of a history they themselves created. When you do see new strategies, they are almost universally attempts to right the wrongs of the very recent past. They are initiatives the political centre and left have been calling for throughout – such as Condoleeza Rice’s recent attempts to rebuild a kind of multilateralism.
So what about some other examples of the political correctness of the right? Over at Public Address Russell Brown has spotted a few over the years such as a centre right council “wading into people’s lives” to ban alcohol consumption in public areas across the Auckland Or Murray McCully attempting to neuter a public health advertisement that “might offend a significant number of viewers”
These are, I guess, everyday examples. They are the responses of political conservatives more than of the new right. But if you have a good look at the Shrill Brigade online you will find other examples - apart from their unwillingness to mention the war.
For instance, isn’t describing someone as a feminazi as much an attempt to demonise someone’s ideas and shut down debate as describing someone as a male chauvinist pig? The shrill fall easily into using these comfortable terms – feminazi, MSM, girlie-man, surrender-monkey – largely as a substitute for thought.
It’s thinking by numbers, cut and paste logic. It’s just what they accuse their political enemies of. It’s sad and it’s increasingly weird.
Last week under the ponderous heading “A lefty writing for the MSM can’t find anything wrong with Clark’s speeding motorcade” AL (Antarctic Lemur … presumably not his real name) over at Sir Humphrey’s had a bit of a go at this post by me. He seemed mightily offended:
O'Neill appears to be a technology reporter for Fairfax Australia papers The Sydney Morning Herald and The Melbourne Age. Note his use of certain terms suggests he considers himself part of the political left.You can read an Australian bloggers exchange with O'Neill about perceived bias in the MSM here. I imagine the irony will be lost on O'Neill.Sprung! Well done Lemur! Long may you evolve …
The irony was lost on me, I must admit. For starters, if you’ll pardon a minor factual correction, the blogger in question isn’t Australian. Secondly, if you read what he says, he isn’t actually complaining about his treatment in the dreaded MSM – well not much.
Even if he was, believe it or not, in the MSM we don’t spend a lot of time worrying about offending people. Call us old fashioned, but to some extent we consider it our job. I know, I know, that’s not very PC of us, and since we are all lefties that must be very confusing for you, Lemur. But I’m sure you’ll adjust.
When I pointed out that what I was saying in my post was exactly what the judge in the case had said (see comments to post), Lemur harrumphed a bit, as Lemurs do, and pulled his neck in:
The judge is obviously correct (I wouldn't 2nd guess a judge) - if Clark and Sutton don't assume responsibility for the journey, then indeed the driver is responsible.So when I say what the judge said I’m a “lefty” and when the judge says it he’s not. Hmmm. But what I really like about AL’s post is this line: “Note his use of certain terms suggests he considers himself part of the political left.”
Note the officers involved have been advised by the Police Association not to talk to the media, and the civilian driver says he can't talk because of a clause in his employment contract. And no the judge isn't a leftie, he's just applying the law as it stands.
These are the guys who used to lampoon the left’s paranoia, their tendency to look for black helicopters everywhere. I realise that some at Sir Humphreys may be, like Mike Carlton, “groping about in the fog of senility”, but Reds under the Bed? That's so, like, 1950s.
Okay, away from political weirdness and back to political correctness.
Way back in 1996, in an article titled "Mummy, what’s a feminazi?" the late Andrew Heal argued that we still talk about PC is a travesty in itself.
The term 'straw dogs' springs to mind. Heal cites another definition of PC: "conforming to a body of liberal or radical opinion, especially on social matter, in the avoidance of anything, even established vocabulary, that may conceivably be construed as discriminatory, or pejorative; advocacy of this".There was a point - it must have been a couple of years ago now - when "PC" looked set to die a well-earned death. If it has remained part of the wider vernacular, it is surely because: a) its employers are so damned unhip they don't know when a catchphrase stops being funny and begins to bark like a dead dog; and b) because it's a damn convenient whipping boy.
What better than a shadowy, unseen enemy, rich in parody-prone stereotypes which nobody claims to be part of and never fights back? God knows, with the death of communism we needed another one.
PC gave rise to the "silent majority". (Another phrase which, on both counts, may be as mythical as the one under scrutiny. Who would dare accuse working-class anti-PC heroes like John Banks, Leighton Smith and Arch Tambakis or their middle-class counterparts Rosemary McLeod, Frank Haden and Lindsay Perigo of being backward in coming forward?) .
Now, quite apart from the fact that "may conceivably be construed" sounds like a prime piece of doublespeak in itself, this requires us to define two other words. Liberal: "generous; noble-minded; broad-minded; not bound by authority or traditional orthodoxy". And radical: "favouring thoroughgoing but constitutional social and political reform".Conformity to broad-mindedness? Sounds okay to me. The lack of doubt and nuance in much of what the Shrill Ones right, sorry write, is a sure sign of its absence.
So political correctness, it would seem, is being bound to an authoritarian doctrine but not being bound by authority. It requires a narrow-minded conformity to broad-mindedness. All this time, in other words, PC may have never actually meant anything much at all. Then again … a conformity to broad-mindedness. Couldn't extremists on either side of the PC divide learn something from that sentiment?
In the end all the recent talk of political correctness is, like what it criticises, an attempt to categorise and deride ideas, often very different ideas, without dealing with or even attacking their essence.
It’s an attempt to avoid debate. And only girlie-men do that.
Okay, be careful out there and whatever you do, remember, don’t say "quagmire”.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home