Everyone prefers politically correct language sometimes, a new study reports. Where we differ is who we use it with, and how we perceive it in regards to the groups its being applied to.

The concept of political correctness doesnt get a lot of love in the online environment, so much so that its often pointed at to imply a lack of authenticity of those who use it. But its also a very divisive term; what others would see as dishonesty and sweet-talking, I would often just chalk up to being nice in conversation.

But a new study shows that, in fact, were all inclined to use politically correct language, we just apply it to different people. We tend to see it as compassionate when its applied to groups we support or care for, and as disingenuous when its addressed to other groups. Overall, however, we all tend to view people who use politically correct language as warmer, but less authentic and thus less likely to hold true to a particular view or idea.

Such language is often used in a (genuine or disingenuous) attempt to appear more sensitive to the feelings of other people, especially those perceived to be socially disadvantaged. One example would be saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas in the understanding that not everyone holds to Christian or religious beliefs.

On paper, it all sounds great I think all of us here agree that being considerate of others is a good thing. In practice, as you may know from discussions on various social media groups, the term is thrown about as a shorthand for censorship or socially-sanctioned limitations on free speech.

So theres obviously a disconnect, but where? The team carried out a series of experiments totalling roughly 5,000 participants to examine this issue, reporting that, in broad lines, such language can make us seem less sincere by making our speech seem more strategic and calculated.

The first experiment asked participants to review a written speech and imagine a senator delivering it to an audience. Half the participants received a speech revolving around transgender policy, and the others around immigration policy (the topics were selected from particularly polarizing topics in American public discourse on purpose). Each speech used either politically correct (Of course I believe that LGBTQ persons are among the most vulnerable members of our society and we must do everything in our power to protect them) or incorrect (These people who call themselves LGBTQ are often profoundly disturbed and confused about their gender identity) language.

All in all, participants who read speeches using politically correct language tended to rate the senators as warmer, but less authentic. The results were consistent between all participants, regardless of their self-reported like or dislike of such language.

For the second experiment, the participants were asked to read a short biography of either Congressman Steve King, Senator Jim Inhofe, or Governor Jeb Bush and watch one of their speeches that were deemed either politically correct or incorrect. Afterward, they were asked to predict what stance these politicians would take on political issues in the future. This step aimed to evaluate how the use of language impacts an individuals perceived trustworthiness or willingness to defend their beliefs even in the face of social pressure.

Those who listened to politically correct speeches reported feeling less certain about what stance the politician would take on topics in the future. This step showcased one of the trade-offs of using such language: while it makes one appear warmer and more concerned with others, it also makes them seem less sincere or more easily persuaded.

By this point, youre probably asking yourself an obvious question: where do them libs fit into the picture? The authors asked themselves the same thing, and it turned out that political affiliation has very little impact on our propensity to use politically correct language but very much to do with whom we use it for.

In the third experiment, the team separated participants (based on their responses in a pre-test) as either Liberal-leaning or Conservative-leaning. The first group reported feeling sympathy for the undocumented immigrants, the LGBTQ community, and pro-choice individuals, while the latter was most concerned with the plight of religious Christians, poor white people, and pro-life individuals.

Each participant was asked to read a statement: I think it is important for us to have a national conversation about one of six groups. These groups were referred to using either politically-correct (e.g. undocumented immigrants) or incorrect terms (e.g. illegal aliens).

Unsurprisingly, when the participant felt sympathy for the group in question and was presented with a politically incorrect term such as conservatives with white trash or liberals with illegal aliens they didnt view the language as particularly authentic, but as cold and uncaring. However, when presented with a politically-correct term for a group they did feel sympathy towards, they viewed it as authentic. On the flip-side, people also tended to rate politically incorrect language as more authentic when applied to groups they didnt feel sympathy towards such as liberals with white trash or conservatives with illegal aliens.

But, and this is a very important but in my opinion, there werent any divides in liking political correct speech among political groups. Liberals and conservatives were equally supportive of it as long as it applied to groups they felt sympathy towards and equally against it when it wasnt.

I feel the findings give us ample reason to pause and reflect on our own biases. Language does have power, and the way we use it speaks volumes about where our particular interests and sympathies lie. But at the same time, understanding that there are certain things we want to hear, and that this changes our perception of the ones saying them and the way they say it, is an important part of becoming responsible citizens for our countries.

