Discussion? Yes. Politically Correct? Not so much.

Caution - both the text of this post and a linked video contain (a limited amount of) crude language.

Leading up to the election, I heard people on the right say that "political correctness" was a major problem.  This baffled me; having lived in Santa Cruz and Berkeley, I am very used to political correctness, and while I think of it as sometimes annoying, I didn't understand how it could be a major problem.

The pat response from the left to this criticism was that if you did not like political correctness, it meant you were racist or sexist (or otherwise an asshole), and were trying to get back to a time or place when it was okay to be openly racist or sexist.  While that may be true for some people, it seemed off to me - too simplistic, too designed to make the (politically correct) leftist feel superior to those complaining about political correctness.

Then I watched this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs  (Go ahead, watch it now - it is very entertaining. But maybe not in an open plan office...)

He makes a number of good points, the main ones to focus on here are: 1) arguments are not won by hurling labels and insults, and 2) the key is discussion, to engage and debate.

I realized that the right has a valid point, because political correctness cuts off discussion and debate.  If I, as a white(ish) male, said: "I think affirmative action has not been an effective remedy to discrimination," how long would it be before I was told that I was being racist, or sexist, or trying to uphold the patriarchy or protecting my privilege?  My guess is not long at all.  In short, I would be told that I cannot talk about that issue (with the narrow exception of unequivocally supporting affirmative action).  If I talk about the issue, and take any position other than total support of affirmative action, I am an asshole. As an asshole, I should not be engaged or debated - the appropriate response is to condemn and dismiss me.  The result - no discussion.

I have tried to have political discussions or debates or arguments, particularly on facebook.  Sometimes there is real engagement, but too often someone on one "side" or the other (more about the whole idea of two "sides" later) starts throwing insults or calling people names.  And it is not just individuals - during the campaign, the Huffington Post starting putting an editor's note at the end of every election-related piece that said: "Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist..." etc.  If I am trying to debate or persuade a Trump supporter, the presence of this note (even if true) means that I cannot use any Huffington Post piece to try to persuade them, because I have started off by insulting the candidate they are supporting, and by implication, insulting them as well.  Why would they want to engage with me?  Right-wing web sites often do the same or worse.  The result? No debate, no discussion.

The other thing that happens is that people avoid debate or discussion, cutting off or excluding those who disagree with them. (Perhaps sometimes out of fear it will devolve into name-calling and insults.)  I had a facebook friend (also a long-standing friend in real life) apparently remove posts I made in which I disagreed with her about the pink hats worn at the post-inauguration women's march.  If we can't even discuss hats (or allow dissenting voices to be heard), how can we discuss more serious issues? Again the same result - no discussion.

So how did we get here?  Part of the answer lies in the divide-and-conquer approach of the two major parties and their corporate backers, who have figured out how they can hold on to power at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent and serve.  We fall all too easily into the sports fan model, where one team is "ours" and the other team is, well, the "other."  (Some call this a "tribal" system.) We get to pick sides in fights over things like which bathroom transgender people can use, or whether NGOs that get federal money can talk about abortion in other countries, or whether we should have some sort of gun control laws, or how the health insurance industry will profit off our sickness. 

Granted, these may not be trivial issues - you have to give the fans something solid enough to root for.  But what has either party done about the really big things, like income inequality or climate change or pollution, the things that might threaten their corporate backers' bottom line?  I know some of you will insist that the Democrats are good, or at least better on these issues.  Somewhat better does not equal good - how has the Obama administration done on antitrust enforcement, pushing back on too-big-to-fail financial institutions?  What did Obama try to do to alleviate our huge income inequality, and the resulting lack of social mobility? And how environmentally friendly was his 'all-of-the-above' energy policy?  The biggest difference between the Republicans in the Democrats is how they will fuck you.  Do you want it hard and fast? Vote Republican - they want to get off as quick as they can.  Do you want it slow and gentle? Vote Democrat - they are hoping you won't notice you are being fucked, so they can keep doing it longer.

With a team mentality, you will find yourself tolerating (or even applauding) dirty play by your own team that you would condemn when done by the other team. And the sports team approach is exciting, and hard to avoid when you constantly see things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u4v4imS81w 

It is easier to just cheer for what your team wants than it is to take a position based on principle.  But it results in hypocrisy, like supporting "states rights" only when the states in question agree with you, or decrying the President's use of executive orders only when the President is from the other team.  It is very much like being a Patriots or Warriors or Cubs fan - you are with them and root for them, and there is no point in debating or discussing things with fans of opposing teams.  With politics, it is even worse, since there are only two major parties, and they want you to believe there are only two choices - they want loyal fans, not independent thinkers who question them.  They like the fact that if you buy into the my team/their team mentality, there is no room for debate or discussion.

So what to do? Come together.  Come together with Trump supporters and Muslims, Republicans and Democrats (both Bernie and Hillary supporters), rich and poor, Mexicans and WASPs.  But when I say "come together" that does not mean concede, or go along with the Trump program.  It means to connect with other people. The Trump supporters that voted for him because he said racist and sexist and xenophobic things you probably can't reach, but the Trump supporter that voted for him in spite of the fact that he said racist and sexist and xenophobic things you may be able to reach.  And I think there are a lot of those, who desperately wanted a change, who decided that the frying pan sucked, so they would try the fire. 

But how to come together?  First, tell stories about people achieving things together.  Remember, these are the UNITED States, and we are at our best when we pull together.  Tell stories about courage, about people who stand up for or help other people, about immigrants being welcomed and succeeding, about Muslims and Christians and Jews coming together, and more.  Stories about hope, about goodness, about selflessness.

Here are some tips from a Venezuelan, based on their experience with Hugo Chavez, a populist who became authoritarian with disastrous consequences for his country.  (The headline is misleading, but the content is interesting.) https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/

And this from Rev. William Barber on bringing people together: https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/vb.407570359384477/882940655180776/?type=2&theater

We need to have discussions about issues, not arguments about positions.  We need to ask questions and listen to the answers instead of cheering and booing.  We need to figure out what we have in common with other people, and what we as PEOPLE want or need, rather than what industries or corporations want or need.  If we can do that last part, then it is easier for people to come together to decry Trump, or congress, or other politicians (of any party) when they are doing the bidding of corporations instead of people.

But this is just a beginning.