Lefties Driving The Left Batshit Crazy -- Part II

Somehow, in my naiveté I thought we had lived through the era of Politically Correct speech. The PC movement began in reasonable ways with the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism when it dawned (finally) on folks that certain words and expressions caused pain. There were two ways in which language could do this. The most obvious was when words and phrases specifically designed to hurt (e.g., “nigger” or “slut”) were used. Less obvious but, so the argument went, perhaps more insidious was the softer version like “redskin” or “girl.”

It was relatively easy to persuade people to eschew the use of those designed to cause suffering — except, of course, for instances where that was precisely what the speaker wished to do. It wasn’t so easy with the latter because the folks doing the speaking didn’t intend to hurt another and couldn’t grasp why anyone could feel offended or object.

To educate these unsuspecting biased souls the movement for politically correct speech was enjoined. It was an important movement because it revealed, not how insidious language can be (we already knew that from the first usage patterns), but how delicately and unsuspectingly we allowed our culture’s biases and prejudices to leak over into our daily speech and writing.

 In many ways it worked. For the most part we’ve become sensitive to how we use words that denigrate someone’s ethnicity or race. We’re aware of sexual orientation and, in many cases, uncomfortable just thinking about how we used to talk. My generation grew up referring to gay men as “faggots” and never once thought that this wasn’t appropriate.

We’ve also pretty much stopped using the masculine form as the default pronoun. While “he/she” is awkward, it turns out to be fairly easy to avoid sexist language.[1] Of course, it didn’t work in other ways. We still haven’t completely given up using “girl” to refer to adult women but, except for the very testy it doesn’t seem to be causing any problems. So, over time the PC movement seemed to fade away which most us of took as evidence of its success.

Alas, it is back and this time, folks, in a batshit crazy version. The Atlantic had an insightful piece on it. This new effort to control and direct language and writing isn’t to change the manner in which the larger culture speaks, writes and, by extension, thinks about others, it’s designed to protect and coddle and, alas, the movers are my friends on the left.

Psychologists have, since the PC movement began, studied the impact of “microaggressions” and “implicit” prejudice. Both of these “soft” forms of bias occur without the speaker being aware they have used a term or made a statement that another might find upsetting and which, some argue, reveal an underlying ethnic, racial or gender bias. Such language, the argument goes, can “trigger” off an unpleasant or unwanted emotional reaction. Because these unintentional verbal slips can disturb others, this new PC movement has swept across the very landscape where it should have been resisted, college campuses.

How nutty can this get? A group of Harvard Law students requested that the section on “rape law” be dropped from the curriculum because it violated the feelings of women students. A professor at Northwestern was subjected to an internal investigation over an article written for the prestigious Chronicle of Higher Education because she attacked students’ “sexual paranoia.” An adjunct professor at the University of Central Florida was suspended because he joked that he was “killing” his students with all the homework assignments. English professors now warn students that they may find some words offensive in the writing of Twain or F. Scott Fitzgerald. At Brandeis even a poster designed to raise consciousness by listing the “trigger” words and phrases that Asian-American students might find offensive was subjected to attack because it, in virtue of its existence in a public forum, was a violation of Asian-American sensitivities. The university ordered it removed and apologized publically.

This, sports fans, is nothing short of censorship, an infringement on 1st Amendment rights, a sullying of what it means to teach and a violation of academic freedom. It is also not the way to run a university where one of the central tenets has always been to confront ideas, discuss the controversial, debate and critique the uncomfortable thoughts and theories of others.

What’s doubling disturbing about this weirdly protective movement is that it relies on one line of research about the harm of implicit prejudice while ignoring a much more important field of study into the long-term impact of inappropriately protecting students from reality.

Yes, it can be useful to see college as a time of quiet reflection, a period in one’s life where they are free to learn, explore and engage. But it is just weird to expect them to learn, explore and engage when they’re being shielded from any minor offense, any word or picture or reference that might trigger off even the most fleeting unsettled emotion.

