The Rhetoric of Political Incorrectness

One of the hallmarks of the current presidential election is the preponderance of talk about political correctness. During the primary, the Republican candidates seemed to be in a competition to see who was more against it. Eventual winner Donald Trump put it this way "I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either." So what is this "big problem" Mr. Trump and others who agree with him see? I think the key word here is "challenged".  When certain things Trump says are challenged, he just sloughs the criticism off as mere political correctness. Putting criticism in this category allows him to ignore it. And that's dangerous.

One component necessary for Trump to categorize criticism as politically correct is offense. If the critic is offended by what he says then he often accuses them of having a thin skin and being easily offended. The problem is offensiveness comes in degrees. If I'm in a store and someone behind me starts swearing because the line isn't moving fast enough, am I being overly sensitive if I turn around and criticize them for it? Maybe. Politeness in public is a norm that most of us follow but the consequences of breaking that norm are not earth shattering.  A rough analog to this is Trump talking about the size of his manhood during the debate. Sure it was offensive but I don't think it caused any grievous public harm. The level of potential harm is key. Going back to the store example, if the person behind me escalated and started threatening to shove people out of the way if the line didn't speed up then I would have every right to be offended and confront them about it. That's how I feel about Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US. Not only is he breaking well established American norms of religious fairness, he's proposing something that is clearly unconstitutional and dangerous. Sloughing off criticism of his proposed ban as mere political correctness is akin to comparing it to a discussion of penis sizes.

The other necessary component for Trump to categorize criticism as politically correct is the value system it comes from. If the criticism is coming from a perspective that socially disadvantaged or disenfranchised people need to be treated with respect then the PC pejorative is considered fair game. For example, if someone is offended by the racial implications of Trump's claim that people coming into the US from Mexico "...are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." then their criticism is pigeon holed as political correctness because the target of disrespect is people of Mexican heritage. If the target of disrespect were someone else then I suspect it would be a different story. If a candidate were to make a speech claiming soldiers are just wannabe baby killers and I criticize them for disrespecting the men and women in our military, I doubt Trump would accuse me of political correctness. In most cases political correctness is nothing more than a code word for "What is important to you is of no consequence to me". Discussing and maybe even accommodating multiple priorities for what is important is a critical element of political discourse. Ignoring the conflict serves no one.

Trump's strategy of political incorrectness is all about disengagement. He uses it to deflect criticism and avoid discussion. Political incorrectness isn't about free speech. It's about ignoring it.

Transgender Rights Turning Point?

The strong negative reaction to North Carolina's HB2, the so-called "bathroom bill", may turn out to be an important turning point on the path toward transgender rights in the US. The bill was passed in a one-day special session by the North Carolina General Assembly as a reaction to an ordinance passed by the Charlotte City Council that provided protections for gay, lesbian and transgendered people. HB2 is sweeping in its scope, not only eliminating Charlotte's LGBT protection ordinance but also nullifying any local ordinance that addresses the use of public accommodations, workplace discrimination and the minimum wage.

Opposition to HB2 was swift and direct. With support from the ACLU, Joaquin Carcaño, a transgender employee of UNC Chapel Hill; Peyton McGarry, a transgender student at UNC Greensboro; and Angela Gilmore, a lesbian associate dean and professor of law at North Carolina Central, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law, contending that it violates both the Constitution and Title IX. A few weeks later, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit claiming the law violates federal civil rights statues. This violation could end up denying North Carolina access to millions of dollars in federal funds. In response, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming that transgender status is not a protected class.

Unlike the governor of the state I grew up in, South Dakota, who wisely vetoed a similarly backwards bill, McCrory is doubling down on his discriminatory stance. Unless he backs down (which seems unlikely) this could lead to a showdown in federal court. If that happens and the courts rule against North Carolina which I believe they will, then we may finally get definitive legal protection for people in the transgender community. I certainly hope so.