Spokespersibling for Minority Opinion Eradication
So Wayne Mapp is to be National’s “Spokesman for Political Correctness Eradication”.
Read Spokesperson (or Spokespersibling) for Minority Opinion Eradication :).
To dismantle what’s going on here I can’t go past Camille Guy’s Radio Review (!) PC Plod in this week’s Listener:
The term PC, as former Act MP Stephen Franks pointed out, was once a term of mockery used by the Left against itself. It acknowledged the occasional contradictions between our own personal attitudes and values and the official line purveyed by commissars of the Left or of the women’s movement.
But the term has morphed in puzzling ways. Co-opted by the illiberal Right, it is currently used as a term of political abuse. I can see it being appropriately hurled at Pol Pot or the excesses of the Chinese Cultural Revolution – but New Zealand institutions set up to protect minority and human rights?
In the course of the discussion, emeritus professor Elizabeth Gordon said that PC had become a lazy term of abuse for anything you did not like on the Left. Perhaps, I reflected, this usage indicates a sense of outrage that the consensus has shifted, and that there can no longer be easy reliance on what used to be the prevailing right-wing white male discourse.
Minorities no longer know their place, which used to be making timid complaints to the bureaucracy. They now have a real voice. Women have a fairer share of political power, and human rights commissioners feel entitled to advocate and comment, not just rectify small individual wrongs.
What the two parliamentarians on the panel (the other was from the National Party) seemed to be saying was that left-wing women, having achieved power, have infiltrated minority viewpoints into state institutions. The three academics contested this, suggesting that slipping the term PC into public discussion was a way of expressing anti-minority or racist views in a disguised way in order to avoid refutation.
But if the Right seriously wants to contest civil unions, human rights law and the Treaty of Waitangi (plus anti-gambling and anti-smoking law, if Peter Dunne is to be taken seriously), then more than simply sloganising about “PC” is required. Populist derision of the “nanny state” and ludicrous repetitions of the notorious claims about cabals of lesbian socialist feminists with hidden agendas only serve to suggest that such accusers are tired old dinosaurs, well past their use-by date and lacking in intellectual rigour.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Then again, if the Left wants to be taken seriously perhaps it could avoid the lazy rhetorical device of screeching “Racist” (however carefully coded the smear is) whenever it doesn’t like what it hears…
October 26th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Craig
Do you think there is a reason why so many right wing political parties use women to front their caring welfare policies?
October 26th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Actually I would agree with the first commenter that people are too quick to go down that route. It usually doesn’t help, although I don’t think it is something you can generalise to all “the left”, as if this is a single thing.
But PC is utterly empty as a concept. What it hides is pushback against a perception, carefully cultivated, that others are encroaching on a dominance among, well, white males usually, that is so long standing most of us don’t realise that it is there.
National’s use of the term is a tactic to stir up usually nagging dissatisfaction caused largely by life in a late capitalist society and deflect it onto more convenient targets.
So, I’ll leave you with some words from that great thinker, MC Paul Barman, who has the PC concept pretty much sorted out:
Anyone who uses a non-offensive vocabulary
is being considerate, not PC
Anyone who has a heavy handed agenda
is narrow minded, not PC
Unless you mean Providence College PC
Is as meaningless as the President’s apology for slavery…
October 26th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
why does “radio review” deserve a (!) ?
say what you like about the anti-PC agenda and all, but you’ve got to admit that those Act bumper stickers saying “PC Free NZ” are pure brilliance.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
SPC:
Do you think there’s a reason why so many left-wing political parties are full of straight white bourgeois who feel a compulsive need to share their vast expertise in the thoughts, feeling, experience and values of “minorities”?
October 26th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Craig, I can tell you from first hand experience that PC-bs is something often spouted at scientists (and social scientists) by non-scientists for any predictions that are a bit of a downer/”touchy feely” i.e. conservation/global warning/tobacco/social research.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Craig,
I can assume, your evasion of the question asked, tells it’s own story about those chosen to front various policy fronts (Newman, Rich, Collins, Mitchell).
CR “Do you think there’s a reason why so many left-wing political parties are full of straight white bourgeois who feel a compulsive need to share their vast expertise in the thoughts, feeling, experience and values of minoritiesâ€??
