Donald trump is often called “the politically incorrect politician”, not realizing that in his case it is not just a personality trait and not just criticism, but also one of the secrets of success, through which the billionaire reached the final of the presidential race. Perhaps ultimately it will bring him victory: Americans are so tired of political correctness that I see in it the source of many problems of the country.
USA claim that fixed them in the Constitution of liberty was considered a benchmark in the modern world, but at the same time introduce into public life the provision that seriously limits one of the most important and valued in America freedoms – freedom of speech. It is, of course, is the notorious political correctness. The term “political correctness”, according to the American researcher Herbert Kohl, appeared in the West in the late 1940-ies. “Politically correct” (with a fair amount of sarcasm), called the attitude of Western Communists to the Stalinist regime – for the triumph of the “great idea” of universal equality and brotherhood, they turned a blind eye to the scale of repression in the USSR. Over time, however, the sarcastic tone of this term, symbolizing censorship, which a person subjected himself, began to get pushed quite serious connotations. This process gained momentum in the 1970-ies, and based on it lay three reasons.
When silence is Golden
“Almost all the problems of modern America is associated with political correctness, including the worsening education, increasing the distinction on religious grounds, the failure of the police to perform their duties”
The first is the fight against racial discrimination. The movement for universal equality regardless of race started to gain momentum in the 1960-ies and was so successful that in America were considered to be “discrimination” not only actions but also words. For example, not to accidentally offend any descendant of immigrants from Africa, who could count that the word “black” with regard to it being used with a pejorative connotation, was coined a special term “African Americans”. Has become very politically incorrect to focus on the fact that African Americans make up only 12-13% of the US population, commit in the United States three times more crimes than other races. Liberal politicians and public figures of America could see this as an attempt of hidden discrimination of the black population as a supposedly more prone to illegal acts than whites.
However, such censorship is in direct contradiction to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme court has only twice in history have allowed the possibility of restricting this freedom. For the first time in 1919 – with regard to the performances, which represented a “clear and palpable danger.” For the second time in 1969 – about those speeches that could cause “imminent unlawful action”.
How to get around the first amendment without the intervention of the Supreme court and the amendment of the Constitution came up with the liberal intelligentsia of the United States. This, in particular, told a columnist for the conservative newspaper Washington Times Robert knight and well-known U.S. lawyer Barry Fisher, a leading case on the protection of freedom of speech. Teachers of jurisprudence in the universities, the fighters for civil rights and some religious leaders began to call those statements that they considered to be politically incorrect, “hate-speech”, ostensibly aimed at the subordination of some social groups to others. And if so, then the right to the articulation of such speech may be guaranteed by the first amendment, and if you don’t want trouble, don’t say anything politically incorrect. The apparent paradox of liberal intellectuals not confused: to avoid the subordination of some social groups to others, all of American society had to submit to her views on freedom of speech.
The second reason for the flourishing of political correctness was the fact that the government was interested in developing a similar self-censorship in American society. Official Washington was terrified domestic protests against the Vietnam war and the student unrest of the late 1960s and early 1970-ies (remember that in 1969 the U.S. Supreme court outlawed those speeches, which could cause “imminent unlawful action”), however, the opportunities to threaten on the first amendment seriously the government was not. Therefore, strongly encouraging political correctness (including with law enforcement agencies such as “national security Agency”), Washington has created a situation in which, as noted in the special report of the American literary-journalistic organization PEN American Center, journalists and writers of the United States have volunteered to circumvent the “inconvenient” for the American political establishment themes. These include defence, developments in the middle East and North Africa, the overcrowded American prisons, the situation with drugs, the movement “Occupy wall Street” and General criticism of the US government.
The pressure of political correctness has crushed itself, even such powerful and famous news Agency like Associated Press. It was removed from your vocabulary the phrase “illegal immigrant” so as not to offend those who, by force breaks through boundary cordons and checkpoints. Obyasnenie it was, however, not illegal immigrants, and their actions. In response to this decision AR, us Internet online the New Observer’s ironic also promised not to use anymore the term “illegal immigrant”, replacing it with “illegal invader” or “the colonizer from the Third world”.
Finally, the third reason is associated with an increase in the US army lawyers. Earnings of a lawyer depends on the number requiring a legal solution to the problems faced by people. Accordingly, if problems at all lawyers is not enough, we have to create them. So hordes of American lawyers often artificially inflate the disputed issues to the size of the corresponding articles of the civil or the criminal code of the United States. To this we must add the changed over the past half century the business ethics of the legal profession. If at the beginning of 1960-ies of counsel was unethical to advertise their services in the media, as it was considered that it thus would be nakliyat on potential customer problems to solve that without his help you cannot, but now law firms and individual lawyers have become permanent inhabitants of media-advertising space of the country.
