Political correctness held our bipolar society together

Now adays, the term political correctness is associated with the left and cancel culture. But the term political correctness was used long before this phenomenon, and it was an unspoken rule observed by people from both parties. The general idea is that, when you live in a democratic country where there are many people who are different than you, there are just respectful ways to say things, and times you shouldn't.

Political correctness is why they say not to talk about politics and religion at the dinner table, why racial slurs became offensive, and why presidents had to keep their obscenely bigotted thoughts coded and downplayed. Because there was an expectation of decorum for elected officials, which they often assumed they had to respect in order to maintain their standing with the public and so it goes.

Political correctness was not always a tool of the left, and at its heart, it is truly more of a centrist concept. It's how people with different views could coexist without grieviously offending one another.

Now, once critical theory became more popularly embraced on the left, and social media algorithms created echo chambers for both sides, the left began to respond to people violating these unspoken rules by 'cancelling' them. And that list of rules grew as critical theory made people aware of the prejudices we used to take for granted. Then, all of the sudden, political correctness became politicized and associated with the left.

And how did the right respond? By doing the opposite, as always. Being actively anti political correctness.

But y'all. It was that common decency that held back the force of this dramatic polarization we see today. Political correctness was objectively good. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with 'woke' or 'cancel culture'.

I'll conclude by referencing a popular show: King of the Hill. If you've seen it you know Hank Hill is a real traditional guy who is baffled by the liberalization of society, often leading him to reject these things at first. But by the end of the episode he always finds common ground, and something to appreciate in the people he at first thinks are just too wierd. Why did it work out that way? Because he adhered to the unspoken political correctness traditions of basic respect which, he knew well, held the American system together which he so loved and revered.

Those are my thoughts.

 

It's the politician's job, to defuse the potential for conflict so that people of different traditions, cultures and opinions can co-exist in relative peace.
I believe it is 'populism', manifested in the USA by Trump and in the UK by Boris and the ERG, that has (metaphorically), blown that decrum, relative peace, apart.

And of course, creating division; that provides the landscape for politicians and parties, to deflect from the main issues, to wind up the public so they get re-elected. It's all about them and not what's best for the country.

 

Excellent points! But while I generally agree with what you're saying about the decline in norms of civility, I think we need to draw a distinction between civility and political correctness. The former was a set of unwritten norms of propriety that evolved over the centuries and decades to constrain actions that could lead to division. The latter is a more recent development in the seventies, eighties, and after, resulting from the social and cultural revolutions of the sixties. It was consciously developed by groups determined to change previous ways of using language, coupled with insistence that others adhere to the changes or be hectored for not doing it. In other words, its a difference between the customary norms of civility and compliance with new ideology formulated by an intelligentsia. The old-style norms of civility were taught mainly by mothers and grandmothers and practiced by savvy, patriotic politicians of the day. Mothers and grandmothers of the early post-World War II era taught kids which fork to use at formal dinners, when to curl their pinkies, never to talk about interesting things like politics and religion in public, and to refer to persons of African descent as "Negroes", but never the other N-word ending in "er". Politicians would exchange heated comments, but were also willing to compromise with adversaries and have lunch with them. It wasn't perfect, but it was relatively peaceful. The new style political correctness tends to be more confrontational and can provoke hostility and backlash.

The sixties brought about revolutionary changes in politics, culture and morals. In the early sixties, the hippies--ex-beatniks on psychedelics--launched a counter-cultural attack on conventions, making the F-word, sex, drugs, bathlessness, and other previous "no-nos" increasingly acceptable. And there was the Civil Rights movement, which started out moderate in the days of Dr. King, but became radicalized by the Black Power movement after 1965, as adherents became impatient with the more sedate pace of change. Among other things, the new consciousness concluded that there needed to be a change in vocabulary, reflecting the new consciousness of identity. "Negro" was no longer acceptable. Supporters must now call them "Black". But in a few years, that, too, was out, and "Afro-American" became the label of choice--followed in 1973 by "African-American" after Jesse Jackson began popularizing it. (Yes, I know, the term was in use as early as the eighteenth century, but it became "politically correct" in the 1970s and '80s.) After 1965, the anti-war movement gained steam thanks to the draft and television, and propriety became identified with the corrupt Establishment that brought the war about. The Black Power movement became the model for other marginalized groups to assert their rights in the 1970s and after--including changing and enforcing language and labels. Feminists insisted that women be called "Ms." Homosexuals insisted that they were "gay" or "queer" (a previously pejorative term). And now transgendered people insist on being addressed by their pronoun of choice, some of which didn't previously exist in the English language. The concept of "microaggressions" entered the vocabulary in the1970s — coined by Harvard University professor Chester Pierce to describe the subtle, everyday ways that Black people (and other minorities and women, as well) experienced discrimination from their white counterparts. Columnist William Safire (2008, Saffire's Political Dictionary) identified Bambara's The Black Woman (1970) as the first usage of the term "politically correct" in its modern sense. (It had previously been used pejoratively to denote rigid authoritarian ideologues like the Nazis and Communists, and self-satirically by practitioners to acknowledge its excesses).

These developments made sense in the context of symbolic measures to provide new positive identities for women and minorities beginning to assert their rights to define themselves. Yet there were consequences that, in light of other developments, contributed to the existing controversies over the issue. As the Democrats and their progressive backers sided with civil rights, right wing politicians like Nixon were able to use opposition to African-American advancement as a wedge issue to lure Southern racists into the Republican Party (the so-called "Southern Strategy") . After Reagan's victory over the Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 and his emasculation of the labor movement, the working class became increasingly available for redirection and alienated from the Democrats, whom Republicans easily characterized as catering to women and minorities. Unable to win on economic issues, Republican politicians turned to cultural ones, portraying the Left and the Democrat Party as being led by upper class coastal urban elitists who look down on farmers and the working class, and have the temerity to tell them what language they must use. The Clintons, especially Hillary, became the embodiment of this in Republican demonology.

 

...

 

Alcohol is so much less exhausting than politics.

 

Poor Bud Light. I never saw that comercial with Dylan Mulvaney. The last time I saw a Bud commercial Spuds McKenzie was riding a skateboard. Havent seen any coke or pepsi comercials lately either.

I never saw the Bud Light can with the photograph of Dylan Mulvaney at the store. It was a private issue. That beer can would be worth a million dollars.

So why the complaining about a private commercial on social media?

Those poor shareholders, used to booking thier dividends each quarter. Twas not a growth stock but they enjoyed economies of scale, existing plant capacity and a reputation; even with market share trending down. Now they have have huge losses and Anheiser Bush is laying off workers.

Our modern media can gin up outrage but lacks prespective.