A Favorite Topic Addressed by a New Favorite Thinker
Below is a recent blog post from Trish, used as the basis for constructing a conversation. My contributions are [bracketed].

Political Correctness by Trish

The term "politically correct" has a pretty straightforward origin, one that makes its current usage unintentionally ironic.

[This NPR story provides additional analysis about the roots of the term, with more detail on its more recent twists and turns. From a 1793 Supreme Court case, to LBJ and Bill Maher, to President GHW Bush in 1991....and this 1991 presidential usage warrants attention as the likely spark that rekindled this particular wild fire of usage today.

This story notes that our current president has used it as a powerful weapon and that polling today shows it is linked to a widespread sense among Americans that we to sensitive, too easily offended. My own experience after the election reinforces one use of the term today that is reported by NPR: to dismiss those who create safe places for difficult dialogues.]

It was used by Stalinists who had a fairly complicated time keeping up with what the Politburo had determined was the correct thing to think or say. From the time that Stalin took over until he died, the Communist Party changed positions on a lot of things, but that's a major problem for their kind of Marxism, since that kind of Marxism says that the truth is obvious to anyone not corrupted by capitalist ideology.

[The Guardian emphasizes another dimension that is consistent with the Stalinist story here: the power to create an unambiguous phantom enemy into which we can pour all of our frustration, anger, and hatred. Here is how the Guardian frames their story, quoting Trump during the campaign:

'Every demagogue needs an enemy. Trump’s was the ruling elite, and his charge was that they were not only failing to solve the greatest problems facing Americans, they were trying to stop anyone from even talking about those problems.'

Trump: “The special interests,the arrogant media, and the political insiders, don’t want me to talk about the crime that is happening in our country.... They have put political correctness above common sense.... I refuse to be politically correct.”]

At the same time that Stalinist/Marxist ideology said that the true course of action was obvious to everyone, the Politburo flipped on the true course of action. The Kulaks were great; they were awful; Nazis were allies; they were enemies; this person was great; he was a villain. Thus, being a supporter of the USSR meant that you had to believe, at the same time, that the truth was always absolutely obvious to everyone who was objective AND now you had to contradict yourself in regard to what you said yesterday.

[As we watch President Trump leap from one falsehood to another, without regard for consistency or history, we might read this as the leader of the current in-group sending 'continual updates' to his (dwindling?) followers so they have a score card they can use to (re)direct their angst, turning on many dimes, everyday, without shame.]

Thus, if you were loyal to your in-group, you needed continual updates as to what the latest "politically correct" stance was. The notion of political correctness started with Stalinists, and it had three sub-points:

• First, being "politically correct" meant that you turned on a dime in order to support whatever was now seen as what you should say and believe—you were repeating the talking points that showed loyalty to your ingroup.
• Second, that they contradicted what you said yesterday, or that the talking points contradicted each other, didn't make sense in terms of other things your group was doing—all of that was actually a virtue. As Orwell pointed out, the true sign of loyalty is committing to a claim that you know is false and yet that you will insist is true. Sometimes people will misquote Tertullian on this: "I believe because it is absurd." Publicly supporting rational and reasonable stances doesn't show group loyalty, but insisting on the truth of obviously false claims? That shows true loyalty to the group

Later, “politically correct” came to be the term used to police language that was uninclusive. In other words, to be “politically correct” was to try to use language that didn’t actively offend someone—it meant trying be respectful of others and politically thoughtful in your actions.

[This is when President GHW Bush played a key role, because as you can see below he frames the dismissive use of PC explicitly as a response to diversity, affirmative action, putative litigation lottery, and more...in a way that ties together a conservative agenda in response to this strawman of a liberal agenda.  While not inconsistent with 'using it as a snark,' there seems to be something even more intentional and insidious here as well. After praising free speech as a cornerstone of the great American experiment, the president then identifies political correctness as the most salient threat to liberty and that experiment in America today:

Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States, including on some college campuses. The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits. 

What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship. Disputants treat sheer force -- getting their foes punished or expelled, for instance -- as a substitute for the power of ideas. 

Throughout history, attempts to micromanage casual conversation have only incited distrust. They have invited people to look for an insult in every word, gesture, action. And in their own Orwellian way, crusades that demand correct behavior crush diversity in the name of diversity. 

We all should be alarmed at the rise of intolerance in our land and by the growing tendency to use intimidation rather than reason in settling disputes. Neighbors who disagree no longer settle matters over a cup of coffee. They hire lawyers, and they go to court. And political extremists roam the land, abusing the privilege of free speech, setting citizens against one another on the basis of their class or race. 

But, you see, such bullying is outrageous. It's not worthy of a great nation grounded in the values of tolerance and respect. So, let us fight back against the boring politics of division and derision. Let's trust our friends and colleagues to respond to reason. 

As Americans we must use our persuasive powers to conquer bigotry once and for all. And I remind myself a lot of this: We must conquer the temptation to assign bad motives to people who disagree with us. 

If we hope to make full use of the optimism I discussed earlier, men and women must feel free to speak their hearts and minds. We must build a society in which people can join in common cause without having to surrender their identities.]

In some groups, however, it meant that being a part of that group meant that you agreed with them in everything, including where you bought your clothes, what terms you used, what you read. Any deviation from what was obviously the politically correct action was a reason for someone to shame you. And so people who were tired of callout culture started using "politically correct" in an ironic way to express our discomfort with the assumption that being lefty meant pure agreement on all actions.

And then it got picked up on the right by people who used it as snark for anyone on the left, and for any kind of care for how we describe one another. To be “politically correct” in this world is to give any thought to others' feelings.

And, so "politically correct" went from an unironic term used to shame people in a hierarchical system that could determine what were the correct talking points (or how partisans should spin things--the Stalinist usage) to a game of purity oneupsmanip (what some people call "callout culture") to snarking about callout culture, to a term used to dismiss any kind of kindness or even politeness about what terms we use.

[I really like what Trish is doing here, but as I noted above, there seems to also be more going on and more to pay attention to here. I particularly like how a perspective from another discipline highlights one dimension and helps me see what I did not see before, and then invites me to build on it.]

And there is an unintentional irony in that last usage. The pundits and their followers who throw the phrase at others the most (and in the most dismissive way) are the ones most likely to be politically correct in the original sense: that they can turn on a dime in terms of the political beliefs, all the while claiming to be absolutely truthful. And they love political figures and pundits who are honest and authentic and, as they say, “unbiased,” but who flop like a goldfish getting pawed by a cat. Hillary should be jailed, she shouldn't; Obama wasn't born in the US, his birthplace isn't an issue; everyone should have healthcare, healthcare should be restricted to people with certain jobs; regime change is great, regime change is a disaster, regime change is great.

There is a strategy sometimes called “projection,” and sometimes called “strategic misnaming,” in which you simply accuse the opposition of doing what you’re doing. (“You’re the puppet!”) A lot of the accusation of “political correctness,” it seems to me is on the part of people who are themselves obsessed with being politically correct.

[This is part of the Rovian strategy of attacking an opponents strengths, but Trish really helps me see this in a new and refreshing and productive way. Thanks.]