Purveyors of Political Correctness

by Herbert I. London
November 30, 2009 at 6:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/939/purveyors-of-political-correctness

Political correctness has insinuated itself into the analysis of the murders at Fort Hood. Far better to rationalize the slaughter by referring to the assailant, Major Nidal Hasan, as a deranged individual, rather than as a radical Muslim intent on bloodshed.

It is self evident that not all Muslims are intent on violence, but as the history of the last few decades indicates much of the premeditated violence can be attributed to Muslims who rely on Koranic verses and Sharia to justify violent acts. Avoidance of this reality will lead to additional deaths if political correctness trumps all other considerations.

Why should this be the case? In the Korematsu v. United States decision that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Justice Jackson wrote "the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution do not constitute a suicide pact." Applied to the present, this observance and common sense suggest that the Constitution, in this case the First Amendment, cannot be employed to excuse violence.

Jihadism, in its oral form as well as its manifest reality, cannot be tolerated, even if proponents claim it is protected by the freedom of religion. Islam may be a religion embraced by as many as three million Americans, but when there are calls for violence against apostates and non-believers, it might be time to consider intolerance.

George Santayana argued that the overarching responsibility for the tolerant man is to be intolerant of intolerance -- a position many Americans have forgotten.

Had someone in authority at Fort Hood raised concerns about the Muslim psychiatrist, he would have been brought up on charges, and opportunities for promotion would have been thwarted. Islamophobia is a demerit not easily overcome.

During the Cold War, President Reagan was excoriated for calling the Soviet Union "an evil empire." The proponents of political correctness said this claim was undiplomatic, likely to offend, and oafish. Reagan, realizing that the truth is a powerful antidote to political correctness defied his detractors.

But these are different times. Students have been proselytized by left wing instructors with the belief that tolerance for designated groups must prevail despite the danger in doing so. Courage is often defined as standing by these political shibboleths. But there are times when correctness runs smack into common sense.

Although the CIA claims to have known of Major Hasan's attempt to contact al Qaeda and his radical sensibility, there was the fear that acting on this knowledge would potentially heighten a backlash against Muslim soldiers. As a consequence, the safety of G.I.'s was put at risk in order to avoid offending Muslims in the military. It recalls the response to Winston Churchill's blistering critique of Neville Chamberlain's Munich Accord in the House of Commons, when Churchill was derided by members of parliament as a "fool" who through his ranting would offend Adolf Hitler. Of course, history pointed out who the real fools were.

At the moment, the purveyors of political correctness are in the ascendency. They are far more concerned about offending those in designated victim groups, including Muslims, rather than the general welfare and security of the nation. And they can be found in every crevice of national life from universities to corporations and military installations. Will Americans wake up to this foolishness, or are the murders in Fort Hood a momentary nightmare soon overtaken by other events?

The jury is still out on this matter, but the deadly effects of political correctness could become more apparent every passing day.

Related Topics:  Herbert I. London receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list