Political correctness--useful or destructive?

Disagreement and conflict are by-products of a democratic society. Therefore, if a democracy is to flourish, citizens have to learn how to resolve differences between competing interests. In Civics, we teach students about the necessity of consensus building, negotiation, and compromise in the public debates that shape our country. Inherent in this process is the public’s ability to listen to a variety of points’ of views and to speak civilly to those with whom we may disagree. Aristotle understood this ideal and it is reflected in one of his more famous sayings—“the mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it.” In the 21st century, we seem to have a shortage of such “minds”. In recent years our political discussions have degenerated into name-calling, insults, and personal attacks. Usually these behaviors are impulsive, unfiltered responses to issues that are dividing our nation. This political incivility, not exclusive to one party or group, jeopardizes the future of American democracy. How can we, as a nation, change the nature of our public debates?
Political correctness was idea promoted in the 1960’s to inject sensitivity and civility to our national discourse. Its initial purpose was to promote the “avoidance of expressions and actions that could be perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult people who were socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (Princeton wordnet.com). By adhering to this principle, political correctness served as a filter for our words. It demanded that people think before speaking. Is that such a bad idea? Apparently so. In recent years political correctness has been demonized. Its mildest critics claim that political correctness is a form of censorship. Our 41st President, George Bush stated that “political correctness began as a crusade for civility, but has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.” Other opponents of political correctness acknowledge its lofty objective, but feel that it only worsened the public debates. A Frenchmen, Jacque Barzun said that “political correctness didn’t legislate tolerance, but organized hate.” Are Bush and Barzun right? Has political correctness stymied an honest discussion of ideas? Has the promotion of acceptance and tolerance only help polarize hate? Consider some of the dialogue that has surfaced in our health care debate or our local school board meetings. Pictures of Obama as a witch doctor with the label “Obamacare” could be seen as one example of the absence of political correctness in our public debate. The cartoon—with its “witch doctor” is a not so veiled reference to Obama’s ethnicity and played on the racist attitudes of some Americans. Congressmen supporting the bill were personally attacked. Opponents to the health care bill called health-care supporter John Lewis (an African-American representative from Georgia) a “nigger” while Barney Franks , an admitted homosexual representative from Massachusetts, was called a “fag”. More troubling was the reaction of some politicians and news media outlets, who asserted these people have a “right” to express their opinions. Remember the First Amendment? Actually the First Amendment doesn’t protect people who use speech to defame people, incite violence, etc. I would prefer the “self-muzzling” of such words, but can we allow people to truly say what “they feel”? Consider our recent school board meeting when our School Board Chairman was heard saying—“they have let the animals out of the cages” referencing some public incivility towards a speaker who was supporting the Board’s policy of dismantling diversity. This comment was racially insensitive. Had Mr. Margiotta practiced political correctness, his comments would have been filtered, realizing his words were “racially-charged”. Reverend Barber, NAACP leader and opponent of the school board’s policy was equally uncivilized when he compared the school board to a “mafia” meeting—clearly insulting Mr. Margiotta’s ethnicity. Both men apologized—kind of—but the damage was done. Both sides became more polarized, lessening the likelihood of compromise by the two “competing interests”.
So where does that leave us? If we need dialogue, compromise, and tolerance to make democracy work effectively, is political correctness a viable solution? Does political correctness promote acceptance or result in censorship? It’s at these times I remember one of my mother’s best pieces of advice she gave her children—“if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” Maybe if we all practiced my mom's rule of civility, we wouldn’t need a policy such as political correctness. In the end we either have to monitor our own behavior or continue to subscribe to political correctness. If we do neither, public discourse will continue to deteriorate and democracy will be irrevocably damaged.