Yes, Political Correctness Helped Elect Trump: What Skeptics Need to Know

[EasyAce]

Was the 2016 election an anti-PC backlash? Here's the evidence.
By Robby Soave
http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/19/yes-political-correctness-helped-elect-t/print

McGill University political scientist and occasional Reason contributor Jacob T. Levy raises some good points in an
interesting but flawed piece for the Niskanen Center. Levy criticizes the notion that Donald Trump's election to the presidency
is a backlash against political correctness. He identifies me as one of the chief proponents of this theory, and accuses me
of succumbing to the "pundit's fallacy"—of attributing Trump's victory to something that I already thought was bad.

That's a fair criticism, and Levy has a point when he writes that I perhaps overstated the case for the backlash theory in the
headline of my post, "Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash." But in his zeal to
acquit political correctness, he misses some key details that make my theory more compelling.

"There is a powerful temptation to attribute the surprising and dramatic fact of Trump's win to some issue about which one
had some preexisting ax to grind," writes Levy. True enough, it's important to keep in mind that a variety of factors help
explain why Trump won the 100,000 collective votes he needed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And journalists
ought to be more careful about bias confirmation.

That said, if there's a danger in embracing the backlash theory because it confirms my negative impression of political
correctness, there's also a danger in rejecting the theory simply because one would prefer to see political correctness and
the related but distinct issue of identity politics as irrelevant, or even positive, social forces.

Levy writes, "A lot of butterflies flapped their wings to bring about the November 8 result, but we have particularly little
reason to think that [political correctness] was one of them."

Here I don't agree—in large part, because I've actually talked to Trump voters, and they give me every reason to believe
that political-correctness-run-amok caused them to vote for Trump. Indeed, they said so explicitly. Consider this email I
received from a 60-year-old Midwestern Trump voter:

I support most of the cultural revolutions that form the basis of the political correctness issue that
you raised. However the backlash for dissenting on certain items was incredible. For example, I
support gays marriage and transsexual people's rights. However, I do not support them to the
exclusion of other citizen rights. Without elaborating on my views… I will say that I was subjected
to a form of political correctness by friends and others that brooked no argument for the rights of
the others. This blind adherence to political correctness was my main issue in the recent political
arena.

He added that my article on this subject "captured my feelings succinctly" and that he voted for Trump "for the exact
reason you stated."

His was among a torrent of emails I received from people after I wrote that article. Another person, a 52-year-old self-
described hillbilly, wrote, "If you explain in a considered and respectful way why what I am saying is hurtful or wrong,
I will take it on board and try to change. If you talk down to me and tell me what a horrible person I am in the process
—maybe not so much." She continued:

Political correctness is NOT "being kind and having good manners". I am southern. I am always
kind and I have impeccable manners. What political correctness is to me is an unreasonable
expectation of your fellow man. To expect him to have arrived where you are while having completely
different life experiences. Contempt is always hurtful. Bullying is always bad. It is ironic that people
who bully people for being politically incorrect don't even recognize it as bullying or as just another
way of demonizing people who are different than you. They are engaging in the exact same behavior
they excoriate. It's ok to be different in the way they are different but not in any other way.

She added that she works three jobs and doesn't have much time to educate herself about the linguistic and cultural
requirements of modern progressivism.

Levy writes that the Trump campaign's darkest moments came when he attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel because of the
man's Mexican heritage, and when the Access Hollywood tape was released. Levy says this damages my theory, because
these were examples of Trump's political incorrectness, and they hurt rather than helped him. The above emails, I think,
address this aspect of Levy's criticism. When Trump voters say they want someone who is politically incorrect, they do
not necessarily mean that they want someone who is an abusive, racist, sexist bully. If Trump's racist and sexist antics
gave them pause about supporting him, maybe it's because they don't see themselves as racists and sexists and resent
being associated with racism and sexism. This doesn't confuse their opposition to political correctness; it complements it.

I don't want to overstate the representative nature of two emails, but more than one person writing me in response to an
article is a fairly rare occurrence. A great many people writing me—and all saying that I described their feelings perfectly—
is something I've rarely experienced, and so I must conclude that what I wrote has some merit.

I'm not sure why Levy or anyone else finds this notion so insane. I'm not saying people were right to feel this way, or
to turn to Trump in their frustration. I'm only saying that they did—because that's what they are telling me.

Nor am I the only one privy to this information. When reporters have asked Trump voters about his appeal, they have
consistently named political correctness as one of the most important reasons to vote for him. To take just one example,
The Washington Post published statements from 29 Trump supporters: just 3 of them used the words "political correctness"
explicitly, but a number of others invoke closely-related grievances like the arrogance, bullying, and scolding of the Clinton
machine, liberal elites, and left-leaning media figures. Trump supporters told reporters again and again that they like how
he speaks his mind and tells it like it is. In other words, they like his explicit rejection of political correctness.

That's the other major thing Levy misses in his article: Trump, more than any other successful political figure in history,
self-identified as an icon of resistance to political correctness. "We can't afford to be politically correct anymore," wasn't
just Trump's response to the mass-shooting in Orlando—it was the refrain of his entire campaign. His constant rejection
of political correctness distinguished him from Republican rivals of the past and present. When asked about a problem
to which he did not know the answer—a frequent occurrence, to be sure—the answer was always the same: The media
is lying, everyone in government is stupid and incompetent, and if we just stopped being so politically correct and
admitted the truth about globalism, about immigration, about Islamic radicalism, we would be safer and more prosperous.
Trump complained that he was named TIME's "Person of the Year" instead of "Man of the Year." He has promised to save
"Merry Christmas."