The use of politically correct language can stem from genuine care and concern, just as much as it can from a desire to fake that care for brownie points. Politically incorrect language can come from ones inner strength and willingness to state their mind regardless of societys unspoken rules, but it can equally be used to deceive and appear no-nonsense when one is, in fact, callous and uncaring. It could go on to explain why considerate politicians can be perceived as weak, or why those downright rude and disrespectful can have the veneer of strength.

Perhaps, in this light, we should be most wary of those who tell us what we want to hear, the way we want to hear it. At the same time, it can help us understand that those we perceive as opposing our views and beliefs arent out to get us they literally see a different intent behind the same words, just as we do. Working together, then, doesnt start with changing their minds, but with checking our own biases, and seeing which ones we truly believe in.

Back to the study at hand, the team explains that their findings showcase how the use of language can help shape others perceptions of us. Politically correct language can make us seem warmer but more calculated and thus less sincere. Politically incorrect language can make us look more honest, but colder and more callous it all depends on what your conversation mates want to hear.

The paper Tell it like it is: When politically incorrect language promotes authenticity has been published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Read the original here:

Politically-incorrect language can seem sincere, but only if youre saying what the audience wants to hear - ZME Science

Id heard the term bigot tossed around in the past, but never really contemplated deeply what it meant or gave it a second thought, really. It seemed to just be a label slapped onto anyone who disagreed with someone elses opinion.

In this day-and-age, after all, so-called political-correctness has gotten out of hand, hasnt it?

It seems more and more that the left as people call it, want to push their progressive values down the throats of hard-working Canadians, right? Why cant people leave well enough alone, after all?

If you believe the above rhetoric (which was sarcastic, in case you didnt suss that out) you may be a bigot.

Theres nothing wrong with being dedicated to your own beliefs, convictions and personal views, but its when you are unable to hear other peoples opinions, are intolerant of even listening to hear them out, or to allow them to be heard by others, that youre entering into the Realm of the Bigots.

A person with strong convictions, is not necessarily a bigot. Its difficult, and perhaps more rare than people are willing to admit, but not impossible.

For example, you can be resolute about where you stand on a certain issue, but not have any prejudices, intolerance or hatred towards people who are on the opposite side of the issue. You are not a bigot.

However, a bigot is intolerant of other peoples point-of-view.

If you feel threatened by another persons point-of-view, and feel the need to drown out their voice, or feel the need to protect others from what they have to say, first, you must not be very strong in your own convictions and second, you may be a bigot.

And being a bigot does not require you to be a racist.

You can believe deep in your heart-of-hearts that all people are equal and deserve equal rights, and still be a bigot.

The good news is, there is a myriad of social issues a person can be bigoted about, so you can still carry on being a bigot.

You can still refuse to call a person by their chosen name or preferred pronoun, think Millennials are all useless and lazy, and resent movements that have nothing to do with you because you feel they are somehow infringing on your rights or undervaluing your life as a member of a privileged majority.

And hey, on the bright side, Im sure theres a little bit of bigotry in all of us. If you look hard enough, Im sure you could find it.

By the way, the word racist is a strong accusation that shouldnt be thrown around lightly. Words are powerful, but when they are overused or misused, they lose their meaning.

As a side note, while news articles need to be free of opinion and journalists need to do their best to show both sides of any issue in an impartial light, writing devoid of opinion does not make the writer racist or a racist apologist.

An opinion column, on the other hand, is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate place for a journalist to express their personal point of view. Its the whole purpose of a column, after all.

Opinion

Read more:

You dont have to be a racist to be a bigot - Ponoka News

Much of what sets the tone in American culture has come from the west to the east.

Hollywood for decades has enamored the American psyche. Electric cars, the Beach Boys, Napa wines the list of things California has injected into our nations way of life is impressive and pervasive.

Now something else is coming our way from California.

It is governance by an elitist class that puts political correctness on steroids and holds a deep antipathy to the historical drivers of Americas prosperity and liberty.

Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice First presidential debate to cover coronavirus, Supreme Court Harris joins women's voter mobilization event also featuring Pelosi, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda MORE (D-Calif.) is probably a nice person.

