Thread: Politically Correct Is Politically Wrong To The Country: Pol

Politically Correct Is Politically Wrong To The Country: Politicians Rob November Votes This Way

Edwin A. Sumcad
edwin.sumcad@cox.net

October 9, 2006

To be politically correct is to be impulsively intuitive rather than intellectually inspirational, dull instead of discerning. It is the course of action desperate politicians take or take refuge to for survival; the least of it when resorted to, is to serve self-interest first before anything else. Political correctness that serves self-interest does not and cannot serve the interest of the country.

This political contagion has been with us for centuries. It has metastasized into the whole system as an artful form of political disorder. To say something, to be identified with something or someone, to act, or to make a decision marked by language or conduct that deliberately avoids giving offense because of ethnicity, country of origin, religious belief, political persuasion, sexual orientation and the like is to be politically correct.

It saddens me to no end to think that we hardly recognize much more accept the fact that political correctness is at the bottom of our pestering troubles … unaware and therefore unable to comprehend that what is politically correct is politically wrong to the country.

Let us be brave and grapple the horns of this dilemma with the least of pretensions. We start within the Republican court of contention: Rights [Republican illegal-alien government hostile trackers] are hell-bent in getting rid of undocumented aliens all over the country. But the opposing Democrats, inspired by the anti-immigrant ranting of Lefwags [Liberal enemy from within against the government] did not want to join them in Congress or at its best were foot-dragging in passing the needed comprehensive immigration reform law.

Our immigration problem is real, and the decision to make is crucial before the problem goes out of hand. The country needs this immigration reform badly. But politicians of different party affiliations and differing persuasions hesitate to roll off their sleeves and join the nation’s Herculean task of passing a meaningful immigration reform law for fear of Hispanic backlash in the approaching mid-term and presidential November elections. They turn their eyes away from the problem as if seeing nothing or hearing nothing at all will solve the problem; for self-preservation, they opted for the politically correct alternative to serve the self first before anything else, which clearly, is politically inimical to the interest of the country.

Liberals believe that the mean-spirited anti-illegal alien hardcore Republicans they loudmouthed in the campaign trail will pay a high price for what they are doing, in this coming November election. So did I believe that the Republicans would probably lose control of Congress this November, unless among other things, the immigration reform they initiate treats illegal aliens like human beings.

With due respect to contrary opinions, you probably had come across several of my editorial insights on this venue and in other publications, on the position I take regarding this politically-defining matter. I am referring to the hardening politics of our hotly debated immigration problem. I planted my foot steadfastly on the ground against what the Republicans are doing – criminalizing undocumented immigrants already here that had long become part of our social landscape, and for going after their families with vengeance, i.e., depriving them of humanitarian aid, driving their children out of school and out of existing social services, forfeiting their medical benefits, aside from consigning their future in limbo, etc. That is not America I knew; these are against our internationally known American standard of human compassion that cares for the plight of human beings here and abroad. We spend billions of dollars for this compassion … a lot of money that goes out of the country annually in the form of humanitarian aids, technical assistances, American international development outpouring of financial succor and bailouts for poor countries in trouble and the like. We do not scare people in trouble, here and around the globe. We care for people in trouble who are down in their knees, risking losing an arm in order to live, or risking life itself for themselves and their families that they may live like human beings. It’s no longer a question of whose fault – the die is cast -- but which fault that calls for a humane response on our part, not a mean-spirited knee-jerked reaction that exacerbates the gravity of the problem.

The fact that by crossing the border desperate Mexican workers risk their lives and violate the law in order to survive need not drive us to resort to horrific draconian measures and let our human compassion fly out of the window. We are not strangers to this perennial problem, and we have not stopped trying to bang our heads to come out with some solutions to the problem. Throughout the years the solutions we have brainstormed and adopted have never been perfect, that’s because this is not just a simple problem; it is a multi-faceted, and multi-layered national predicament that involved human beings with social, political and economic repercussions hence it is not just a huge trouble but also a technically complex crisis. Yet be that as it may, we always come out with answers to many troubling questions a little better than what we have answered in the preceding years. The problem won’t go away that we know, but neither are we giving up trying to address the problem in a more and more positive way.

One may have fear of illegal immigrant invasion, or some of us don’t want Mexicans to come and live here in the United States legally or illegally due to some kind of personal grudge or other personal justifications against Mexicans and Mexico; or one may have a truckload of political and economic misgivings out of their becoming part of our social fabric – right or wrong, all these concerns I truly deeply respect. However, my opposition to all these is outside the ambit of what may be termed as politically correct, for fear of the politically dreaded Hispanic backlash during election time. My postulate challenge in this disagreement is outside of the politician’s political correctness ethnocentrism because first, I am not chasing the ballot this November, second, I am not a politician that robs the public blind of the November votes this way.

