Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lemuel

Regulars
  • Posts

    327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lemuel

  1. If I had to define the term "political correctness" or "politically correct", I would thus: The strategic redefining of a word or phrase to suit a particular political agenda held by a person or party. Yeah, liberals are great at it, but political correctness isn't just a liberal phenomenon; conservatives practice it constantly. Just recently, the term pro-life became culture of life, intending to soften a vigorous anti-abortion stance, while broadening pro-life to include the terminally ill. Republican pundits will then turn around and invoke an accusation of "political correctness" whenever they feel liberals are attempting the same thing, like calling welfare a social program. (Welfare is a social program! Stop spraying your value-judgements all over me - I'm not an idiot!) Anything can then become "political correctness" in a perjoritive sense: - taking a popularly misused term and defining the reality of it (like democracy); - euphemistic language (Islamic fundamentalist or terrorist, depending on the desired reaction); - tact (using boy-crazy rather than slut); - legal responibility (defendant rather than murderer, to avoid slander allegations); and many other things. A good policy to adopt, in my opinion, is to constantly listen to a speaker and their language, and filter it through their agenda, especially if the speaker is charging another of being "politically correct". The term itself is intended to incite a particular response, so accusing someone of political correctness often is the best example of it's practice!
  2. Sadly, this is the reality of the Libertarian Party. Check out many discussion forums for Libertarians - like the one at www.badnark.org - and you'll see that there is a lot of disagreement about "hot" political topics. Look a little deeper, and you'll see that these disagreements flow from the lack of a "proper moral basis", or even a well-defined, axiomatic platform. While I personally agree with a majority of platform stances, and consider myself a (lower-case 'l') libertarian, and even vote libertarian, I find this lack of a solid foundation off-putting. It's as if the LP is a support group for disenfranchised Republicans, the same way the Green Party is for mega-liberals. The danger is that, if enough people who indulge in irrational political beliefs can influence the Party, then the LP could just become a sect of Republicanism. Libertarianism should not be about that at all. The LP needs a champion to not only clarify what the root libertarian positions are, but put them into a rational context in a manner that religious zealots and stoner hippies alike can understand. I remember reading somewhere that in the LP's early days, the Party founders wanted Ayn Rand's endorsement. Finding their positions weak and without a solid foundation, she refused, stating that she never would do so unless the political party was built upon principles of logic, reason, and practised a vigorous defense of laissez-faire capitalism. (Bear with me, I'm paraphrasing from memory here.) The LP refused, and Rand Shrugged. This party gains more visibility each year, raises very important questions about the nature of freedom, responsibility, and our own Constitution, and even provides some good surface-level answers. But the frustrating part is knowing that beyond the facade still lies a great deal of chaos and turmoil. Hopefully it's growing pains, though. The Party is 30-something years old, but it has yet to have a real, passionate, articulate, deeply principled ... and massively funded ... leader.
×
×
  • Create New...