As a vice-presidential candidate, a role that requires her to be the responder-in-chief to the inanities put forth by President TrumpDonald John TrumpOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Pelosi: Trump hurrying to fill SCOTUS seat so he can repeal ObamaCare Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate MORE, she has been formidable.

She has taken a tone of modulated disbelief and correction rather than the shrillness favored by other Trump critics such as Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenHarris joins women's voter mobilization event also featuring Pelosi, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda Judd Gregg: The Kamala threat the Californiaization of America GOP set to release controversial Biden report MORE (D-Mass.).

It is an approach that bolsters her credibility. It is made all the more effective by the contrast it poses to the presidents bombastic style.

That said, however, she is also the product and adherent of the California political cult of leftist governance that has subsumed that state like an ideological virus.

Think about what Harris and her colleagues in charge of California have wrought.

Begin with rolling blackouts something usually only seen in developing countries.

These blackouts have darkened ordinary daily routines and handicapped the ability of businesses, especially small businesses, to function.

They are a direct result of governance that is subservient to a culture of political correctness regarding energy production.

This mindset puts feel good politics ahead of the real-world needs of those who cannot afford its excesses.

Ironically, California actually has the resources to produce more than enough gas to light the entire west coast without any self-imposed darkness.

This is not an acceptable approach to Harriss crowd, however.

Alternative energy sources like wind and solar do make sense, but not if they are promoted as the sole acceptable form of energy production. This kind of dogmatism retards an entire society, and turns out the lights in the process.

It is a recipe for economic stagnation and dislocation.

The effects are fairly obvious, even if they must be seen in the dark.

Harriss crowd wishes to govern America. A California rolling darkness will fall on us all.

The politically correct culture is also seeking to seize the California elementary and secondary school system.

This is an extreme ideological agenda.

The core of the curriculum would teach students a deep dislike of Americans traditional history, and of the ideas that have created this extraordinary nation.

The educational indoctrination that is being proposed for Californias public schools is built on the new possibilities for post-imperial life that promotes collective narratives of transformative resistance, according to the website of the states department of education.

These courses appear to have been developed by legatees of the 1960s radical left who hang out in the corners of Californias elite educational societies.

The underlying theme is that we are a fundamentally evil nation, whose historic leaders like Washington, Jefferson and Jackson must be expunged from memory.

This approach can best be characterized as an intellectual sickness. But it is a sickness, which the California elite intends to spread across the nation.

It is something we can all do without. But we will most likely be subjected to it if Kamalas people have their way with our nations educational agenda.

Raising taxes is of course a primal cause of the left.

We have a society where almost all income tax revenues come from high-income people. The top 20 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the income taxes; the top five per percent pay about 60 percent of the income taxes.

This is not enough for our liberal colleagues.

The tax plan proposed by Democratic nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate Trump attacks Omar for criticizing US: 'How did you do where you came from?' MORE in effect doubles capital gains tax for high earners, and takes the overall tax burden for those folks up to over 42 percent.

But for Harriss California government types, this is also not enough.

Biden is a piker by California standards.

The California legislature has proposed that, on top of the federal income tax burden, there should be added an additional 16 percent tax on high income earners.

This would make the general tax burden on productive people stratospheric.

It would mean that almost 60 percent of all income would go to the government.

These massive tax increases would allow the people who run the government to redistribute it to the folks who elect them, or to support the patronage of the folks who work for them.

It is not likely that Californians will stop at their states border in their quest to fleece the few to elect themselves.

Harris and her people will bring their ideas, on taxes and everything else, to Washington with great gusto.

This is accurately described as socialism.

It is a value system built on the theme of beggar thy neighbor.

It subscribes to the philosophy that productivity and entrepreneurship can be managed better by those who govern than by those who work in a market economy and take risks.

These Californian leftists ignore the natural laws of economic expansion, which require that people who work, build businesses and create jobs should enjoy reasonable financial returns.

The lefts excesses suffocate the energies that generate economic expansion by limiting the returns on that effort.

The socialism of the Californian governing class is not an idea whose time has come.

Socialism reduces the standard of living of all societies that have pursued it.

Delivering this Californian gift to the rest of the nation will deliver the rest of us to a country with less opportunity.

California does have much to offer.

Its politics as practiced by the Kamala cabal is, however, not among those things.

Judd Gregg (R) is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee.