Political correctness has given impetus to the development of another phenomenon, closely associated with it. We are talking about the so-called sexual harassment, although it is more correct to use a foreign word “harassment”, because, according to the Russian resource “the Apple”, the term includes “not only the desire of the rapist to have sex, not only a threat in which the victim is invited either to submit to sexual demands or suffer the consequences, but also dirty jokes, anecdotes, hints, indecent touching, that is, any action that is unacceptable to a reasonable woman.” The fact that the phenomenon of “harassment” to be fought, no doubt, but, as noted by the already mentioned resource, “in many countries, particularly in the United States, sue for the slightest sneeze on a chubby bust”, because it is very profitable to the plaintiff and her lawyers a lesson. Knowing this, men (but women too), constantly monitor their speech, not to accidentally publish such a “sneeze”. Of course, this further strengthens the culture of self-censorship in the United States.
“We’re not winners”
The policy applying for the post of President of the United States (infographic)Crusade against political correctness announced Donald trump. The words of a billionaire that “political correctness is absolutely killing us as a country” became one of the slogans of his election campaign. And here trump accurately captured the mood of the majority of American voters: according to the Washington Post, that “the big problem of America lies in its political correctness”, I agree 68% of the US population. When broken down by political views thesis support 62% of Democrats, 68% of independent voters and 81% of Republicans. It gives Trump a significant trump card in the upcoming fight for the White house with Hillary Clinton, who is known for, including its political correctness.
According to the newspaper Washington Times, the political correctness, especially the reluctance to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” could cost the Democrats the presidency. “Try to get strong emotions somewhere inside, does not mean to get rid of them, says the researcher at the Brookings institution and a former adviser to President bill Clinton, William Galston. – Trump showed us that although many people bite their tongues, they do not change their mind”.
The billionaire was not afraid even of such terrible in contemporary America charges like the accusations of sexism when he said that Hillary is the desire of voters to attract the sympathy puts on the first place just because she’s a woman, not a professional politician. He managed to capture the relationship between the political correctness and beyond a reasonable fight against the so-called “harassment”. Here that he answered the question of political obozrevatelya Fox News channel the Kelly Magin, speaking about why often allows to address women’s caustic comments: “I have so many people had challenged that I have, frankly, no time for full respect of political correctness. And the country is no time for it, too. This country is in serious trouble. We are no longer winners. We lose to China, we lose Mexico, both in trade and in the protection of our borders. We are losing everything.”
“I want to be in America again said, “merry Christmas!”, he added, hinting at more frequent attempts being made by teachers of educational institutions and local authorities to ban the mention of the name of Christ, so as thereby not to hurt the feelings of people with other religion.
Rejection of success
But what is so dangerous political correctness? What’s so bad or terrible that people watch their speech for fear of someone not to offend or not to offend? Here that told about it in interview to TV channel Fox News American political commentator and writer Nick Adams: “the Ideology of political correctness involves the rejection of success. Ambitions begin to arouse suspicion and put the collective above the individual. Almost all the problems of modern America is associated with political correctness, including the worsening education, increasing the distinction on religious grounds, the failure of the police to perform their duties, and border police to protect the border, diminishing the role of America in the modern world and the unwillingness to crush the evil of militant Islamism – all of this is rooted in the ideology of political correctness. There is nothing more contrary to the fundamental principles of American society and the state”.
Political correctness is dangerous in that it has a tendency to turn into practical actions that go beyond self-censorship. We are talking about the so-called “decisive action” (affirmative action). This term was introduced in the political vocabulary of America by President John F. Kennedy during his fight against racial discrimination when he’s in his decree number 10925 of March 6, 1961 stressed that all government contractors must take “decisive action” to ensure full and universal equality in employment and in the treatment of already hired employees, regardless of their race, colour, social or national origin.
However, in the years after the signing of this decree, this policy of “decisive action” has evolved into a Leninist-Stalinist policy of the struggle with great Russian chauvinism, when the Soviet government by hook and by crook were appointed to senior positions members of national minorities, even in cases when they in their professional capacity, inferior to ethnic Russians. Something similar is now happening in modern America, and, in some cases with the creation of real threat of life and safety of people. Example: Federal aviation administration USA for several years implemented a program of appointing unqualified representatives of dark-skinned minorities for positions of air traffic, despite the availability of highly qualified dispatchers with white skin color. This blatant episode became known after the white managers asked the court to protect their rights.
The experience of America and Europe, teaches that a policy aimed at the concealment of problems to protect someone’s feelings not only does not solve these problems, and exacerbate. Society is constantly “coming” on his tongue in order not to say that the proportion of immigrants or the representatives of some national minorities commit more crimes than natives (remember the events in Cologne on new year’s night and the reaction of the German authorities on these events) will not be able to purposefully and effectively to fight crime. And this is unlikely to contribute to the establishment of civil peace and stability, which are so concerned policy – adherents of politically correct tolerance.Related posts: