THE DEPLORABLES, HATE SPEECH, AND PC CULTURE

Emotions are high. Some have called for assassination. Madonna confessed she had been thinking to “blow up” the White House. What has de-legitimized this election and this nation?

I think that we can place part of the blame on the alienation and marginalization caused by our PC culture. Adam Tucker laments that:

·       According to Campus Pride, “safe zones” are needed because LGBT students need to know who on campus is safe and supportive.” Wesleyan University in Connecticut has a building called Open House to serve as “a safe space… [for] generating interest in a celebration of queer life from the social to the political to the academic.” (Christian Research Journal, Vol. 39, #06, 60)

Well, what’s the matter with this? Should not the vulnerable be protected against offensive ideas?

There is much the matter with this, especially at the university where diversity of opinion should be the stock and trade of higher education. For one thing, preference for one set of ideas over others or one set of students over others represents a rejection of equality and justice. This amounts to favoring some over others, disenfranchising one group of students in order to favor another.

Favoritism separates and breeds suspicion; equality and justice provide trust and common ground where we can all stand together, sharing the same freedoms of thought and expression.

For years, PC has slammed those who have expressed un-PC thoughts, sometimes banishing the un-PCs from university, business, and employment. They became the “deplorables,” a description which they gladly accepted. Why? Because this is what they had been experiencing for years. The term simply brought to light and made tangible what they had been thinking all along.  An angry backlash was inevitable, and it ushered into the presidency a highly improbable candidate.

Meanwhile, the PC media will not accept responsibility for the alienation, polarization, and the widening divisions within our nation. Instead, they continue to rally around the PC idea that they are merely crusading against “hate speech.”

What is “hate speech?” Even the Bible has been accused of “hate speech” by the PC culture. Why? Hate speech is offensive speech, and people have a right to not be offended, right? Certainly, needlessly offending others is not acceptable. However, charges of “hate speech” are also offensive “hate speech.” It’s like the person who charges, “You have no right to judge me,” while they too are judging. This is nothing short of hypocrisy.

However, this hypocrisy has become a hallmark of PC culture. The university student is no longer allowed to express their opinions against same-sex marriage, abortion, or transgenderism. Why not? Because it offends! However, the “deplorables” are offended by this unjust oppression. Why is this offense not taken into consideration?

We need to find a way for all of us to live under the same roof. Favoritism only alienates and embitters. We need to return to the democratic principles that had once made this nation great – justice and the freedoms of speech and religion.

Moral Unworthiness, Self-Righteousness and the Need to Endure Self-Examination

A polarization of dust-bowl dimensions is sweeping the West. It is not simply the product of growing philosophical differences, but also an absolute contempt for those on the other side.

Why do these differences have to result in contempt and intolerance? Is there hidden psychological baggage that has commandeered this often lethal engagement? Philosopher Charles Taylor thought so. Around 25 years ago, he astutely wrote:

• The threatened sense of unworthiness can also lead to the projection of evil outward; the bad, the failure, is now identified with other people or groups. My conscience is clear because I oppose them, but what can I do? They stand in the way of universal beneficence; they must be liquidated. This becomes particularly virulent on the extremes of the political spectrum.

•  Many young people are driven to political extremism, sometimes by truly terrible conditions, but also by a need to give meaning to their lives. And since meaninglessness is frequently accompanied by a sense of guilt, they sometimes respond to a strong ideology of polarization, in which one recovers a sense of direction as well as a sense of purity by lining up in implacable opposition to the forces of darkness. The more implacable and even violent the opposition, the more the polarity is represented as absolute, and the greater the sense of separation from evil and hence purity. Dostoevsky's Devils is one of the great documents of modern times, because it lays bare the way in which an ideology of universal love and freedom can mask a burning hatred, directed outward onto an unregenerate world and generating destruction and despotism. (“Sources of the Self,” 516-517)

Where does this “sense of unworthiness” come from? Our conscience is pre-packaged with high moral ideals of love, truth, and justice – ideals to which we inevitably fail attain, and we know it. How then do we deal with our resulting, crippling sense of moral failure and unworthiness? We have many strategies:

1.     DENIAL – We merely suppress this painful awareness.

2.     COMPENSATION – We convince ourselves that we are good and worthy people, perhaps through positive affirmations or by surrounding ourselves with others who will affirm us.

3.     RATIONALIZATIONS – We can either tell ourselves that everyone is garbage or that there are no objective standards by which we can be judged.

4.     SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS – We perform good deeds to convince the world (and ourselves) that we are really superior to the vast majority. We also denigrate others in this process.
 

The latter is the most dangerous form. It is what impels young people into what Taylor labels as “political extremism” and “implacable opposition.” This demonizes the opposing party to the extent that the self-righteous believe that they must be eliminated. After all, they represent the forces of darkness and the self-righteous have convinced themselves that they are the forces of goodness.

In contrast to this, there is healthy, necessary, and humble idealism. This idealism is not achieved by convincing ourselves that we are better than others, giving us license to subjugate or eliminate them. Instead, this is an idealism that is cognizant of ourselves and our underlying self-serving motives to use a legitimately righteous cause to promote our self-esteem at the expense of others.

It is also an idealism that is willing to endure continual self-scrutiny, knowing that we are capable of the same evil, which we decry in others. It is also willing to place the welfare of others – even that of the “bad guys” – on par with their own.

But how can we endure this painful light of self-scrutiny or how many of us solicit honest criticism? Few! While many of us claim that we want wisdom, we are not willing to pay the price.

Three thousand years ago the enlightened King Solomon wrote about the free offer of wisdom and its rejection:

Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD,

They would have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke.

Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies.

For the turning away of the simple will slay them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them. (Proverbs 1:29-32)

With our denial, rationalizations and self-righteousness, we ultimately destroy ourselves. Wisdom comes at a price – the willingness to hear the painful things that it says to us. Consequently, we readily reject it in favor of something that feels good. However, Solomon’s father – David – knew better and asked his God to examine him:

Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-24)

We should do no less!

Incivility, Polarization and Death

I am shocked by the level of hatred I find on the net. Here’s one example of a dialogue based upon an Atheist Facebook posting:

• Prayer is like masturbation. It feels good for the person doing it, but does nothing for the person they are thinking about.

Sometimes, I just like to inject an alternate point-of-view. Here’s my response:

ME: It depends on to whom you are praying!

ATHEIST:  In case you haven't noticed; you're not welcome here! This is an atheist page, you can go elswhere if you don't like it! Why don't you go to your own dumb christian page and fucking stay there? How about that? And stop stalking us like some retarded internet pervert, you're even worse than them! Noone cares for what you have to say, so just go away!

ME: I am sorry to be the cause of consternation. Either you un-friend me or I'll un-friend you if that's what others want.

ATHEIST: First of all, we're not friends, second, which part of get the hell out don't you understand? This is no place for you, none wants you here, so go preach on your own page and leave us alone.

ME: You're speaking for others, but where are they?

This is not unusual. Actually, it’s almost representative. Interestingly, the respondent is a woman.

What does it suggest? Well, for one thing, it reflects the growing antagonism towards our faith. Jesus warned us about this:

• "All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.” (John 16:1-2)

It also reflects something else – the disintegration of our once great civilization. We are a body fighting against itself – no, warring against itself. In contrast to this, the late French scholar, Alexis De Tocqueville, wrote (cir. 1830) about the strong sense of mutual responsibility, common morality, and cohesiveness that the American people shared. He tried to fathom the basis of what he observed:

• I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. (Democracy in America)