See the rest here:

Judd Gregg: The Kamala threat the Californiaization of America | TheHill - The Hill

In the rightwing culture war that has subsumed our politics, a handful of key words depict the enemy, all of them increasingly interchangeable: political correctness, identity politics, #MeToo, cancel culture, and above all, wokeness. (You can tell when this category of terms is being used to this effect when they slot neatly in the headline Now ****** really has gone too far!) Collectively, the words have come to pose a threat to readers, ready to be outraged by an unwelcome change to our politics and society, hiding under the guise of equality and justice.

The terms have been subject to a successful rebranding exercise that started on the right, but then leapfrogged into the mainstream. As notions that began as efforts to redress imbalances in society, challenge embedded power structures, and organise effectively against them, the terminology of equality has since been savaged. Woke, a call to stay alert to injustices in society, is now almost exclusively a slur, a sneer at someones over-worthy and counterproductive politics.

If you get your news from one of Britains many conservative papers, you will encounter near-daily attacks on wokeness, woke-ism and the tyranny of woke. The Telegraph has tagged the phenomenon as cancel culture and runs content mocking, vilifying or scaremongering the issue on a regular basis.

The latest entry in this lexicon of terror is Black Lives Matter. In only a few months, a phrase that once depicted a solemn moment of silence and solidarity with the victims of racial injustice has become a symbol of censorship and reverse discrimination. Black Lives Matter is now dragged into controversies it has nothing to do with, shoehorned into debates it never started, blamed for moves it never demanded.

In the summer, UKTV removed an episode of Fawlty Towers due to language used against Germans, the move was immediately associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and set off the usual fireworks, including from John Cleese himself who called the decision stupid. But the episode was part of a BBC review of offensive language and it was soon reinstated with a disclaimer.

In August, newspapers such as the Times reported on unsourced speculation that lyrics to songs were to be dropped at the Proms because of racial sensitivity. As I wrote last month, despite the story not being true (there was an orchestral version online and singing will come back next year subject to the pandemic being over), the press ran with it.

This month, a relatively small number of complaints to ITVs Britains Got Talent about a Black Lives Matter themed dance surged after the issue was picked up as red meat by the press.

There is then a sort of free word-association exercise in the media that hangs over the movement, darkening it in suspicion. The Telegraph has called its supporters lockdown-busting statue-toppling anarchists. Far-left agitators stuck in a Marxist echo chamber says the Express. Mention Black Lives Matter in the company of Marxism, lawlessness, boycotting Israel, and abolishing the police enough times, and the movement becomes defined by terms that push people away and bury its main cause.

Attacks on the movements leaders did the rest of the smear work. The Sun located its deep concern for black people last week when it pointed out that a Black Lives Matter founder (a trained Marxist) had links to a pro-Chinese Communist party liberal group. The gotcha here from the paper is that black people are treated poorly in China, and so clearly the Black Lives Matter activist cares more about militant Marxism than they do racism.

For all the frightening talk of a radical woke Black Lives Matter agenda restricting our hard-won liberties, the only concerted campaign here is the one attacking a movement for equality. In the US, this has traditionally been the work of well-funded conservative thinktanks that presented this agenda as a detached academic exercise, rather than an ideological pursuit. Since the early 1990s, the rightwing Heritage Foundation, whose stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies, has published content criticising political correctness about 400 times a year.

In the UK, this well-resourced process happens via a media that is less explicit in its declared purpose of arresting progress the moment it looks like change is possible. But still, the pushback is relentless, its tone calculated to trigger a warlike combination of revulsion and panic.

The dividends, both real and political, are lucrative. Nursing a sense of alarm on a daily basis creates a feedback loop that sends consumers back to the panic merchants, guaranteeing rage views and clicks. Reassuring these consumers that they are right in their unfounded suspicions gives them licence and evidence to justify their prejudice. This serves the interests of everyone in the media and politics who stands to lose if the scales of power are rebalanced.

The purpose of this propaganda is clear: to diminish the moral power of demands for racial equality and social justice so that they are then easier to extinguish, and to depict them as a militant threat to life as we know it, rather than a belated, and in fact extremely fragile attempt to secure basic rights to life, representation and dignity.

