Ending political correctness

[realFedUp]

I guess I've gone down a rabbit hole lately but
it does seem that the Democratic party should lose
some of it's political correctness to attract those
who feel disenfranchised. Those of us who want
things "righted" after everything Bush Inc. has
done, can only do those things after winning.

I know we want to keep races above board and
about the issues...but many people don't vote
on the issues but on the personality of a candidate.

I think we should take some pages out of the
Republican playbook and worry about the correctness
after we've won.

Opinions?

[Punkingal]

1. I'm with you....

we're too darn nice all the time. They know Bush lies all the time...why don't they say so? Edwards could have said that on MTP this morning, but he didn't. (I don't mean to single out Edwards, I just happened to see it this morning, and that came to mind.) We need more comments like Clark made last week, something about Bush "prancing around in a flight suit." I don't care who our candidate is, but he (or she, if CMB happens to win) needs to really take the gloves off.

[Maple]

2. You want to go back

to calling people names and using racial slurs??

[realFedUp]

4. not in here....

:-) coz you know what would happen....
I don't think we have to call names but use more
soundbites that are true.

[Scott Lee]

11. You clearly didn't read her post

I see nothing in there that called for "name calling" and use of "racial slurs".

What Punkingal did call for is some brave honesty in confronting Bush. Bush LIES. It is not name calling to note this without hesitation, and show evidence of it.

Or we could just go your route, and bend over asking the GOP "Thank you sir may I have another" after every strike of the whip?

[Maple]

24. Oh I read the post

It called for a removal of 'political correctness'

Which means name calling and racial slurs.

If the poster meant simply fighting back, they should have said so.

Perhaps if people knew what 'political correctness' meant?

[Iris]

27. Maple - I finally agree with you!

[candy331]

3. I agree and have stated

this several times here. Dems have to realize that we are in a fight for survival not just for the party but for the country. I am really scared for the dem party staying on the same course that it is on, seems bound for self destruction.

[election_2004]

5. What do you consider "political correctness"?

In what ways do you believe the current Democratic Party has been acting too "politically correct"?

[realFedUp]

12. definition

and this isn't from a dictionary...but to me the
Dem party sets bar at a height that is good
for the soul of America, but may not meet people's real
needs for inclusion. I don't want to sound like
I'm in favor of lowering the standard for truth,
justice and the American way...but

we need to explain to people who haven't been
voting Democratic why their lives would be better
off if Dems were a majority in office. Make
some clear distinctions. Maybe I'm flip flopping
again here...I'm not exactly sure what I mean
by losing some political correctness...
maybe someone else has a good explanation.

[election_2004]

19. I can't disagree with that...

But I wouldn't define what you're referring to as "political correctness."

[realFedUp]

21. I guess it's a sense

that we are the way and if someone can't
get on that path, he or she isn't welcome.

It's a kind of eliteness I guess. Of course
the Republican party certainly has that also,
but they appeal to people's fear more than
hope.

Maybe that's the difference...Republicans
keep people with fear and Dems keep them
with hope.
This is all kind of thinking out loud.
Glad others have input on this subject.

[library_max]

26. That's ideological purity, not political correctness (n/t)

[Padraig18]

6. I absolutely agree.

It's long past time to talk about things we have all avoided talking about because we wanted to be PC; the sheer number of 'elephants in the room' has grown over the years, and it's time we recognized that fact.

Open, honest dialogue about the '3rd-rail' issues will get us one hell of a lot farther down the road to a win than will the deadly silence we have been practicing for 20+ years.

[Selwynn]

7. I don't want things "righted" more than I want to be right..

well, that's not completely true. It's not that I just love standing on principle for principle's sake. It's that I don't actually believe we can "right" things without a revolutionary progressive change of direction that some would call "radically liberal." And while yes, I will vote for any democratic nominee over Bush as a tiny step in that direction, I do not believe that the answer for the Democratic party is to keep pretending to be everything it isn't, but instead to stand strong for the things that is is, and work persusively to change minds.

Now that said, there is a different between trying to appeal to different demographics or cultures and trying to hold each view of everyone else. If Democrats want to work on ways to persuade souther voters that democratic and liberal progressive principles are right for them, great. But if they want to pretend like the democratic party really isn't about liberal progressive principles and is just another branch of the Repbulican party, then I have a real problem with that.

I don't want Democrats that say "we're willing to be pro-life, anti-progressive taxation, pro-coprorate cronyism, anti-civil liberties, anti-justice, anti-minorities, anti-women, pro-unlitaeralism, pro-imperialism for your vote! Just vote for us and we'll be whatever you want."

I want a party that says, "this is who we are - if you expect something different when we take back Washington, you should vote for somebody else."

[realFedUp]

20. No, I agree with you

We should be the party of reproductive choice whether that's
choosing to carry a pregnancy or terminate it in an early stage.

We should be the party that ensures that every citizen
has equal rights.

We should be the party to make sure environmental standards
are met so clean air and water are passed on through the
generations.

We should be the party that keeps the Constitution whole.

We should be the party that reaches consensus by diplomatic
means first.

I'm not advocating turning into the Republican party but
reaching out to those who haven't been part of our base...

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. It seems that you are getting your wish

All of the moneyed candidates have taken great pains to reword without altering the PNAC strategies, they all support the Patriot Act, they can all be counted on to continue making the defense and energy industries strong, and minimal if any changes to US foreign policy.

One of them has already announced that he will opt for unlimited campaign spending, and another is apparently about to.

