The Truth About Political Correctness

This candidacy will self-destruct in five seconds... Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina imploded on the Glenn Beck (pictured left) radio program ... when she said she didn't have an opinion on whether the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Medina, who has literally come out of nowhere to quickly become a legitimate candidate in the Republican primary, first laughed when Beck said he had received emails from listeners saying she was a "9/11 truther." "That's the first time I've heard of that accusation," she said, not exactly denying the charge. So Beck asked her straight up: "Do you believe the government was in any way involved in the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?" Easy answer, right? Nope. "I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard," Medina replied. "There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that." That answer caused a stir in the studio. Beck quickly followed up by asking her if she would disavow any of her staff if they were "9/11 truthers." "Well, you know, that's a federal issue. We're very focused on issues in Texas, on Texas state government," she said. "I'm certainly not into mind control or thought policing people. We've got a very diverse team in this state and that's because Texans are standing shoulder to shoulder to support and defend the Constitution. I frankly don't have time, you know, to go through and do psychological testing on people and know every thought or detail that they have." – Christian Science Monitor

Dominant Social Theme: Crackpots come in all colors and sizes.

Free-Market Analysis: The Glenn Beck program has provided us with an instructive lesson on the nature of modern political correctness. This article will use Beck's behavior, as related above, as a jumping-off point to analyze the term within a 21st century context – at a time when the term, in fact, is a little less popular than it used to be. Perhaps the leftwing of Anglo-American axis is less powerful than it used to be, and thus inspires less animosity, or perhaps other media concerns have become more compelling. But the point we want to make is most pertinent, we think, and much larger than points that have been made about political correctness in the recent past.

This is indeed a term that became very popular in the later 20th century and yet was in a sense indefinable except as a collection of mores that seemed vaguely leftwing. Of course back in the early 20th century political correctness was indeed a socialist and even communist preoccupation. One WISHED to be political correct to fit into those organizations. The pejorative odor came later. We looked up political correctness in Wikipedia just to see how it was defined. Here's what we found:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts. In current usage, the terms are almost exclusively pejorative, connoting "intolerant" and "intolerance" whilst the usage politically incorrect, denotes an implicitly positive self-description. Examples include the conservative Politically Incorrect Guides published by the Regnery editorial house and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. Thus, "politically incorrect" connotes language, ideas, and behavior, unconstrained by orthodoxy and the fear of giving offense.

In Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist vocabulary, correct was the common term denoting the "appropriate party line" and the ideologic/ "correct line". Likewise in the People's Republic of China, as part of Mao's declarations on the correct handling of "non-antagonistic contradictions". MIT professor of literature Ruth Perry traces the term from Mao Zedong's Little Red Book (1964).

The New Left later re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical self-criticism; per Debra Shultz: "Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives . . . used their term politically correct ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts". Hence, it is a popular English usage in the underground comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, while ideologically sound, an alternative term, followed a like lexical path, appearing in Bart Dickon's satirical comic strips. Moreover, Ellen Willis says: " . . . in the early '80s, when feminists used the term political correctness, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement's efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality'."

Nobody really seems to like the idea of political correctness a whole lot. Yet it can still be argued that the term even today defines what can and cannot be argued within the "mainstream" of the Anglo-American media (and European media as well, of course). Here are issues that we would argue ARE politically correct. Beck touched on one of them in the Medina interview: US government culpability for 9/11 is NOT up for discussion. Adding to the list, we would offer the following (just for starters): That ...

• Al Qaeda IS a valid international terrorist force; 

• Israel is NOT an aggressive and even hostile theocracy; 

• the Anglo-American axis is NOT an aggressive force for war in the world; 

• the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan WERE justified; 

• national defense and national security CANNOT be a part time civil responsibility; 

• the environment IS degrading; 

• public education cannot EVER be eliminated; 

• regulation WORKS; 

• government is OBVIOUSLY necessary; 

• public service is ALWAYS important; 

• the world is TERRIBLY overpopulated; 

• the world is on the BRINK of running out of food and water; 

• public/private central banking CANNOT be eliminated; 

• paying taxes is NEVER, finally, a waste of money; 

• no CORE service provided by Western governments could be done better and more efficiently in a competitive and private manner.

To return to the lead of this article, there are plenty of PUBLIC red lines that media and government proposes, and in his Medina segment, Glenn Beck was very clear about one of them – you don't question whether the American government was involved in 9/11 if you want to run for public office. What is also clear is that after Beck conducted this interview, the backlash began. Medina has apparently surged in the Texas polls and Beck himself has been excoriated for "ambushing" Medina and asking her questions about an issue irrelevant to Texas politics.

And then there is this found in the feedback queue in response to a CBSNews.com story on the Medina Beck controversy, "Debra Medina Says Comments on Glenn Beck Show about More than 9/11:"

By Judiladybug February 12, 2010 4:28 AM EST ... A VERY interesting development happened right after Debra Medina's interview with Glenn Beck. Friends from Austin, Houston, Dallas & Fort Worth began getting robo calls from not only Perry but Hutch. They started within an hour or so after the Glenn Beck radio show, guess what enlightening news they had to share? That Debra Medina was not a worthy candidate because she is a 9/11 Truther. Wow!! Isn't that interesting. How was Mr. Perry's team so ready to start a massive robo blitz with this new Truther news so quick? Looks like someone is getting scared, and that he had a little help from a friend. Some coincidences are just too coincidental to be brushed aside. I am not any more of a Truther than Ms. Medina, but I have friends that feel that certain things don't add up with the 9-11 facts and questions OB's birth certificate. Everyone has a right, not an obligation to question everything going on in our country.