Resistance to these legitimate historic endeavours is successful in the day-to-day, but will be stormed over time. The resonance of the Black Lives Matter movement globally proves that the spontaneous truth of injustice is louder than deliberate attempts to suppress it. Black Lives Matter may have fallen from its temporary grace in the summer, but it rose without the help of its new critics, and will endure despite them.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist and the author of We Need New Stories: Challenging the Toxic Myths Behind Our Age of Discontent

Read more:

Despite being vilified in the rightwing media, Black Lives Matter will endure - The Guardian

Two football players at Little Miami High School have been placed back on active status after being suspended from practice for carrying a thin blue line flag and thin red line flag across the field before their game on Sept. 11. The move was in order to honor police officers and firefighters on Septembeer 11, 2020.

BOCA RATON, FL A very joyous, LShana Tovah, a good New Year to our Jewishsupporters.And a not so silent prayer should be uttered, in every house of worship or in our homes that we will be blessed with another four years of leadership from President Trump. But remember, G-d helps those who help themselves, meaning the brunt of the work is on our shoulders to make our prayers come true. And to help us along, a message from above was sent to us in the form of two fearless, heroic young kids from Morrow, Ohio, whose bravery and love of country should spur us on to victory in November.

Brady Williams and Jared Bentley, football players for that towns Little Miami High School, prior to the start of their game on the evening of this years 9/11, had theaudacityto run across the field, to the cheers of the fans, one carrying a Thin Blue Line and the other a Thin Red Line American flag in remembrance of the 19th Anniversary of the attacks. Good for them! However, both boys were suspended because they did it against the will of their schools oafish administration. Both kids are sons of first responders. Bravery and patriotism run through their veins. Cowardice and weakness ooze from their supposed mentors.

The week before the game both Williams and Bentley had formally asked for approval to carry the flags but were told by administrators that would not be allowed. The fool who is the Superintendent of Little Miami Schools, Gregory Power received harsh backlash from the community for his stupidity in punishing these kids. His statement in response to the ensuing fury of the townspeople:

Little Miami Local Schools is (sic) saddened to see this story take such a negative turn. While we understand these students desire to show their support of our first responders, they did not obtain permission from district officials. Administrators must act when students break the rules.

Displaying the flag is against the rules? Since when did the BLM movement take over that town? If some moronic, black and white students had carried the BLM, Gay Pride or Hammer and Sickle flag across the field, would they have incurred suspensions as well? No Way. Political Correctness protocol holds sway over much of our land. Your vote and voice will put a change to that.

For all of us, no matter of what faith or belief, the future of this country now hangs in the balance. Do the forces of evil take over? Will the freedoms that are reflected in the words found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution be trampled upon and erased by our own lack of resolve to fight for them? Youngsters, American kids such as Brady Williams and Jared Bentley, heroes from Morrow, Ohio, wont let it happen. Lets stand with them.

See the original post:

Political Correctness Protocol Holds Sway Over Much Of Our Land; Your Vote And Voice In November Will Put A Change To That - The Published Reporter

Among the many new expressions in an era of constantly growing political correctness, its difficult to tell where the term latinx stands in todays common usage.

Alondra Longoria, president of Sigma Lambda Gamma, MSUs multicultural sorority, first heard the term, latinx, two years ago when she came to college after attending a predominantly white high school. Longoria is a junior pursuing a degree in psychology and a minor in diversity studies.

Its all about inclusivity, Longoria said. I personally refer to myself as Latina because I use the pronouns she, her and hers. But, using Latino or Latina might be considered a microaggression against someone if they dont identify as male or female. If someone uses they and/or them pronouns, they would go by Latinx.

Sigma Lambda Gamma has officially adopted the term Latinx and uses it in their general conversation, according to Longoria. They also use the term womxn pronounced women-ex, which is inclusive of transgender women.

I think the Latinx term enables the inclusion of Hispanics in todays movement for diversity and inclusion, said Alejandro Castilleja, project manager for a manufacturing firm in Cincinnati, Ohio. Castilleja is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States for work and education for over nine years.

I also see it as a marketing tool in todays social climate used by some corporations to attract the market, but also as a great diversity and inclusion push in the workplace, Castilleja said. Although a lot of people do identify with and champion it, at the end of the day, it is up to an individuals belief on what language to use.