But, Levy writes, the backlash explanation fails because the voters who gave the election to Trump probably haven't heard
about the kinds of politically-correct excesses that I write about for Reason. According to Levy:

Soave covers disputes about political correctness for a living. Other media
professionals, as well as academics, might read this and nod worriedly; they
follow the flare-ups about cultural politics and freedom of speech on university
campuses, or disputes about which celebrity has said or done something
"problematic," routinely. But these remain obscure to the vast majority of voters.
And the important thing to know about voters who are still undecided a week or
two before a presidential election is that they know exceptionally little about politics.
To a first approximation, we should guess that they know nothing about any particular
political dispute that isn't on national television that day.

But cable news and talk radio routinely cover the political correctness beat. Even local news and local radio stations wade into
the territory when it overlaps with a relevant story at an elementary school or nearby college. You can't seriously believe that
media elites are the only people paying attention to the fate of Memories Pizza, or Chip and Joanna Gaines. Some people
aren't familiar with those incidents, sure—but some of those people have encountered similar examples in their personal
lives.

To say that people are ignorant about the best examples of political-correctness-run-amok seems wrong to me. These examples
are highlighted constantly, and some of the most persuasive ones are encountered in everyday life.

Lastly, recall that, as Levy admits, Trump lost educated white voters but made significant gains among non-educated whites—
the exact group of people one would expect to be especially motivated by political-correctness-run-amok.

To recap, Trump narrowly won the presidency in part because he did better among less-well-educated working class whites in
three key Obama states, and these sorts of voters say they are furious about political correctness when you ask them, and
Trump exploited concerns about political correctness more than any other candidate in history, and people who voted for
Trump consistently list his anti-PC attitude as one of the most admirable things about him.

For these reasons, I stand by my assertion that the election of Trump is, in part, a backlash against political correctness. The
most anti-PC guy won, and he won by inveighing against political correctness constantly, and Trump voters like him because
he did that.

The second half of Levy's essay is dedicated to the idea that the related phenomenon of identity politics is getting a bad name
and, more provocatively, that the cause of liberty is actually advanced by identity politics. I have less to say about this—I'm
open to being persuaded on this front, but I'm not yet moved by Levy's case.

Take Black Lives Matter. Levy cites the BLM movement as a successful identity-based coalition:

Black Lives Matter has provided the first truly large-scale
political mobilization against police violence and mass incarceration
since the War on Drugs began. …

It's true that it's possible to offer those analyses in a race-neutral way.
But given that the policies aren't race-neutral, it shouldn't surprise us
that opposition to them isn't either, and that the real political energy
for mobilizing against them would be race-conscious energy.

If Black Lives Matter is "identity politics," then identity politics has
provided one of the most significant political mobilizations in defense
of freedom in the United States in my lifetime. That doesn't belong on
the "to be sure" exception side of a rule that is driven by the politics of
gender pronouns. It's precisely the other way around.

BLM is a great example of identity politics in action. But is it a great example of identity politics being harnessed for good? I'm
unconvinced that BLM has been a net positive, and I say that as someone who embraces most of its goals. Has BLM done the work
of persuading people who did not already support criminal justice reform? Is criminal justice reform now closer to being a reality,
or further away? I'm worried that by making criminal justice reform about doing what's right for people of color, rather than doing
what's right for society in general, BLM might have driven winnable voters into the arms of the law-and-order candidate: Trump.
Certainly, if the nation is plagued by racial resentment to the degree the average media liberal seems to think it is, then making
criminal justice reform a racial cause was a self-defeating tactic.

When I try to convince older, right-leaning folks to support criminal justice reform, I make a variety of arguments: The War on
Drugs doesn't work at all; a free society wouldn't do this; we can't afford to spend so much time and effort putting people in
prison; we can't even make prisons drug-free; states should be able to decriminalize drugs; what you smoke in your own home
is your business; sentences are too long and it's because of meddlesome federal laws; there's such a thing as the Bill of Rights;
etc., etc.

The least convincing argument is the one that goes like this: These policies hurt black people, and you, by extension, are racist
for not having denounced them.

To be sure, that's an oversimplification of what BLM is doing. I appreciate that the movement has called attention to the undeniable
fact that aggressive policing disproportionately impacts minorities. But I already knew that. Is this approach bringing new people
on board? It seems like more of an open question than Levy realizes.

Levy's essay concludes, "Members of disadvantaged minorities standing up for themselves aren't to blame for the turn to populist
authoritarianism; and their energy and commitment is a resource that free societies can't do without in resisting it."

Of course they aren't to blame. But U.S. politics have turned toward populist authoritarianism, and those of us who lament this
development should think critically about what form our anti-authoritarian activism must take. I'm not saying I know the answer.
But if what we were already doing created a powerful, sustained, illiberal backlash, then some reflection is called for, no?

Perhaps the Cato Institute's Jason Kuznicki puts it best. "I am sorry that the current backlash against minority identity politics has
taken the form of white people doing identity politics, but now even harder, and using the vehicle of a demographically typical
winning Republican presidential coalition to do it," he writes. "But that is where we are. Isn't it?"

For more on this subject, read this New York Times op-ed by Columbia University Professor Mark Lilla, with whom Levy also takes
issue. Lilla speaks with Vox here.

[truth_seeker]

That political correctness has about run its course is well known to most, except the left, the media and some social justice warriors still looking under every rock for Nazis etc.

[EasyAce]

That political correctness has about run its course is well known to most, except the left, the media and some social justice warriors still looking under every rock for Nazis etc.

It's always a hard job for the ideologically imprisoned to surrender their illusions. The right has always had
to beware not just of such prisoners on the left but of falling into comparable traps itself from time to time.

[Cripplecreek]

Replacing PC with rude and obnoxious coupled with a lack of ethics is sure to be a winner. /s