Throughout the 20th century, and into the 21st, power elite promotions were so powerful, threatening and effective, that people – businesses, too, and, of course, government – carefully self censored, even when they could not explain how and why they came to their self-censoring determinations. This was the ultimate triumph of elite promotional memes – they exercised an iron-clad hold over people's imaginations and internal life. Yet of course it would be the Bell's argument that all of that may be changing now as the Internet-driven conversation continues to rapidly expand.

Conclusion: The ongoing implosion of the global warming meme is perhaps a sign of what is to come. And so is the Medina interview on the Glenn Beck radio program. We've predicted that even the 9/11 meme would eventually come under fire, along with the endless and devious justifications for various Western national security and government military industrial complexes. The idea that only big government, spending trillions on domestic spying and overseas military campaigns, can properly defend Western citizens against terror attacks is the most well funded and well promoted elite promotion of the 21st century. But even this dominant social theme may be destined for the fate of global warming. Just give it time. And Beck, too.

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.

View Feedback

Reply from the Daily Bell:

We have written about 9/11 on numerous occasions. We do not believe the official story. No one who investigates it could. The 9/11 Commission has disavowed parts of it as well.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

The Internet will not let 9/11 rest, unfortunately for those who have concocted the official story.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Who is doing that?

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Yes, but he always hid it well. It seems the game may be up - not for his guest but for him.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

A well presented critique. Thanks.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

In listing the various PC concepts - as we did - the ones you have commented on, we in no way endorsed them. You did understand that, didn't you?

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Is the race in Texas about who is the most politically correct?

Exactly! This is why Beck's attack on Medina will likely fail. The race in Texas is about many things, but the proper "official" perspective that candidates should take about 9/11 is far down the line, we would think.

Having stated this, we will take the opportunity to re-emphasize that Glenn Beck is being politically correct (hewing to a power-elite meme) by refusing to entertain questions about the improbable official story about 9/11.

Medina, within this paradigm is the "politically incorrect" one. Of course she then issued a statement denying her political incorrectness:

"'I have never been involved with the 9-11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9-11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way."

Again, we don't think this issue should matter much either way to voters. But its re-appearance in a major political campaing might be seen as bad news for the powers-that-be that are apparently getting increasingly paranoid regarding questions about 9/11.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Interesting observations.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

We are most complimented that you would make such a suggestion. And please see tomorrow's Bell for a commentary on the very issue regarding Ron Paul that you have just written about!

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks for the kind words. We are equally educated by our readers and feedbackers.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Well, thanks, Mr. Perry. However, while we are doing well, we are not at one million viewers, or even near. We do have a quality readership though! See our article on Beck and O'Reilly tomorrow - an how Fox is sacrificing theirs.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Sir, we reject your allegations. You seem to be implying that we have accused the US government of some sort of direct involvement in taking down the World Trade Center on 9/11. We have done no such thing. Please point out where we stated this.

We have certainly indicated that there are serious questions about the 9/11 story as concocted and presented to the public via the 9/11 Commission report. However, that is not exactly "news" as several members of the Commission itself have written books recanting the report and in at least one instance stating the Commission was lied to at every level by the US government, the Bush administration and US intel agencies.

In fact, you seem to be unaware of statements by the 9/11 Commission regarding their failed investigations, though you claim to be a libertarian and a minimalist - and one who has investigated 9/11 for himself.

Essentially, you accuse us of something we did not report, and then inform us that - because of it - you will not read the Bell again. This strikes us as a literary version of Joseph Heller's Catch 22.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

If you are addressing the question to us, we have no answer for you - nor should we.

The Bell is a free-market paper involved with economic analysis and secondarily with socio-political commentary. We are not an investigative commission, and it is not our responsibility to "solve" 9/11. We HAVE pointed out a number of times that there are many unresolved questions about 9/11, and that the questions will grow continually louder because of the Internet.

9/11 Commission participants such as attorney John Farmer have written books claiming they were lied to by the Bush administration, the military and intel community, etc. - and this, too, is problematic when it comes to closing the books on 9/11.

For national commentators like Glenn Beck to simply slam the door on further discussion while there are so many unresolved issues seems to us both unrealistic and destructive to civil comity. Given how many people according to surveys don't believe the official story, or think there were aspects left out (building 7, etc.) it might be a good idea for government to re-address outstanding issues.

At a time when so many are distrustful of government handling of the economy, etc. this might help the federal government regain at least a small measure of credibility - or at least be seen as addressing a measure of public concerns.

Here are the results of a 9/11 survey from Scripps in late 2006. We hardly think attitudes have improved in America since this survey was taken.

------------------

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy ...

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

------------------

Bell: A third of adult Americans is probably some 60 million.

------------------

And here is an excerpt from a review of John Farmer's book (Salem-news.com):

In John Farmer's book: "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11," the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes. ...

-------------------

Bell: Was the federal government involved in 9/11? From the standpoint of covering up whatever actually happened, Dean Farmer seems to think so. The solution is to address the issues clearly and responsibly and resolve them credibly.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thank you.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

It only goes to show what we have maintained all along. That in the era of the Internet, treating 9/11 like the Kennedy assassination - ignoring it until people "move on" is not an option. 9/11 is reaching a critical mass on the Internet. Every aspect of the current "accepted" explanations have seemingly attracted questions. And the questions are coming from respectable and official quarters, including the 9/11 Commissioner themselves.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

1. We have never claimed that 9/11 was directly the work of the US government. We have written many times that the current story does not hang together - as indicated by statements by the 9/11 chief counsel that the committee was lied to by the Bush administration, Pentagon, intel agencies, etc.

2. Promotions are difficult to analyze, but there is a big difference between a power elite promotion, which consumes significant resources and others. The differences should be obvious to anyone who looks closely.

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.