A major themethe major theme?of Donald Trumps 2016 campaign for the presidency was his relentless assault on socially-enforced standards of speech and opinionthat those on the Right tend to refer to aspolitical correctness and those on the Left tend to refer to as politeness or propriety.And a new paper from the National Bureau of Economics Researchsuggests that thisassault was at least partlysuccessful: By updating peoples preferences about the popularity of anti-immigration views, Trumps unexpected victory made people more willing to express anti-immigration views publicly than they were before Election Day. <\/p>\n
The authors (Leonardo Bursztyn of the University of Chicago, Georgy Egorov of Northwestern, and Stefano Fiorin of UCLA) summarize their methodology like this: In the run-up to the2016 election, they offered subjects a dollarif they authorized the researchers to make a donation to a strongly anti-immigration organization on their behalf. Some of the participants were told that their donation would be anonymous. Others were told that they researchers mightask them about their decision later. Those who thought their donation would be anonymous were significantly more likely to authorize it than those who thought they might need to discuss it in the future, suggest(ing) the presence of social stigma associated with the action.After the election, however, this social stigma disappeared; people were just as likely to authorize a donation to an anti-immigrant group even if they were not assured that the donation would be anonymous. <\/p>\n
Its not that Trumps election increased anti-immigration sentiment, the authors sayit just made peoplealready inclined toward restrictionism feel less of a need to conceal their preferences. <\/p>\n
Regardless of whether Trump actuallybuilds a wall or successfully gets his travelban through the court system, it seems that hisrhetoric has created a fundamental shift in the way Americans talk (or dont talk) about immigration policyand probably other sensitive issues, as well. That the president survived the Access Hollywood tape, the Megyn Kelly feud, and his remarks about the Khans (to give a few examples)might have also had anemperor has no clothes effect oncertain social taboos. <\/p>\n
In some ways, the Trump effect on P.C. has probably been positive. To the extent that critiquesof the elite consensus on immigration and globalization and social liberalism had becomeoff-limits, creating a stifling and anti-democratic environment where people were afraid to even express their concernslest they be ostracized and condemned by their social betters, it is healthy that Trumps election loosened limitations on acceptable discourse. <\/p>\n
At the same time, civilization rests on a certain set of social norms, which are far more powerful than laws in shaping behavior. If everyone made all of their private opinions publicif dinner guests always told the host how they really feltabout the food, if drivers always shared withpolice their opinions on being pulled over,if Supreme Court justices announced that their opinions were based as much on guesswork and intuition as the text of the Constitutionmany of our institutions would work less well. Moreover, when informal norms erode, blunter tools like laws and bureaucratic codes have a tendency of taking their place. <\/p>\n
So even as Trump has made some debates more openby taking a wrecking ball to political correctness, there is also a legitimate concern thathis freewheeling rhetorical style hasunearthed some demons, as the Republican Rep. Mark Sanford put itto theWashington Post.Ive talked to a number of people about it back home. They say, Well, look, if the president can say whatever, why cant I say whatever? Hes given them license.That is not cause for celebration.The Presidents election was a sign that prevailing social stigmas and taboos were unsustainable. The solution isnt to tear them down altogether, but to build new ones that are more broadly supported and in line with the interests of an open society. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the original post here:<\/p>\n
How Trump Affected Political Correctness - The American Interest<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A major themethe major theme?of Donald Trumps 2016 campaign for the presidency was his relentless assault on socially-enforced standards of speech and opinionthat those on the Right tend to refer to aspolitical correctness and those on the Left tend to refer to as politeness or propriety.And a new paper from the National Bureau of Economics Researchsuggests that thisassault was at least partlysuccessful: By updating peoples preferences about the popularity of anti-immigration views, Trumps unexpected victory made people more willing to express anti-immigration views publicly than they were before Election Day. The authors (Leonardo Bursztyn of the University of Chicago, Georgy Egorov of Northwestern, and Stefano Fiorin of UCLA) summarize their methodology like this: In the run-up to the2016 election, they offered subjects a dollarif they authorized the researchers to make a donation to a strongly anti-immigration organization on their behalf. Some of the participants were told that their donation would be anonymous. Continue reading