Political Correctness and Political Parties

Two things really really bother me about the modern American political landscape.  Political correctness and political parties.  One I view as an unnecessary evil, and the other an expedient but unpleasant evil. 


Political Correctness
While I was being politicized/socialized at Shanghai American School and home in the mid to late 90s political correctness was not a particular concern of mine.  In both forums I was free to ask questions or criticize statements without any fear of disturbing the forum participants' sensibilities.  I'm not sure I realized it at first, but this all changed rather quickly after I arrived at Bradley University.  In personal conversation I found that only some individuals were interested in serious discourse on certain topics (history, politics, religion, culture all spring to mind) with the rest seeming to be completely unwilling to listen, discuss, argue, persuade, or even get damned mad about those topics.  It was as if those topics didn't even exist... Instead I found myself passionately (and to my way of thinking appropriately) arguing things like the value of On-Base Percentage in baseball, or the relative merits (or in my estimation, the lack thereof) of Rob Thomas as a musician. 

I'm pretty sure that the reason for this is the concept of political correctness.  To quote the definition on dictionary.com (who references the Random House Dictionary), politically correct means "Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology."  Another definition dictionary.com definition pulled from American Heritage expands that to include class as an issue and specifies that to support broad changes in social, political, and educational circles.  These definitions indicate obvious bias that I didn't expect.  I had figured the definition would indicate that people don't address those topics out of respect for others' feelings, I hadn't ever realized there was a presupposition

The concept is that there already is an answer and so the political landscape should change to reflect that answer.  How can one debate anything when there already is an answer?  If one cannot debate or study these things, then how is one free to choose what they believe?  If one cannot choose what they believe then how can they be free in the most basic sense?  If someone else has already done your thinking for you... What is the purpose of thought itself?  If one cannot think, then how are we different from our pets, or, for that matter, from a potted plant?

I'm pretty sure I knew the term "political correctness" before I went to college.  And I think, probably to some degree, that I adhered to it in regular social situations...  But I think that the academic environment at Bradley very likely left me frustrated at the lack of openness to discourse.  My discontent found legs at some point when someone forwarded me a speech that Charlton Heston gave at Harvard Law School.  There is a transcript here.  The opinions of Charlton Heston are not the topic that interested me (nor do I believe I agree with him on everything), but rather his equation of political correctness to tyranny.  The more I thought about it, the more I realized I fiercely agreed.

Political correctness isn't wrong because it makes people feel good or because it reduces the frequency of conflict between people.  It's wrong because it limits everyone's ability to discuss important topics.  It limits their ability to exchange the ideas they would use to change their world.  In the end, I think it limits your ability to think if you let it.  It makes you less free.  As such, I am a staunch foe of political correctness, and I will do my best to never use it here.

Political Parties
The other generalized concept is a very unfortunate reality, and, because they are so incredibly efficient, one I am hard-pressed to believe we can shake ourselves of-- political parties.  Most of our Founding Fathers were extremely opposed to political parties and political machines.  They believed, and correctly so, that political parties would allow the many to be easily swayed via the tools of powerful individuals "behind" a party.  I believe Thomas Jefferson said it adroitly in his letter to Francis Hopkinson:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

That is exactly the thing I would express, if only I were such a writer.  Modern America is defined, politically, by two dominant parties, Republican and Democratic... There are a few minor parties about, some that even win a seat now and again.  There are a couple of parties who really do not express a message similar to the dominant two, such as the Green Party (environmentalists) or the Libertarian Party (nigh-on anarchists)-- as well as a couple of completely ridiculous parties, like the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party.  Yep, the Happy Green Nazis.  The rest, unfortunately, seem to be parties which appear to be merely more extreme versions of the two dominant parties.  If you would like to research a little more deeply on minor parties in the United States, Ron Gunzburger's website has briefs and links for a lot of parties.

Having been sidetracked by the minor party discussion, let us consider our current climate in the United States.  There are two defining parties, and I suspect neither does a great job representing their constituency.  It seems like most people don't particularly trust or care for either one.  Now that we've had some time to digest the Obama Presidency, approval ratings (particularly of the legislative branch) are beginning to fall as the euphoria of a major change wears off.  I certainly don't like either party.  I more often agree with the Republicans, I suppose, but also find a number of their platforms and positions to be completely reprehensible.

That's the thing, too.  If I express that I don't particularly care for President Obama's rhetoric, then people assume I'm a Republican.  Parties are another thing that seems to limit our ability to engage in an exchange of ideas.  One statement associates you with a party that carries a certain platform and it's assumed then that you agree with the rest of that platform.  If you so limit your thoughts to that of a party, how can you be properly heard?  If you assume the person with whom you are debating something is in such a way limited, how can you properly hear them?

I am, as I believe Thomas Jefferson believed, unwilling to become a slave to a party or its dogma.  We should all act as agents interested in exchanging ideas with our peers to best form American policy in a democratic fashion.  Political parties, it would seem, can only limit our ability to freely debate our beliefs and reasonably synthesize government.