According to aPew Research Center study conducted in December 2019, 76% of adults who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino have never heard of the term Latinx. 20% of responding adults said that they have heard of the term but do not use it, whereas 3% of the total responding population use the term. This approximates to 13% of those who have heard of the term actually using it. The data from the survey consists of responses from 3,030 adults who self-identified as Hispanic.

This study uses the terms Latino and Hispanic interchangeably and defines Latinx as a term used to describe people who are of or relate to Latin American origin or descent. It is a gender-neutral or nonbinary alternative to Latino or Latina.

The study revealed that different demographics have different relationships with the term. 42% of Hispanics aged 18-29 had heard of the term, while 7% of Hispanics aged 65 or over had heard of the term. Hispanics born in the United States are also twice as likely to have heard of the term as those born outside the country.

Social demographics also play a role in the preference of terms. Respondents with college experience are twice as likely to have heard of the term Latinx and twice as likely to prefer using it. Politically, respondents who lean toward the democratic party are more likely to have heard of Latinx (29%) than respondents who lean republican (16%).

The term Latinx will be used more in the future, Longoria said. For adults that do speak Spanish, it has been harder to adapt just because its brand new. A lot of people have a problem with it because they have an attitude of if you change one word then were going to have to change all of the words because Spanish is very gendered. I think it will be used more, but I dont necessarily think it will be adapted to either Spanish or English.

Link:

How far does a word go: where Latinx fits in today - Standard Online

An image thats being shared widely on social media reminiscences about the old days, and bemoans the political-correctness of contemporary times.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," it says. "My generation grew up reciting this every morning in school with my hand on my heart. They no longer do that for fear of offending someone! Lets see how many Americans will re-post and not care about offending someone!"

More than 54,000 people have shared this post, which was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

Students cant be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance under a 1943 Supreme Court decision that found it violated their First Amendment rights.

But, as CNN reported in 2019, its still "recited in schools across the US every day by students standing stiffly with their hands over their hearts."

That year, an 11-year-old was arrested in Florida when he told a substitute teacher he would not stand for the pledge because he thought the American flag symbolized discrimination against Black people, according to CNN, though police said he was detained because he caused a disturbance at school, not because he wouldnt say the pledge.

Other, more recent news coverage shows that students in other states also have the option to stand for the pledge.

In August, an El Paso news station reported about how remote learning has affected students reciting the pledge. Some schools and teachers are not beginning the virtual day with the pledge, according to the station, but one elementary school begins its morning announcements with the pledge.

One parent said her children recited the pledge "every day in school last year."

At Whittier Tech in Massachusetts, "each day, teachers will take attendance, classes will say the pledge of allegiance and announcements will be given," according to a Sept. 18 press release from the high school about welcoming students back to campus.

In Johnson City, Tenn., a news station broadcasts different school classes saying the pledge on school days.

We rate this Facebook post False.

See more here:

Students still say the pledge in schools - PolitiFact

(September 22, 2020 / JNS) Progressives claim to represent the forces of change, reform and social justice. They say they care for the well-being of the voters. They allege that those who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are cruel, and call them dangerous racists.

Yet they forget some of the most important words in the Declaration of Independence that framed our national mission:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

With those words in mind, lets take a quick look at key progressive policies, that actually embody Marxist, Socialist, Communist, authoritarian, atheist and anarchist ideas. These are policies that have consistently failed wherever they have been tried. Moreover, the progressive rulers of the Soviet Union and China killed nearly 100 million of their own people over the past century in the name of such ideology.

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicateby email and never missour top stories

And then, lets take a look at the reality.

Life

1. They say: Defunding the police is necessary to protect minority communities from racist policemen.

Reality: Defunding the police is pure racism, because minorities suffer the most when gangs and drug lords take over.

2. They say: Medicare for all benefits everyone.

Reality: Medicare is a grossly underfunded entitlement program. Bringing in more beneficiaries will reduce access to service for everyone and will hasten the bankruptcy of the entire program.

3. They say: The economy must be shut down until a coronavirus vaccine is FDA approved. Joe Biden said, Let me be clear, I trust vaccines. I trust scientists. But I dont trust Donald Trump, and at this moment, the American people cant either. Kamala Harris said, I would not trust Donald Trump [if a vaccine was approved] and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever hes talking about. I will not take his word for it.

Reality: The FDA would not approve a vaccine that is not safe. Moreover, no major pharmaceutical company would be willing to rush an unsafe product to market.