Yes I know that most right wing Pakeha people resent those of “their mainstream group” who take up the cause of human rights and civil liberities “for all”. Why they would do so, is obvious - self interest. What’s your reason? And why the resort to pejorative label of this this do-gooding as compulsive and ignorant? It reminds one of Catholic attacks on Christian liberals.
It’s a truism that some of various minorities resent the liberal left, for “not being PC enough” to be their “pure” mouthpiece. They make a play on straight white liberal guilt (as you do, using your message board name to provide authoritative gravitas) and/or declare their position to be the only PC one. This is related to the origin of term PC, whereby fellow travellers are condemned for not being in line with the ones who hold the “pure party truth” on this or that (here the self appointed guardians of some minority interest).
This can come from interest group advocates and from right wing mainstream groups trying to counter the inclusive approach of liberal left wing ones (a campaign of sowing dissent to divide the opposition to their right wing mainstream agenda). Some are bonded by common nationalism (NZF), others by common self interest (National) in an assimilationist global market society.
However some Maori have common cause with right wing agendas in diminishing the liberal left loved public service system - to replace it with private providers. This has occured to a degree in the USA with faith based providers - where voucher type arrangments come in. Is this where you are coming from?
October 27th, 2005 at 12:21 am
Craig : … screeching “Racistâ€? (however carefully coded the smear is) whenever it doesn’t like what it hears
No : as your locution clearly indicates, what you’re describing here is precisely the opposite of the (reductionist) labelling as “PC”.
What you’re describing is when someone on the left says something like
“Golly, Brash is being a bit cavalier with his remarks about Maori, they are likely to cause trouble”
and people on the right screech “Sir! Sir! He called us a racist!”
i.e. for Craig, any criticism of Brash for his “race” initiatives is, by definition, a “carefully-coded smear”! Brrrrilliant!
The whole point of the “stamp out PC” movement, is to make it OK again to express racist/sexist/etc (i.e. un-PC) attitudes, but not OK to denounce those racist/sexist/etc attitudes…
Punish the whistle-blowers… shoot the messengers.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:34 am
It follows a pattern already established.
If people negate the proposition that Jewish state of Israel Zionist nationalisn is racist apartheid, they are said to be making an accusation of “anti-semiticism” to silence criticism of state of Israel Zionism.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:09 am
According to Brash, or maybe Mapp in his June speech: “A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority and become focused on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups.”
So National want to eradicate any institutions that focus on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups.
Watch out Federated Farmers.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:20 am
Oh, Christ, this one is better:
“Dr Mapp’s definition:
* Political correctness: a set of attitudes and beliefs that are divorced from mainstream values.
* A politically correct person: has a prescriptive view on how people should think and what they are permitted to discuss.”
So Mapp’s job, in his own words, is to eradicate attitudes and beliefs that are divorced from the mainstream.
And presumably to do so without having a prescriptive view about what the mainstream is. Lest he be forced to eradicate himself.
Well, gotta admit, sounds like a fun job.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:21 am
A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority and become focused on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups
Well, maybe Mapp could start by looking at National’s tax policy then. That’s the very definition of a policy focused on advancing the interests of a “minority sector group”: the rich.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:43 am
I predict at least one easy win for Mr. Mapp. As soon as he gets his feet under the table he will lead by example and change his title to:
“Spokeman for Eradication”
That’ll show ‘em.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:33 am
SPC:
I’m not evading your question, I’m treating it with the sarcastic contempt it deserves. Ditto for Alistair - I generally see no point in trying to engage with people who tell me what I think and why.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:02 am
PC is a crappy term for ideologues to use when they don’t have a better form of attack. I’ve explored it a bit in my blog this morning.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Craig, you claim the Left use carefully coded accusations of racism. ie: that the Left think that Brash is racist and then tone down the accusations.
You tell us not just one person thinks, but what the entire Left thinks, and then you get offended by SPC and Alistair doing the same?
Get a grip.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Craig,
yeah right-on and while were at it let’s examine history shall we:
First, those zaney white abolitionists in the States, yip how dare they presume to know what was best for negro slaves.
Then, those (predominantly left-wing, white bourgeois) rabble-rousers in the UK who campaigned to let Jewish refugees into England before the second world war. The nerve of it all, presuming to know what was best for the Jews.
Then, (white, bourgeois, left-wing) Robert Conquest, speaking out against the horrors of Stalinist Russia. Silly Englishman presuming to know what was best for the Russians.
