Herd behavior, political correctness and our Republic

Groups of people often emulate flocks of sheep. Sheep are not politically correct, but political correctness appears to be a subset of herd behavior.

In October of 2012 I wrote that Political Correctness is a Communicable Disease.

Political correctness (also known as rhetorical cowardice) involves being less than candid, not only about various protected classes but also about unprotected classes. Protected classes include some but not all members of racial (Black, Latin American and American Indian but generally not Oriental) and religious (e.g., Muslim) minorities, gender specific (Feminist and “gay”) and ideological (Librul) groups. Unpleasant truths must not be tolerated. Pleasant truths sometimes are not tolerated — although unpleasant untruths are encouraged — as to members of unprotected (conservative) religious groups (e.g., Jewish, Mormon, holy rollers  and Evangelical) as well as otherwise protected racial (Black and Hispanic) and female (anti-abortion) groups.

Unprotected classes generally include Whites, particularly rural Whites (“red necks,” “crackers” and those who “cling to their guns and bibles”) and conservatives generally.This definition of tolerance fits right in:

Tolerance (n,v): The acceptance of all left-leaning ideas regardless of any hint of radicalism or moral corruption. Right-leaning ideas, however, are not to be tolerated. Rather, conservatism is labeled as “bigoted.” (Synonym: Intolerance)

Please note the parenthetical observation that “tolerance” and “intolerance” are synonyms.

Is the disease curable?

I very much hope that Mr. Whittle is correct and that we will, indeed, drive the forces of political conformity into the river. Soon. My questions is, “will enough of us care enough to bother?”

Do “higher,” as well as lower education under herd common core, promote the common herd instinct of political correctness and apathy toward the state of our Republic? How about charter schools? Home schooling? Can they be different in good ways?

Receiving “benign” attention from Government has become all important. It seems to be politically incorrect to tolerate such “trivia” as individual freedom and other “flaws” embraced by the hateful old Constitution. Herd instinct leads people toward apathy about our Republic; how many even know what a “Republic” is? Might it be sorta like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? Our Republic, mandated for the United States by the Constitution, was not designed to be like that.

Jonathan Turley today posted an article titled A Republic if you can keep it. The entire piece is well worth reading, but here are some excerpts to suggest the article’s flavor:

Franklin’s words were more than a boast. They were a warning. The curious thing about a democratic system is that it contains the seeds of its own demise. Freedom is not something guaranteed by any parchment or promise. It is earned by each generation which must jealously protect it from threats, not only from outside, but from within a nation. [Emphasis added.]

Some 226 years after those fateful words were uttered, the true import of Franklin’s warning has become all too real for Americans. The last 10 years has seen the rise of a security state of unprecedented size and the diminishment of privacy and core protections for citizens. Recently, a federal judge ruled that the massive NSA surveillance programme was unconstitutional. US District Court Judge Richard Leon not only said that the collection of “metadata” constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure, but that the Framers like Franklin would be “aghast” at the very thought of it. [Emphasis added.]

The great irony is that the greatest loss of constitutional protections has occurred under a man who came to office promising to reform security laws and often refers to himself as a former constitutional law professor. An iconic figure for many liberals, President Barack Obama has divided the civil liberties community and expanded both the security state and his own unchecked powers. He has taken actions that would have made Richard Nixon blush – from warrantless surveillance to quashing dozens of privacy lawsuits, to claiming the right to kill any citizen, on his sole authority. He has also rolled back key international principles in expanding drone attacks and promising not to prosecute officials for torture. [Emphasis added.]

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham scoffed at the notion that privacy is even relevant since only a terrorist would object to such powers. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

In a prior conference, Obama repeated the siren call of authoritarians throughout history: While these powers are great, our motives are benign. So there you have it. The government is promising to better protect you if you just surrender this last measure of privacy. Perhaps we deserve little better. After all, it was Benjamin Franklin who warned: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin was prescient; we are giving up our essential liberties– not only for temporary safety but also for “good stuff” from a “benign” Government for “free.”

Perhaps Bruce Riggs in his article titled Leftism: a Radical Faith at American Thinker, is on to something:

In the broadest terms, this narcissistic entity [totalitarian religiosity] is America’s left-wing political establishment and the purveyor of an authoritarian collectivist faith.  It is a faith largely populated by those in the high-visibility, look-at-me intellectual professions of politics, the arts, teaching, journalism, and various political foundations.  All are professions inordinately able to shape the public mind both short- and long-term.  As such, it is a propaganda-intensive collective that includes the left-biased “news” media and the TV and film industries. [Emphasis and bracketed insert added.]

It is further asserted that the operating ethic of this narcissistic confederacy runs from feel-good, busybody, liberal condescension (we know what’s best for everyone) to the arrogance of the more radical (“progressive”) wing, for whom the ends justify the means.  Implicitly, such an ethic reflects an overriding need for power and control, which, along with lying, is a trait characteristic of pathological narcissism. [Emphasis added.]

Does the herd instinct promote the rise of librul totalitarian religiosity and the associated politically correct apathy toward our Republic? I think so. Are there cures for politically correct apathy? Of course there are: education and the media. Unfortunately, they generally lead toward, rather than away from, political correctness and all that it involves. A&E’s recognition that it had caused its own clusterduck, followed by its course reversal in response to massive popular protests, is the only notable recent exception of which I am aware. A&E’s recognition of its clusterduck was the result, not of a change in its ideology but by concern about substantial reductions to its all-important bottom line. There’s power in our ability to generate such concerns. We need more, much more. But how are we to get it?

Most people, I think, are reluctant to make controversial statements lest they become embroiled in controversy. It can be unpleasant, and unpleasantness must be avoided at all costs. Who wants to state — even the obvious — that the emperor is parading down the street in his underwear, when all “intelligent” people aver that he is wearing beautiful garments? Doing so would display one’s lack of intelligence — probably just a red-neck hick who doesn’t know any better.

I wish I could find and suggest a simple way to bring about “change that we can believe in.” Sorry, I haven’t thought of one. Perhaps readers will have suggestions on what we can and should do and how we can do it.