On Spiritual Correctness: well, I had hoped to create a well thought out essay on this subject, go through several revisions, then post it. Ha! Yea right! Here it goes anyway:

In my last post (click on the journal link above), I lamented the outcome of the election and I was really saddened about the rhetorical and topical vapidness found in the presidential debates, and in general, the discourse of political talk amongst friends and acquaintances. Combine this with the rise of the fundamentalist (some would say radical) right who espoused “Moral Values,” it led me to a startling conclusion/point of action: semantic revenge!

Everyone has heard of Political Correctness, correc….I mean, right?! Political Correctness, or PC, has a derogatory connotation when used in almost any casual or political conversation. Any conservative or libertarian will start a sentence with, “I know it’s not very P.C. to say this, but….blah blah blah!”

What exactly is P.C.? At it’s basic level, it’s a way to communicate with people in a sensitive way. It doesn’t always succeed, but it’s an honest effort to treat people with respect and dignity. For example, calling a kid, “a retard” is not P.C., because that kid is special or maybe, handi-abled. I don’t think anyone will argue against the merits of communicating in this fashion: it’s a lingua franca for relating with people who are different from yourself and deserve dignity without sounding like an idiot. Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t always succeed (like calling someone short, vertically challenged), but it’s an honest effort!

However, it’s been blown up to encompass anything that’s a liberal ideal! From environmentalism to accepting the rights of same sex partners, any liberal notion is considered derisively as “P.C.” Not only is this an abuse of P.C.’s original intent, but it’s just another example of the shallowness of the current political debate. By assigning a label to a cause/belief, it is belittled.

Why/how did this happen? I think it arises out of the right’s inability and frustration to control the linguistic/semantic debate (i.e. who sets the meanings for words used in a political debate) from the 1970’s to mid-1990’s. During this time, it was the Democrats and the media who set the tone, and it was hard for the right to get in a word edgewise.

However, two things have happened since then: the Pro-Life Movement and the Fairness Doctrine’s repeal in 1986/corporate takeover of the media. With the Pro-Life movement, it opened the door for the right’s M.O.: rhetorical entrapment! Yes! For example, “You’re not pro-life?!! Are you telling me that you are against life!!” See how insipid and shallow that remark is as it glosses over a substantial debate on a woman’s reproductive rights! Another recent example is “Personal Accounts.” A phrase that the right uses to endorse the idea of privatizing social insurance (throw in the word “crisis” and people go nuts! Maybe I should try this in my dating life! My love machine is, indeed, in a crisis! Nuts, I tell you!). Combine this with the legalizing of journalistic laziness and corporate oversight of the editorial process (i.e. repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which required all broadcast news to present both sides of an issue, and let me throw in the DMCA for good measure), and you have a dangerous situation: the debate is controlled by the lowest common denominator. Who is it? The Right who, we all know, kowtows to religious and corporate interests! Unfortunately, this should not be news to anyone who has been paying attention the last 9 years, and if not, you’ve been suckered into thinking that Fox News practices journalism and that Rush is a voice of moderation! However, the end result is that it’s not only acceptable, but profitable to be non-P.C.: even though being P.C. had nothing to do with news or political debate in the first place…and now it is, unfortunately.

At it’s root, the revolt against P.C. stems from our individualism as Americans: we don’t like to be told what and how to talk! But seeing how P.C. is more of a social protocol and not a political one, I don’t think that sentiment is well founded. But since it’s now political….

I know you’re thinking, “Where the hell is he going with this?” Ha!

Since P.C. is politicized, I’m going to introduce my semantic revenge on the Right: Spiritual Correctness. Yes! S.C.!! At it’s root, Spiritual Correctness is an ecumenical protocol. It’s a Christian’s desire to do right in the Big Guy’s eyes. And there’s nothing wrong with that! Heck, a Christian should know if she should rest on Sunday or Wednesday! In fact, Jesus was my kind of liberal! Do unto others as you would do unto yourself, the rich die spiritually poor, and turning water to wine (Partay!).

Unfortunately, not everyone is Christian, and more importantly, a Christian can take what’s in the Bible and try to force it on others. At it’s root, being spiritually correct is not a bad thing for your personal life: it’s a problem when it becomes political! As such, I’m politicizing S.C. And as we all know, the Right is trying to politicize Christianity by:

giving money to “faith-based organizations” or in common terms, Christian Churches! Oops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

“defending marriage!” But, gays and lesbians deserve equal rights and that straight couples aren’t going to file for divorce anytime soon to take same sex lovers (well, Jerry Falwell might)! Ooops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

endorsing “Creative Design.” Even though it discriminates against non-Christians/atheists and has no scientific value! Ooops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

endorsing a “pro-life” stance! Even though it would set back women’s health care and reproductive rights back to the late 19th century! Ooops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

I could go on and on! I know saying that Bush is the worst example of a Christian, isn’t very S.C., but what the heck! I’m on a roll! Being S.C. is a bad thing because, (in my best old 49′er/John Ford movie accent) “Dagnabbit! I don’t want no mamby pamby religious wacko telling me what I can do or what I can say! hhmmpf! They’re always sayin do this and don’t do that!” Ha! How many times have you heard a modern conservative say that about liberals!?

Now I want to challenge all my liberally minded friends to pick this up and use it derisively whenever debating with a Republican. Drive them nuts!! Pound it home! Because we all know, substantial debate is a waste of time!

(It’s called irony folks.)