All are fully in line with the bipartisan policy of unconditional support and unlimited funding for whatever the Israeli government wishes to do to civilians in Palestine.

Things are looking good for finally putting a Democrat face on the PNAC strategies!

[Selwynn]

13. They all support the partiot act?

I was under the impression that Clark at least, was on the record against it. I thought Dean too... do they not count as moneyed candidates?

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. Neither has said that they would repeal it

Clark has criticized some aspects of it, Dean is on record as saying, post-911 that some re-evaluation of civil liberties is appropriate (not an exact quote, I'm sure his supporters will be happy to provide links and explanations of why this is best for all).

The short version: Despite an unprecedented situation, both domestic and foreign, it appears that it will be a very ordinary, business as usual election, a disappointment for those who had hoped for a political solution, but terrific news for those who prefer putting a little makeup on the status quo without rocking the boat.

Whichever candidate is appointed, the one thing we can be sure of is they will have better reading skills than bush, and project a much more telegenic image.

[Marion Delgado]

9. First, focus on eliminating "bashing"

I.E. We lose tons of votes whenever we imply that men are morally inferior to women, and I see that all the time. Identity politics that's stereotyping of men, or for that matter, "straights" or whites, loses votes, and doesn't gain a single vote from the people you're theoretically pandering to -- because they're still going to want something substantive.

On the other hand, when Trent Lott said it was too bad Strom wasn't president, we stood up to him. I think lots of people would call that political correctness. But we were standing up for minority voters, not saying white people are stupid. And it worked very well. Similarly, when people say something needs "balls" I usually try to say it takes "guts" or a "spine" instead, and I don't chime in on the "pink tutu" thing either. I won't put up with man-bashing, period, because a reaction to that is the heart and soul of Rush Limbaugh's appeal. A positive defense of women as having courage, that it doesn't take "balls," I think doesn't lose any support, from anyone, as long as you don't make yourself Language Cop for other people.

Also, in point of fact, the straightjacketed people, right now, in the 2000s, are the conservatives. They aren't free to think outside the free-market fundamentalist paradigm, aren't permitted to question whatever idiot candidate the RNC hands them. Clear Channel tells them what to think, FOX News what to think about. RW Political Correctness is as bad as anything on campuses in the 70s and 80s on the left, and it extends out to most of society.

So those would be my rules:

1. Control your own behavior, first, and set an example, vs. policing others, and you can be pretty "PC" without losing support.
2. Support whom you want to support, never backhandedly by bashing the people that aren't them.
3. We need to think in terms of offense as well as defense, and embarrass the conservatives with their own political correctness, at the same time as we work on our problems.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi Marion Delgado!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[realFedUp]

16. nicely written and welcome to DU

thanks for your thoughts.

[bearfartinthewoods]

10. i'm confused with your use of the term political correctness

can you give me a definition as per your post?

[JackRiddler]

14. Can you specify?

I think you're implying that the Dems should openly call out Bush and Co. for the drunken, lying, cowardly Chickenhawk, spoiled, criminal, stupid-moron pack of secular pirates, cold paranoid spooks and religious fanatic crusaders that they are, but I'm not sure. Maybe you're still being too politically correct here?

[Kamika]

18. I really agree, we lose because ppl think were too elite

They reason were elitists.. with all our pc..

They will Say they rather vote for Bush that can say he believes in Jesus then some elitist guy that says youre not alloved to mention jesus because jews or muslims might get sad.


Even if they dont agree on Bush's politics they vote for him in pure spite.

[bread_and_roses]

22. The phrase itself

has been used to denigrate and demean what should be ordinary courtesy to individuals, routine inclusiveness, and straight-forward acknowledgement of already-existing diversity. Nor do I think the Dems mealy-mouthedness on critical issues has much to do with political correctness: I think Ductapefatwa nailed that pretty much on the head. However, if you are saying that it would be refreshing to see the Dems call a lie a lie, which is how I interpret your post, then I am in full, 100% agreement.

[realFedUp]

23. while I agree....

we HAVEN'T been totally inclusive of people with
differing opinions....the Republican party hasn't
either but we are fooling ourselves if we think
we've embraced people with differing opinions.

The point is to talk about broad issues that
do affect the broadest range of people...get
them where they live.

[Isome]

25. I think Political Correctness is amorphous.

Acceptable or unacceptable language (or ideas) is dependant upon which group's voice can be heard over the din of the others -- it's usually the group in power.

For example, with the cheap labor conservatives holding the cards right now:

• It's not politically correct to mention anything concerning race, or to refer to any one or any thing as racist.

  That includes mentioning affirmative action, systemic/institutionalized racism, discriminatory hiring, predatory lending, racial profiling, etc.

• It's unacceptable to be against displaying the confederate battle flag.
• It's frowned upon to be for a woman's right to choose.
• Espousing the idea of using tax dollars to fund social programs is derided in a number of ways.
• One can never be too circumspect when discussing U.S. military aggression. No criticism is valid, but in a pinch, it must be prefaced with "I support the troops..."
• To bring on the wrath of the entire rabid wing of the GOP, all one has to do is express concern for global warming or any other nonsensical environmental issue.

In my view, the initial definition of political correctness was nothing more than being tactful and considerate of others. Being in the majority in this country, caucasians tend to be unaware of what is offensive to those who are not, ergo the need to weigh the words & racial classifications used more carefully, so as not to cause their fellow Americans to think they're being marginalized. Since the GOP has gotten ahold of it however, like many other things they distort for their own purposes, it's become something altogether unrecognizable, and in a constant state of flux.