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.

The Case of the Missing Beans

According to a recent article in Nature, climate change resulted in a net loss of $11 billion in US soybean production over the period of 1994-2003.

This massive loss was masked by significant improvements in seed genetics and crop management practices which led to an overall gain in total production. The article suggests climate change risks can be mitigated by planting time adjustments and appropriate selection of cultivars. This means the the climate change message needs to be well communicated to farmers so they can adapt. Fortunately most farmers already believe the climate is changing, however many are still skeptical that it is human caused. This is unfortunate because they may not recognize the need for long term adaptation strategies.

John Carlos

This afternoon I attended the keynote address for Bellevue College's Martin Luther King, Jr. day celebration. The speakers were Olympic medalist and civil rights advocate John Carlos and sports/political writer Dave Zirin. Carlos won the bronze medal in the 200 meter dash at the 1968 Olympics and is famous (along with gold medalist Tommie Smith) for raising his black-gloved fist during the awards ceremony as a sign of support for human rights (which Carlos points out has since erroneously been referred to as a black power salute).

I was twelve at the time this happened and remember watching it on TV. My father was appalled so I didn't feel safe saying anything but I secretly believed they were heroic figures and admired them for their courage.

The theme of Carlos' and Zirin's talk was the relationship between athletes, social justice and how that plays out in the sphere of public opinion. Because of what Carlos did he was booed by the crowd, heavily criticized in the press and had to endure numerous forms of retaliation including death threats. However the image of him, Smith and Peter Norman (who supported them by wearing an OPHR badge during the ceremony) has become an icon of the American civil rights movement and has inspired untold other athletes to take a public stand for social justice. In their talk Zirin and Smith pointed out a number of recent acts by athletes, such as the Rams show of support for Ferguson protesters, that have been similarly motivated but I believe this sort of thing would not be possible without the courage of the athletes who came before them such as Carlos, Smith and Norman.

Aamer Rahman on "Reverse Racism"

Ever since Ferguson, I've heard a number of people talking about what they believe is "reverse racism". From my perspective, this idea arises from a basic misunderstanding of what racism actually is. I mentioned this to a friend and she sent me this hilarious video by comedian Aamer Rahman that pretty much captures my opinion.

Racist and Cowardly Statements by Michele Bachmann

According to the Washington Post, Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann reacted to pending executive action on immigration reform with the following statement:

"The social cost will be profound on the U.S. taxpayer — millions of unskilled, illiterate, foreign nationals coming into the United States who can’t speak the English language."

And how does she back up her offensive use of the word 'illiterate'? She claims she heard it from 'American Hispanics on the border". Apparently she thinks she can escape responsibility for her racist comments by blaming them on people from the same ethnic group she is attacking. That's cowardly.

Same Old Paranoia About the ACA

This morning I decided to catch up on the tempest in a tea pot surrounding Jonathan Gruber and his comments on the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  As far as I can tell, the controversy is about old videos where Gruber laments the fact that political gamesmanship was required in negotiating the wording of the ACA so that it fit the conventions mandated by the Congressional Budget Office to avoid being classified as a tax increase. I'm not sure why this gamesmanship is a surprise to anyone because determining how to phrase a bill is part of the negotiating process that leads to its creation. Legislators know phrasing is critical because as the New York Times points out the difference between a law being labeled a tax increase or something else eventually comes down to how it's worded.  Phrase it one way and it's a tax increase, phrase it differently and it's a penalty.  The thing is, at the time the ACA was created both Democrats and the Republicans passed the bill fully aware of its wording and how important that was.

It's too bad Gruber didn't realize how important his own words were when he commented "people are too stupid to understand the difference" but I guess we'll just have to live with it. Nothing has really changed - the ACA is in place, it's withstood some very withering attacks and it's finally starting to do some good. Now is the time to build on that success, not search for conspiracies that don't exist.

Duane Harkness