Basically, the differentiation is that simple: In opposing the mean-spiritedness of hardnosed conservatism in dealing with our immigration problem, the Democrats and I view the solution of the problem at the opposite ends of the telescope in terms of who should benefit if the humanitarian instead of the hammer and tong approach is used. Thus in opposing the Republicans with attitudinal murder in mind in the treatment of illegal aliens, I look at it as an opportunity for this nation to be great again once immigration reform is humanized, while our preventive rather than punitive safeguards are vigorously re-enforced and strictly enforced. On the other hand, the Democrats look at it as an opportunity to recapture leadership in Congress after the votes of next month’s mid-term November election are tallied.

When in control of Congress, the Democrats might come up with their own solution to the problem, who knows [not just my hope but my prayer on this is eternal], but right now their concerns are kilometric away from the country’s dire need because obviously their political interest comes first.

Fighting the Republicans to frustrate passage of immigration reform is only good for the Democrats; in it, this self-centering focus has no elbow room for the public good or has any space for the country. In this important call of the moment, which is a great opportunity for Democrats to shine for the country in trouble – what their self-interest wants is power, while the interest of the country is nowhere.

Deadlocked and deadly political correctness rising from the catacomb of dead-heat race of political polls sought to bolster and even justify what is politically correct is also not only bad to the country but worse, even threatens the lives of Americans. To ax President George W. Bush on the war on terror, specifically because his popularity rating went down since the Iraq war started, is what is deemed politically correct lately.

About a couple of months ago or thereabout, some seven retired Generals had joined politicians in the left in butchering Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in public for airing their grievances, real or imagined, on the war on Iraq. Most of them if not some or all of them were to profit from selling their book on Bush-bashing as they take advantage of the day’s call of the wild, riding on the anti-Bush bandwagon of political correctness.

The quixotic cry for impeachment based on the stale dream of somnambulists that have not yet awaken to reality, to recapture power and national governance, is political righteousness. To lambast Bush for not leaving Iraq, and let terror win in Iraq and leave the gate of the Middle East ajar to islamofascism it covets for centuries, is deemed politically correct. To protect the private rights of terrorists and their civil liberties while using those private rights and civil liberties to plot and act their nefarious covert planning to blow up our buildings and murder Americans is considered politically correct.

We should not condemn Muslim terrorists for killing us in the name of love, brotherhood, peace and harmony, and just simply say that in annihilating us it is okay for Muslim terrorists to do that because they are Muslims and we are not to offend a people of different race, and like us they too have their own grievances to ventilate. It could even be our fault when they kill us, although they started killings us since about the middle of 650 AD and a little later when the Christian crusades and Europe’s Renaissance stopped them from founding a global Islamic empire envisioned to stretch out vastly from East to West. Besides, who would like the anger of the Muslim world to befall upon us? So to keep our mouth shut is the order of the day … it is what is deemed politically correct.

It is also politically correct not to denounce Muslim murderers that were captured or are now in detention for mass murdering Americans or were about to mass murder Americans here and elsewhere when caught and then hauled to a special prison or detention cell [although we welcome to our fold with open arms Muslims everywhere who do not believe that killing an infidel has a reward in heaven]. To denounce them would be racial discrimination if not islamophobia, in which case, it is politically incorrect.

And this one is even more bizarre than just quixotic, for the book – this is what Islamic defense lawyers say … to defend the right of captured internationally known terrorists that had killed innocent civilians, at all cost, in whatever is the cause/s of the case, not necessarily arising from the alleged torture of the person of terror prisoners to get information to save the lives of millions of Americans they planned to kill but from the tactical “tortured” questioning of captured hardened, murderous enemy itself that conduct their war on terror outside the purview of the Vienna Convention while the international rule on warfare applies to how we fight them – yes, in court and in the bar of public opinion, to defend their right to commit murder, to argue for the right of Muslim mass murderers in law, who in law, did not give Americans they murdered, their victims’ right to live, is to the liberals and their nebulous supportive legions from the left, a guaranteed path of political correctness to take if you cannot find your way through the deep puzzle of this nation’s contentious great divide. To extend the right to due process to terrorists that far for summarily executing their victims without due process, is politically correct.

In sum, we are in grave danger because the tip of the scale tilts heavily in their favor.

Parallel to this imminent danger is that other cause for alarm. Our future is blurred when as a self-serving tool political correctness provides marginal-thinking politicians the opportunity to rob the public blind of the contested November votes, to serve their personal agenda, not necessarily to serve the interest of the nation.

On the matter of national security, it is very tempting to conclude this far – and this conclusion is hard for anyone to resist -- that because of political correctness, protecting the enemy for killing us in this war on terror in the manner I have just described, is legalized murder.

Good for the country? You bit it is not only bad to the country but it is also frightening to think that because of political correctness, the lives of Americans are on the line even as we speak. #

© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. Access October 9, 2006

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articl ... leID=14528

This guy sure is verbose. I read the whole article and still can't figure out what his conclusion is!! He just rambles on.

I'm with you, AG. He makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

I'm with you, AG. He makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

I only posted it because of his mention of illegal immigration.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

I'm with you, AG. He makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

Good one, PINE