Unfortunately, this movement is still gathering steam. In legal realms where speech is both protected and controlled the line separating the two is moving. Because, as noted at the very outset of this essay, words can cause genuine pain, there are legal boundaries in place. The Departments of Education and Justice guidelines used to state that speech that a “reasonable person” finds to be “objectively offensive” may be deemed harassment and restricted.

Recently, in response to this virulent PC movement, this guideline was changed so that speech that an individual finds “unwelcome” can be regarded as harassment. The “reasonable person” test is gone and a simple, subjective, individual emotion has replaced it. The result is, of course, that everyone in education is on high alert for even the most benign utterance or reading assignment can trigger off something in someone.

And, of course, the right wingers are just loving this. In their world view this is just another reason to dismiss progressives as a bunch of molly-coddling dogooders who can’t or won’t face reality. They’re attacking “big government” (again) because the DOE and the DOJ have inserted themselves into our lives by shifting their classifications of unacceptable speech. They’re calling for the reformation of universities and colleges to include more teachers with conservative credentials.

Update (9/3): And, alas, The Donald has seized on the idiocy of this new PC movement. Assaults on polictical correctness appear in virtually every speech, attacks on crackpot liberals who want to censor ordinary folks are sprinkled throughout his press conferences and the progressive wing is made to look like a bunch of mewling babies who can’t handle even the simplest verbal assault. It sure as hell isn’t helping our cause.

It’s really getting ugly out there.

---

[1] Both The New Gamblers Bible and Poker, Life and Other Confusing Things were written in gender-neutral language, a fact which even my editor didn’t notice.

Planned Parenthood, the Current Misplaced Fuss

With all the fuss being made these days by the phalanx of GOP primary candidates over Planned Parenthood (PP) it’s time to keep a few things in mind.

First, the claim that PP must be shut down because they “traffic” in fetal baby parts is ridiculous. The right wing has been after PP for years and this unfortunate event is merely the latest cover story for the ongoing assault.

[Update: It turns out that those videos seemingly showing callous PP employees discussing the sale of fetal tissue were edited, so much so that the independent firm that carried out the investigation said they are useless as revealing anything that might be true. This was not an instance of independent investigative reporting; it was more of the same.]

Second, the focus on abortions performed at PP clinics is wildly misplaced. PP is a large, health-oriented organization that specializes in “planning for parenthood.” It provides essential health services in over 700 clinics, mainly to women, primarily those who cannot afford private care and those who find it difficult to get advice and counsel on matters like birth control and sexually transmitted diseases.

The best estimate is that over 3 million women visit one of the their clinics every year and close to a quarter of all women in the country use PP’s services sometime in their lives. It does abortions, safely, legally and cheaply but abortions account for between 2% and 3% of all of its activities and no federal funds are used (a fact conveniently omitted in the wild rhetoric being tossed around by the GOP candidates). The notion popular among right wingers that they are abortion mills is nonsense. FWIW, PP also provides birth control services to men through vasectomies.

Third, for those who are unhappy about abortions (and, frankly, no is comfortable with abortions), keep in mind that providing free or inexpensive sex education and birth control is the single most effective factor in lowering abortion rates. If the GOP gets its wish and PP is defunded there will be a dramatic increase in unwanted pregnancies, an accompanying increase in abortions and a concordant decrease in women’s reproductive health.

Fourth, the anti-abortion movement claims to be motivated by concern for the unborn, for the fetus, for the child. These high-sounding ideals are bogus, a flimsy cover for a deeper truth: forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is punishment. In their benighted ideology, any woman who has become pregnant without an express desire to have a child has sinned and the crime is to be paid by having to bear, raise and support the unwanted child.

If the true concern was for the child then the GOP would be leading the charge for sex education, freely available birth control, pre- and post-natal health care for mother and child, full funding for Head Start, pre-school and after-school programs, paid maternal and paternal leaves and funding for day care organizations.

