Conservative's Conscience

Political Correctness and Associated Costs

Judging by the plethora of Supreme Court rulings over the years, an outsider would get the impression that Americans are psychotic about their insistence on protecting their extra-special right of free speech.  For example, the governing constitutional language that protects it ("Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech....") was, to those who wrote the First Amendment, designed to protect POLITICAL speech -- the right to peaceably dissent from a prevailing political position. 

The Court in its rulings has gone far beyond that straightforward objective, to such an extent that, for example, striptease dancing, foul language and pornography have at one time or another been accepted by it as examples of constitutional "free speech."

However, when, as they say, one lifts the cover and peers beneath, one finds that if free speech were measured in terms of gallons, Americans have been losing their right to it by the quart, every year for a half-century. 

Today we all know that to speak openly about any hyphenated-American is to invite classification as a heartless bigot, or a homophobe.  The latest example of this is any form of "free speech" that concerns the violent Islamists (practitioners of fundamental Islam) in the world and in this country.  The result of this attitude is the modern acceptance of restrictions on speech, popularly known as political correctness, defended on the grounds of compassion, etiquette or the need to promote multiculturalism. 

So, without help from the Supreme Court (which has become an out-of-control branch of the federal government, which routinely abrogates powers more properly assigned to the legislative and executive branches), free speech drifts away. 

Famous comedians of yesteryear who told (usually about themselves) hilarious ethnic jokes for a living would be stoned in today's politically correct world.  More importantly, the prevailing norms prevent open, robust, but civilized discussion of serious domestic problems.

The fear of speaking openly about issues that need discussion and resolution has also had significant cost internationally.  Arguably, for example, Islamists have weakened NATO more than the Soviet Union or Russia ever did.  And this will get worse as time marches on (Europeans are propagating at a lower-than-survival rate; Western Europe could be governed by Sharia law (Muslim law) in the next century).    

Most nations in Western Europe have large and growing Muslim populations.  Unlike the United States, where seven million or so Muslims are dispersed across the country, the European immigrants cluster together and, unassimilated, become nations within nations.  Their imams (prayer leaders in mosques with the political wallop of, say, ministers in America's black churches) are often Islamists who openly teach and preach revolutionary doctrine.  These groups are a constant source of worry and concern to political leaders.

If you believe internal pressures exercised by Islamists on, say, England, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have played no part in their weak-kneed responses to problems in the Middle East, you are dreaming; and if you believe European criticism of American foreign policy has nothing to do with internal Islamist pressure you are not thinking.    

We're seeing the same intellectual cowardice in the United States today.  Two startling incidents make the point:

o       Islamic prisoners have been held in a specially-constructed prison in Guantanamo Bay.  It's an ideal location -- no threat to Americans.  But, for political reasons (Islamic pressure?), it has become a target of those who (insanely) hold that these prisoners deserve the same legal rights afforded to American citizens.  President Bush buckled to pressure and agreed to close it; President Obama said he'd empty it by January 2010, but failed to specify what he intended to do with the terrorists.  A hint of his intentions has just been revealed.  The leader of the 9-11 group will be brought to U.S. shores and tried in a New York court as a criminal, defended by lawyers who are charged with the duty to get their client acquitted.  This decision to treat this terrorist as an ordinary criminal was made to re-establish the Clinton position that the United States is not at war with Islamists (wherever they are), but is instead dealing with a small group of gangsters who -- like Al Capone -- will one day be punished in U.S. courts, under the same laws and protections that govern Americans.  The hope is, apparently, that Islamists will appreciate this tender treatment of one of their own. 

o       A rogue Islamist officer in the U.S. Army recently murdered thirteen soldiers in Texas.  Throughout his career he openly showed his allegiance to Islam; he maintained active correspondence with an al-Qaeda leader.  As he was killing the soldiers he shouted praise to Allah, no doubt expecting he would soon be in the arms of the virgins in heaven, the promised reward for soldiers of Allah.  But he survived.  And the elite media is already full of psychological explanations for why the poor man went on this rampage.  Words like Islamist, terrorist and war are seldom uttered.  Fear is in the air.  Who will do what to whom if we execute this guy for being what he is? -- a one-man Islamist army who was caught. 

We have become a nation of wimps.

Those who deny the United States is in a war -- those who believe the bad days will be over as soon as bin Laden is caught, or as soon as a few hundred Taliban are killed -- are living in a dream-world.  Their children will be fighting this war.

This is overstatement?  Consider this: Extremists control Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and other smaller Arab and African countries.  Russia and China will never support us.  History is waving good-bye to England, France, Germany, Spain and Italy.  Central and South America are being radicalized; Cuba is still Castro territory; Canada is broke.                       

Keep your powder dry.