There’s a common phrase used to describe blunt honesty, avoiding deference to others’ sensitivities: “Call a spade a spade”. The phrase entered English in 1542 when Nicolas Udall translated Erasmus’ mis-translation of Plutarch. Why am I telling you that? Because the phrase is now often avoided in the US because “spade” is a racial slur, even though there’s no connection whatsoever (the slur entered usage in 1928—nearly 400 years after the phrase entered English).Time was, I’d gladly take on board all the guilt that goes with being a white liberal, and avoid even the most tangential or irrelevant possibility of saying or doing something that might possibly make me seem illiberal (like, for example, avoiding using that phrase). I was, to use the popular phrase, “politically correct”.
These days, I despise the phrase “politically correct” because it’s so meaningless and intellectually sloppy, especially for the right who use the phrase to brand anything and everything they don’t like, or they say it’s “PC madness” or “PC run amok”. They’re too lazy to think of an original way to criticise the ideas they don’t like, so they dismiss them out of hand in the same way christianist fundamentalists dismiss criticism of their agenda with the equally stupid and empty phrase, “Christian bashing”.
I’m every bit as committed to the liberal ideals of freedom, fairness, justice, tolerance and diversity as I was in my youth, but I’m no longer willing to sit by and let others on the centre-left say or do something daft just because they’re on the centre-left. That’s what’s been behind my recent posts in which I’ve openly criticised my fellow liberals.
If something’s stupid, it’s stupid, and it doesn’t really matter which end of the spectrum it comes from. Quite frankly, I expect stupidity from the right, but when they’re correct about something, I’m not afraid to say so. Similarly, I won’t pull my punches when the centre-left gets it wrong.
However, I’m primarily a pragmatist and there are times (like before elections) when it doesn’t make any tactical sense to be overly critical of my side nor too complimentary of the other side. Most of life happens away from elections, and that allows otherwise partisan people like me be a little freer in our critiques.
Any casual look at the political posts in my archives will show that, even away from elections, I’m far more likely to be critical rather than complimentary of the right, and the opposite for the centre-left. As much as my fellow liberals may annoy me sometimes, and although I may sometimes think they’re on the wrong side of an issue, I nevertheless think they’re correct more often than not—which is why I’m a liberal in the first place. But that doesn’t stop me from calling a spade a bloody shovel (a variant of the phrase recorded in 1919, by the way).
3 comments:
Great post.
But I have to admit. Half the time the 'christianist fundamentalist's are just saying things like "PC Madness" and "Christian Bashing" because they are being overly dismissive...
And the other half of the time they are being dead-on accurate... which is why such phrases are so infuriating to most liberals.
And I back this up with the point that sooooo many liberal folk (especially a lot of gays) are willing to just knee-jerk assume that things Christian/conservatives are doing are based in myopic hatred or scurrilous misinterpretations of belief combined with some compulsion to maintain 'moral order'... which some do, but not nearly as much as the attackers let on.
I really like your reference to "intellectually sloppy"; I thing that correctly assesses much of the PC nonsense.
Epilonious: I agree with you up to a point. I don't like it when the centre-left (and gay activists in particular) criticise all fundamentalists or all Christians in the way you say. It annoys me for the same reason I don't like the phrase "politically correct"—it's intellectually sloppy.
That's why on this blog, and in my comments on others, I always use the phrase "christianist" to mean politically active people who use their religion as their focus. These people are, more often than not, on the right, but to be clear I usally use modifiers like "far right".
I mention all that because on the whole, I think that most of the christianists who come in for criticism from activists on the centre-left deserve it. The people I'm talking about say outrageous things about public policy or political issues and if someone on the centre-left dares to disagree with them, they scream "christian bashing". Maybe both sides are as bad as each other.
I also agree that not all fundamentalists are filled with hate, but so many practice it that it's hard sometimes to remember that some are just misguided, according to my belief structure. That goes for their biblical interpretations, too. Maybe that's a post in its own right.
The main thing I disagree with is that pretty much by definition a fundamentalist wants to maintain a certain "moral order" that more moderate people—even religious ones—wouldn't necessarily endorse.
At any rate, a little more precision on all sides would be helpful!
Frank: Yeah, I think it sums up both sides of the phrase—those who use it and those who practice it. Actually, I realised that the phrase "intellectually sloppy" is at the core of most of the political criticism in my blog posts: I criticise politicians or organisations or activists when they're "intellectually sloppy".
Welcome back to commenting, by the way!
Post a Comment