Liberty

1. They say: The majority of the U.S. population is systemically racist and believe in white privilege.

Reality: Though not perfect, America is one of the least racist societies in the world.

2. They say: The United States can be dramatically improved with progressive/socialist identity politics and social justice.

Reality: America is built on the equality of opportunity. Social justice is simply government-imposed equality of misery and poverty for all.

3. They say: Political correctness protects everyone from offensive language.

Reality: Political correctness is a violation of freedom of speech, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It is an effort to control the expressions of free thought, based on the theory that everyone has a non-existent right not to be offended.

Pursuit of happiness

1. They say: White policemen are always guilty, whether or not they injure a black suspect during an arrest.

Reality: Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, including both the suspect and the arresting officer, regardless of the color of their skin.

2. They say: Huge tax increases on the rich are good for society and satisfy the need for social justice.

Reality: Huge private-sector tax increases take resources from the productive private sector, thereby reducing both private innovation and job growth.

3. They say: Elementary-school reopenings must be delayed due to COVID-19.

Reality: The risk of infection, hospitalization and death for young students is similar to that of the flu, and kids must maintain their educational pace and be allowed to benefit from socialization. There is some extra risk to the teachers, particularly if elderly, but the extra risk is not high enough to prohibit classroom learning throughout the educational system.

4. They say: Climate change is an existential threat to all life on our planet, largely due to our indiscriminate use of fossil fuels.

Reality: No one knows and no one can dictate natures behavior. Fossil fuel consumption in the United States is a relatively modest contributing factor (the U.S. produces only 15 percent of the worlds emissions of CO2), which is moderated by the increasing efficiency of the system. Technology continues to develop newer and better ways to harness energy and use it more efficiently so that it produces less pollution, and American emissions have been dropping. Moreover, the demand for climate and energy control is simply an excuse for canceling the industries (like coal and fracking) that the progressives dont like. Its a way to build up the governments power.

In reality, the so-called progressives are nothing but regressives, taking us backwards instead of forward. It is they who present the number one existential threat to our land of opportunity. Our country is based on equal protection under the law, as codified under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These regressives want to take us back in time when immoral despots ruled. No way! Lets move forward, not backward.

Ken Abramowitz is the president and founder of SaveTheWest.

See the original post:

Progressives are regressive - JNS.org

To many Americans, the rise of the woke must seem like a frighteningly realistic remake of the classic science fiction movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It does not take much exposure to leftist college activists and their like-minded sympathizers to feel like a significant percentage of the population has come under the spell of a ruthless alien ideology.

The forced resignation of The New York Timess editorial page editor James Bennet by staffers who objected to his publication of a conservative op-ed, the push by Princeton University professors to create a committee to oversee racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of the faculty, and the berating of DC diners who declined to raise their fists in support of Black Lives Matter demonstrators all of these highly publicized incidents are but glimpses of the much larger campaign to delegitimate U.S. history and its associated ideals.

What binds and fortifies the self-declared woke is a cynical academic philosophy known as critical race theory. Refined over decades from deconstructionism through political correctness to identity politics, it falsely brags to be the first to discover that the human mind can never know anything for certain.

So, having declared a limit to knowledge, critical race theory proceeds to assume that all cultures, no matter how noble they may appear, are inventions of the dominant power structure designed to keep other groups in line. Even in the United States, critical race theory insists, long-held beliefs in limited government, free markets, and the importance of family are simply camouflage for male privilege and the suppression of racial minorities. To be truly enlightened, the theory concludes, one must relentlessly denounce these and any related values.

Upon hearing this for the first time, most normal people quite naturally feel as if theyve missed a step. Indeed, how does accepting the unprovability of all worldviews justify the thoroughly discrediting of any one of them? Shouldnt acknowledging the minds limitations only make the truly wise person humbler and more curious?

For those not bothered by such questions, however, critical race theory has a built-in way to ensure they need never deal with them again: simply treat any skeptic as an unconscious dupe of the white, male power structure. In other words, jump as quickly as possible from debating ideas to attacking character.

If this convenient ideological insulation sounds vaguely familiar, it should. The rise of critical race theory is far from the first time that a flawed and seriously destructive social theory has flourished by declaring that any observed fault should be interpreted as a psychological defect in the observer.