Of course, the right-wing supports none of these and, in fact, works actively to defund those that exist — which, of course, is behind the push to break the back of Planned Parenthood.

Barney Frank put it best, “Republicans think life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

Washington State Tax Nonsense -- Via Doug Ericksen

The state of Washington is, finally, generating respectable tax revenue. The reasons are many and include increases in jobs across the state, taxes from the legalization of recreational marijuana, recovering private sector business and increases in property values. Time, you might think (if you think my kind of thinking) for us to get back to doing what we’re supposed to be doing: repairing and upgrading the infrastructure (roads, bridges, our ports), fully funding education, expanding health and other social services.

Alas, not if you’re State Senator Doug Ericksen (R, Lynden) a member of ALEC and a slick talking, wholly owned subsidiary of the oligarchy. Ericksen looked at the growing revenue and immediately proposed tax breaks!

Currently the state is under a court-mandated order to fully fund its schools. In fact, the failure to do so has brought a fine of $100,000 a day until the funding is authorized. The transportation system has continued to slide as Olympia hasn’t been able to agree on how to budget the state’s needs. And Ericksen wants to give the money back.

What is the matter with these people?

Hillary's Mistake

Hillary was the obvious front runner for the nomination in ‘08. She lost. She’s been the clear front runner now and, frankly, is in danger of losing. She made a mistake in ‘08. She’s repeating it. It’s not an obvious error but it could prove fatal and her goal of becoming the first woman president may crash on the rocks of a brutally honest, self-proclaimed socialist just like it splintered on the shoals of a young, silver-tongued Black Senator who wooed us with transformative visions.

The mistake is thinking that governing has anything in common with campaigning. As First Lady, as Senator from New York, as Secretary of State Clinton was on the governance side of the game. She learned that to govern, legislate, negotiate you must be careful, balanced, nuanced. You need to take stances with firmness and thoughtfulness. You cannot be rigid. Compromise works where bluster does not. Give-a-little, take-a-little works where inflexible demands and lines in the sand do not.

But the primary game is a different game. It’s a game of bluster, of the dramatic one-off, the headline-capturing frozen moment. It is image and press-worthy statements and style, where blatant honesty, forthrightness and an unshrouded “here I am, take me” style is effective.

Yes, of course, the unofficially anointed boring prig in the middle often gets the nod (Dukakis, Bush I, Dole, Gore, Romney) but when these cardboard character types lose they lose to candidates who come across as uncompromising candidates who offer themselves as themselves — even when that self is outside the media-sanctioned mainstream (Bernie Sanders) or outside anything anyone has ever seen on the national stage (Donald Trump).

This is not new. Goldwater won the nomination by being Goldwater, an unabashed conservative who was unafraid to say things that his base believed and loved but others were unwilling to utter. FDR played a similar role from the other end of the political spectrum.

Will Bernie pull off an Obama? I don’t think so but tighten your seatbelts it could be a bumpy ride — especially if Hill doesn’t cut loose from the sandbags that are weighing her down. The “distrust” factor looms large with Clinton. It comes from the sense that she’s always being a bit guarded, a tad removed from the moment. You look at her, listen to the presentation and find yourself ignoring the words and wondering just how much of it is little more than a crafted appeal-to-all cover story. Passion? It a0in’t there and that folks, may turn out to be her fatal flaw.

Could Sanders win the general election? Against Trump, yes. Against Bush or Kasich or Walker? I shudder at the thought.

Lefties Driving Lefties Crazy -- As Only They Can

We’re used to seeing nutballs on the far right drive away moderates who once were their allies. We’ve watched the crackpot wing of the GOP take control of the agenda and their old friends scatter like cockroaches when the lights go on. A neighbor revealed yesterday that after forty years with the GOP he’s now an Independent because, “my party got hijacked by sick people.” Next year he may be a Democrat. Who knows.

