Dems hoist by their favorite petard

Political correctness (for the purposes of this post, I will define it thus: “You’re not allowed to say that; only I am allowed to say that”) was the left’s gift to America. The left meant well. (I know, because I was on the left—comfortable and at home on the left, that is—at the time.)

Now the left, represented by the Democratic party, is having interesting problems. (I haven’t felt comfortable on the left for a long time, because the left has abandoned liberalism, I believe, but that’s another story for another day.)

My point is this: Two candidates who represent the apotheosis of progressive ideals are vying for the presidency. One is black. The other is a woman. If you’re a sensitive, well-meaning progressive, how do you support one of these candidates without smearing the other and earning yourself the label of “sexist” or “racist”?

To her great credit as a media critic and journalist (and without a lot of pickup by other media writers, except for Mickey Kaus and I’m not sure he counts except in the blogo-universe, where he counts a lot, in my book), my cyber-pal Rachel Sklar of ETPhas been asking this question for a while now (though somewhat less directly than I write about it here).

On January 3, she wrote (re the Obama and Oprah Show):

[F]raming Obama’s support in terms of a wave of hope and optimism and Clinton’s support as inevitability imposed by a suffocating dynasty might have been just a tad unbalanced. It’s funny, even as I write this I feel the need to check and recheck to make sure I don’t somehow say this wrong. Obama is that candidate — the one you are careful writing about. I don’t think it’s just me.

Kaus picked up on it the next day:

Rachel Sklar notes an insufficiently remarked on Obama advantage: (”[E]ven as I write this I feel the need to check and recheck to make sure I don’t somehow say this wrong. Obama is that candidate — the one you are careful writing about. I don’t think it’s just me”) …

Last night, Rachel put up a very long post analyzing the sad but inevitable viral viciousness of the Obama “fairy tale” remark by Bill Clinton (which he ihas been going out of his way to explain)[e.a.]:

Context isn’t just important, it’s everything — especially in these days of insta-pickup by blogs and online news sites, where just a snippet of text is enough to launch a million clicks.

You’d think that in the case of this election, where the race is tight and a nasty rumor or smear can make all the difference, people might want to be a bit careful. Alas, no.

Now Jules Crittenden picks up the theme. Understandably, being on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Rachel (I assume), he’s got a somewhat different take—namely, how “careful” is everyone supposed to be and for how long?

My big question is, does this mean if Obama gets elected no one can ever use the words “fairy tale” again, or any other words that might suggest he doesn’t know what he’s doing or what he’s talking about or that he might be full of it, because that might be perceived as racially insensitive? That’s a pretty serious issue, regardless of Obama’s politics, if political speech is going to be curtailed about something as important as the performance in office of the president of the United States, because someone’s feelings might get hurt. I’m guessing anything remotely resembling any of the delightful remarks about Chimpy’s appearance, intelligence, preparedness for office and performance in the last seven years would pretty much be out.

Here’s the thing. I believe that Barack Obama is not likely to have his actually feelings hurt by “racially insensitive” speech (no more than I would be if I were running for office and encountered “religiously insensitive” speech). Despite the smooth presentation, he is a hard-ass politician who came up through Chicago, which has a history of dirty, vicious politics. Alleged racial insensitivity and gender insensitivity are, in this race, merely cudgels with which to beat political opponents. They’re powerful and loaded cudgels, but they are still only cudgels (and not evidence of real racism and real sexism, which are not about the things you say about people but about the things you do to people who are less powerful than you).

Here’s the other thing: I believe that most normal people get that. Politics is a dirty business. There is no way for your candidate to win unless the other guy or gal loses. And you do whatever it takes for your guy or gal to win—no matter how dirty or hurtful. That’s just the way it is.

Political correctness may become a casualty of this election. Or, at least, one can always hope.

Right, Barack?