Political correctness has become Public Enemy No. 1 . . . if you’re a Republican Party presidential candidate.
Those GOP debates have featured full frontal attacks from the candidates on that nefarious character called political correctness.
It gives them license, I suppose, to say whatever they want regardless of its offensiveness, ignorance or stupidity.
I want to take up for political correctness as it’s been defined by those who blame it for every national ailment under the sun.
I know. You’re surprised beyond belief.
Political correctness is not the bogeyman that candidates have identified as the enemy. Yes, there are times when PC language can go too far, when people who use it do so because they are afraid of committing the slightest offense.
But the anti-PC rhetoric we’re hearing on the campaign trail is aimed at candidates who insist that there should be nuance when talking about international diplomacy. They level their verbal fire at candidates — and current officeholders — who decline to use certain language to describe the enemies with whom we are at war. They seek to attach the PC label simply to those who choose to disagree with them, with their gratuitously harsh language.
So, the enemy now becomes political correctness.
The audiences who hear the candidates lambaste those who prefer to speak more precisely cheer them on. They like what they consider to be “bold” rhetoric; others of us watching and listening from the political peanut gallery would describe it more as “reckless.”
From where I sit, reckless rhetoric can — and quite often does — lead to consequences that produce lots of collateral damage in places where it’s hard to repair.
So, when I hear presidential candidates lampoon political correctness from their opponents, I am going to presume for the rest of this election cycle that those who support them accept the bluster that pours out of the candidates’ mouths.
However, will they accept the potential consequences that it produces?
