Political
Correctness is in the Eye of the Audience.
Is there a politically correct position if
you know, going in, you’re going to offend one side or the other? With so many
people being so easily offended these days (or, at least, willing to pretend to
be offended to score a political point, or even half-point), you’re going to be
politically incorrect at least some of the time just by offering an opinion,
unless you’re Bill Maher, of course, but he makes a (very good) living
deliberately offending people ALL the time!
So if you’ll agree to the stipulation that
we are ALL politically incorrect in someone’s view, let me move on to how even
such an ambiguous term gets manipulated. My objection is to those who decry
“political correctness” when their ox is being gored, but fail to recognize
their own attempts to enforce orthodoxy.
Take, for example, the phony debate over
wishing people Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. Those, like myself, who
prefer the more non-denominational greeting are criticized for being
politically correct, even if that offering is a conscious choice and not an
intent to avoid offending. But if I were to avoid “Happy Holidays” with certain
people because I know it would be deemed offensive, isn’t that being
politically correct?
The A&E network is being lambasted, at
least by some, for political correctness because it suspended one of the Duck
Dynasty guys who offered his opinion about homosexuality. Certainly for most of
media-land that intolerance is politically incorrect. On the other hand,
wouldn’t the Biblical literalist crowd enforce conformity on any of their band
who offered the contrary opinion, that sexual orientation is far less of a choice
than, say, your religion? How would that position play in his church?
The Dixie Chicks offended conservatives some years back with
a throw-away line at a concert in London, but were subjected to a politically
correct banishment by C/W radio that apparently continues to this day. Was
Natalie Maines’s attempt at humor politically incorrect? Of course. But didn’t
the country western community impose its own political correctness by refusing
to play their music because they didn’t want to offend any listeners?
If you look at the bottom line (and I’ll
claim the tag of economic historian as long as you don’t require any
credentials), most political correctness disputes come back to money. National
chain stores use “Happy Holidays” not to attack Christianity or
Christmas, but to try to sell more merchandise to even more people. No one is considering
the possibility that A&E’s actions are based on a belief as sincerely held
as Phil Robertson’s; the network is being attacked because it is assumed they’re being politically
correct in trying not to offend any group. The Chicks vanishing act from radio
stemmed from stations’ fear of losing advertising money by playing their
songs.
If, like Phil Robertson or Natalie Maines,
you are in the public eye, you need to be aware that when you use a public
forum, there are potential (economic) consequences. (I am more sympathetic to
Ms. Maines because she was just trying to be funny more than make a political
statement, but admit my politics might also play a part in reaching that conclusion.) If you’re threatening
or participating in a boycott, that is your absolute right; but whichever wing
of the political spectrum you inhabit, that participation is an attempt to
enforce some kind of political correctness. In the same way that both sides can
wave the flag, both sides are guilty of sneering the phrase “politically
correct” for their own agendas.
No comments:
Post a Comment