One need only go back to the 1890s, when much of the intellectual world was smitten with a belief system known as psychoanalytic theory. Based on the research of a Viennese doctor named Sigmund Freud, who claimed that emotionally disturbed patients experience symptom relief while sharing uncensored dreams and word associations, it argued that every person was motivated by desires, drives, and needs that were repressed in childhood.

Promising the kind of authority that could be claimed by anyone with a knowledge of humanitys real motivations, Freuds ideas were quickly taken up by a variety of groups, both inside and outside of medicine, to advance their interests. This was especially true of the media, which regularly sought the opinions of psychoanalysts to give their magazine, newspaper, and broadcast reports credibility.

By the 1960s, psychoanalysis was being used to justify social changes at least as dramatic as what todays woke have proposed. When counterculture gurus like Timothy Leary, R. D. Laing, and Will Shutz began suggesting that it might be healthier to just express ones repressed childhood desires, rather than put a lid on them, young people across America, some already protesting the Vietnam War, readily agreed. The result was nearly a decade of epidemic drug use, campus rioting, and cultural attacks on traditional morality.

While Freuds psychoanalytic theory always had its share of thoughtful critics, defenders of the theory often resorted to a tautology-ridden, woke-like defense: anyone who challenged Freud was said to be denying his own unconscious conflicts and was, therefore, to be ignored. The retort proved to be so persuasive that at one point, the chair of psychiatry at every major U.S. medical school was occupied by a psychoanalyst.

What finally did manage to discredit psychoanalytic theory ending its ability to justify any kind of social revolution is worth recalling, for it suggests how the current popularity of todays critical race theory will collapse. Beginning in the 1990s, as pressure grew on health insurance companies to pay for psychological problems as well as physical ones, efforts were made to more rigorously evaluate the different therapies.

The studies that followed showed that nearly every emotional complaint could be treated far more quickly, effectively, and economically without psychoanalysis, which seemed to be no more useful than doing nothing at all. Psychoanalysis thrived for nearly a century as an intellectual justification for a multitude of movements, but it couldnt survive the failure to deliver on its foundational promise: improved mental health.

Critical race theory has a foundational promise: advancing wokeness will automatically improve the lives of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. This is, admittedly, a much harder contention to debunk directly, given that wed somehow have to get inside the minds of all the self-identified woke and then document how their outlook has failed to help different social groups. There is an indirect test, however, that has been going on for quite some time.

More than a generation ago, the late economist Milton Friedman suggested that all parents, especially poor and minority parents, be allowed to take the funding their communities would normally spend on their childs education and direct it to any placement they wished. Because of opposition from teacher unions, people have come to think of his school choice policy as just another educational reform.

As Friedman himself understood, however, it is an approach to learning that encapsulates all the values critical race theory most intensely despises: academic achievement, family cohesion and support, religious faith, and respect for tradition. To the extent, then, that school choice tangibly delivers for Americas minorities what critical race theory does not, its very success undercuts any reason to be woke.

At present, there are 66 experimental school choice programs in America, involving more than half the states. While the programs cumulatively involve only a tiny fraction of the countrys 56.4 million K-12 students, more than 150 studies have shown that the minority children who have participated not only score as well academically as their white peers academically but are just as likely to graduate high school, go to college, and graduate with a degree. Equally impressive is the fact that minority participants report far fewer problems with prejudice or discrimination.

How long the woke of today can remain oblivious to what truly improves the lives of racial and ethnic minorities likely depends on how long it will take the growing number of Friedman-like programs to become widely noticed. In Florida, where school choice plans are more common but still represent a fraction of the states children, black and Hispanic moms stunned local progressives in 2018 by providing the margin needed to elect conservative Republican and school choice advocate Ron DeSantis the states current governor.

That brings us to the 2020 election and the fact that Republicans have abandoned their usually elaborate party platform to back just a few critical items among them, expanded school choice. Few seem to have any idea just how much a GOP victory, then, would jeopardize the viability of wokeness. For the sooner more Americans see what really leads to racial and ethnic equality, the sooner critical race theory will join psychoanalysis in the historical dustbin of discredited intellectual fads.

Dr. Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy from 1999 to 2009. He is the author of Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis Books).

More here:

Just Like Freud's Psychoanalysis, Critical Race Theory Will Be Discredited - The Federalist