I avoided writing about Donald Trump for as long as I could. It’s pointless to comment on all of the outrageous things he says, for obvious reasons. He’s a sensationalist just to be a sensationalist. As Trump said in Gwenda Blair’s 2005 book about him, “Master Apprentice:” “If I get my name in the paper, if people pay attention, that’s what matters.” The media fervently reports on him, but trips around him like he is a spoiled child. They talk about giving him less attention, but aren’t really quite sure how to do that while he keeps spitting out egregious statement after another.
“Carnival barker” as he may be, he’s held the frontrunner spot in the race for Republican nominee for President of the United States for more than 100 days, which is no small feat. It’s worth taking a look at his supporters, many of whom consider his offensive statements to be “politically incorrect,” which is part of the big draw to him. Trump has said himself that he is “so tired of this politically correct crap.” He frames it as not having “time” for niceties — an excuse for him to just blurt out the “truth” (or what his supporters view as the truth) however it may come to him.
The disdain for political correctness comes out of the same embittered source people draw from when they talk about millennials being coddled — the same rally against trigger warnings and sensitivity to hearing upsetting things. Trump is a really extreme version of this — there are people who are not Trump supporters who are still dismissive of political correctness — but it’s something he’s taken and run with, citing it every time people get upset over comments he makes.
Usually, this gets a favorable response from supporters, but the question is: how far is too far? Many people are offended every time he opens his mouth, but there have been a few instances of the conservative masses pushing back, and it’s worth looking at what those remarks have in common.
The first was in July, when Trump refused to call Sen. John McCain a war hero because McCain was captured in Vietnam. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry called for Trump’s immediate withdrawal from the race, saying it was a “a new low in American politics,” according to The Washington Post. A couple of months later, Perry slammed U.S. President Barack Obama for “political correctness expected of a Harvard professor” in a speech given to the Eagle Forum. We see there is a line drawn there for Perry in what constitutes political correctness and what is just insulting.
A more recent example is Trump’s mockery of The New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski’s congenital joint condition. Howard Kurtz, a Fox News media analyst, said he “hoped” that Trump wasn’t mocking Kovaleski’s disability, saying Trump had gained “great ground” for mocking the media in the past, but added “it’s evident he stepped over a line.”
We wouldn’t argue that either of these appalling incidents crosses a line, because of course they do. But why is the line drawn here? There is something to be said about the fact that there is most pushback from within the party when Trump insults white men with disabilities. Granted, this isn’t a totally universal phenomenon. When Trump made a sexist remark about Fox News host Megyn Kelly, many of his fellow presidential candidates came to her defense.
And yet, while Trump is perhaps the most outlandish when it comes to “politically incorrect” statements, his fellow GOP candidates have forcefully added this battle to their repertoire. During a two-hour Family Leader Forum, Ben Carson called political correctness the “greatest moral threat facing the nation.” Ted Cruz chose to invoke “A Few Good Men,” saying PC protesters “can’t handle the truth.” A total of seven candidates identified political correctness as a major national threat.
My question is this: If the GOP candidates really are valiant knights off to slay the dragon of political correctness, why are they selective when it comes to who gets the politically correct treatment? If you’re really going to hit that point home, it’s worth finding some degree of consistency.
To put it bluntly, they have time for political correctness when it’s about nice white folks, but when we’re talking about Black Lives Matter or transgender rights, it’s okay to make unilaterally damning statements and shrug off these issues as just hurt feelings instead of meaningful, nuanced problems we ought to discuss. If we’re talking about the Syrian refugees or immigration, it’s the same: remove all nuances. Attacking politically correctness is becoming just an excuse to say something blatantly offensive under the guise of being honest.
Look, I’m not saying we can’t have an educated debate on what constitutes “political correctness.” And that’s the problem. The term is so overused it has become meaningless. When it’s used to do everything from patronize college kids to analyze what kind of war we’re in, I think it’s time to expand our vocabulary — or even better, discuss the meat of the problems at hand fairly instead of blowing them off as the scruples of those who are too sensitive.
There is no nuance about the issues. There is very little nuance about anything. That’s the problem. You want people to believe there is more to the story when there is not. The word nuance makes me sick. You don’t even have a clue what it means. It’s become a buzz word. The MSM and Democratic party has decided that we should take in refugees from the Middle East and grant citizenship to illegal aliens. They have decreed it. And it doesn’t make any sense, most of all to their constituents. However, that was the never the point to begin with. You have no free thought. You have no analytical skills. You just do what they tell you to do and live the consequences. If there was any nuance to ANY of this garbage, you would have explained it. You either can’t or simply refuse to do so.