The GOP my friend once embraced was the party of Teddy Roosevelt, of Dwight Eisenhower. Now it’s the party of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The party of TR and Ike was worthy of respect, of measured debate over policy and process. Now it’s a cartoon, worthy only of disdain. If you ask someone who thinks of themselves as progressive or liberal what they think of the GOP you don’t get measured opinions about Ike or even Bob Dole or Thomas Kean. You get rants about Rubio’s climate change denials or Walker’s willingness to watch a mother die before allowing an abortion.

While I do get a kick out of what surely looks like political suicide, I’m concerned when my friends on the left do things that drive away their own. I’m not thinking here of radical minority movements like embracing Stalinism in the ’50s, the violent Weather Underground of the ’70s or today’s terrorist Animal Liberation Front. My concern is with positions taken by very smart people who think of themselves as sensible, albeit idealistic. Two of these drive me batshit crazy: insensitively imposing one’s own vision on others and political correctness. The first is here, the other on another day.

Imposition of vision: Why does the left do this? Well, because they cannot help themselves. They are smart (and know it). They think through an issue and come to a particular conclusion. They feel that it is right and, a fortiori, should become the standard model.

As misguided as this is, it’s different from the right-wing’s MO. There, positions tend to be staked out based on ideology and faith and buttressed, not by logic or measured argument, but by cherry-picking data and selective focus. There are good reasons why the left dominates in places where smart people congregate. Liberals are, indeed, smarter than conservatives.

Back in academia, I was our Department’s rep to our union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC). It focused on faculty rights and benefits, keeping workloads reasonable, raising salaries, improving the conditions of part-time faculty and adjuncts — standard stuff. Not surprisingly, the board was made up of well-credentialed left-leaning types.

No problem, right? Well, no problem with the usual lists of demands, no real problem with the focus on salaries and working conditions — though I thought there was occasionally too little attention paid to scholarship and too much to making sure everyone was treated equally.

I favored a merit-based salary scale. Egalitarianism is a worthy ideal so long as you understand that it’s based on a myth. I saw nothing idealistic about a professor who mentored PhD’s, had major grants and published regularly being paid the same as one whose contribution consisted of teaching the same dreary courses every semester because they were hired the same year. But that’s not the reason for today’s bitch session. Today’s rant concerns the manner in which the union tried to impose its standards and views on faculty and staff.

The PSC started addressing the membership as “Brothers and Sisters” and signing off with “In Solidarity.” The board began issuing statements contrasting faculty with the university administration as a battle between “Workers” and “Management.”

I appreciate that brother (and sister)hood is a lofty ideal, I grasp how important solidarity is to a union. I understand that I worked at CUNY but these words, dragged from the world of linguistic political correctness, just felt wrong. And I knew they were going to backfire.

Politically, I was on the same page as my friends on the board. Pragmatically, we were worlds apart.

Over time problems emerged. Many faculty, even those with progressive views started getting antsy. If I didn’t like being called “brother” you can be sure that I was not in the minority. If I took umbrage with treating scholars who took administrative positions as though they had somehow changed their values and goals and became “management,” you can be certain I was not alone. The President of the college was a good friend. He didn’t go into administration because he wanted to screw faculty. He was as opposed to how the real “management” folks, the business men and women who sat on the Board of Trustees, were acting as the PSC was — and he got seriously pissed when they labeled him “Management.”

Many faculty stopped coming to union meetings. Conservative groups initiated efforts to take over the PSC. The unity the union sought was degrading  before their eyes. Idealistic, unthinking Lefties were turning long-standing liberal supporters into enemies — and doing it by violating the very principles they themselves got elected on: inclusiveness, protection of minority views, egalitarianism. It was weird.

I retired in 2005. Many of the same folks still hold positions in the PSC but the language of their materials seems more moderate and inclusive. I don’t know what happened in the past decade but the fact that the crew didn’t get voted out and none of the less desirable alternative slates took over is a good sign. Maybe they are no longer driving away their once and future colleagues. Maybe a lesson was learned. Maybe ….