And most recently the Green Party of New Zealand speaking out for the people of Zimbabwe. Well I never.
More seriously, I think that, living in a democracy as we do (something you presumably find burdensome) the Labour Party (for example) might be quite entitled to speak out for minorities, given the vast numbers of people from minority groups who voted for them. It’s called representation.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:58 am
The other thing which is painful is that National just lost an election. And yet they still claim to speak for “Mainstream New Zealand”.
Sorry guys but the stream has moved on, and you are stuck in a back eddy. And by the looks of things (as so often happens with stagnant water) it is starting to stink.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Craig
CR “I’m not evading your question, I’m treating it with the sarcastic contempt it deserves.”
Yeah right. So you really weren’t happy, that I asked that question.
Surely even you have noticed the cynicism of ACT and National both having women spokespersons for Welfare - National replaced Rich with Collins - what is it, a womens job to front right wing policy on these issues? Is this some sort of PC?
CR “Ditto for Alistair - I generally see no point in trying to engage with people who tell me what I think and why.”
I can only assume you cannot defend the blatant and obvious “mainstream PC” involved and would rather not discuss such matters. It is the obvious conclusion and whether you like anyone pointing it out, rather than just thinking it to themselves, is your affair.
October 28th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Enjoying wathching the pickle the Nats have got themselves into with this one.
The “Eradication of Political Correctness”. Don’t they mean the “Enforcement of the Tyranny of the Majority”. Problem for them, though, is that white, sexist, racist homophobes are not the Majority anymore.
And isn’t the “Eradication of Political Correcness” itself “Politically Correct” under Mapp’s and Brash’s inept attempts to define the term.
If you want a laugh, check out the Righties getting stuck into each other over this debacle on DPF’s blog.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
steady on mate, calling them sexist is going a bit too far.
After all, a good many of them have wives who are ‘persons of gender’, don’t you know…
October 28th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
SPC:
LOL… Could it be that Collins and Newman were the welfare spokeswomen for their respective parties because they’re interested in the issues, and were seen as having skills to bring to the table? Or is that just not in accordance with the conspiracy theory de jour - which I still haven’t quite got a handle on?
Sometimes, to paraphrase Mill, I think political discourse in this country has been taken over by the Stupid Party.
October 28th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
I do think some words by that old leftie (Orwell, I think was his authorial moniker) are appropriate:
Two legs Good, Four legs Bad.
Although it did start out the other way round, or was that end up the other way round?
Oh dear, the Memory Hole has struck. Oops, that’s another Orwellism.
His point, I do recall, was that it was perfectly feasible to run a society on the basis of a few, frequently chanted fabrications, provided there were nasty penalties in place for non-chanting or forgetting the fabrication de jour.
Of course, we’re well past all that now, Orwell was writing, oh, two whole generations ago. No possible relevance. Move right on, nothing to see Here!
October 28th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
It’s nothing new in political debate for either side to lazily slap some buzz words to disguise the fact they’re not really arguing anything.
“Your argument is flawed.” Oddly enough, both sides say this. So at least one of them has to be wrong (it’s always the other). Or realistically: nothing is usually wrong. It’s just different values.
“Benefiting the rich.” Enciting “tall-poppy” feelings generally.
“Racist/sexist/etc.” Association with something percieved as negative to attempt to change the perspective.
“-gate”. Er, more journalistic, I’m just sick of them using the gate suffix to any random scandal.
“Politically correct.” While in effect euphemisms and percieved restrictions of speech, it’s often used wildly outside of the intention. “Divorced from mainstream values”? The post had potential but he’s digging himself into a hole there. “I don’t like it, it’s PC.”
“Wrong.” = “I don’t like that.”
“Anti-[something]”. The accusation that one must not want something if they don’t support it. Don’t support Greens? You obviously don’t care about the environment. Don’t support United Future? You hate family values.
October 29th, 2005 at 2:12 am
Craig
So few women MP’s and both Rich and then Collins, had an interest in welfare policy - so many men and they did not?
And in another party Newman was fronting it.
Why does this only occur in right wing parties? Just what exactly is the unique skill set which these “women” bring to this ministerial portfolio anyhow? Cmon - its to imply a caring policy - when offering a tougher line.
When Rich actually thought for herself she was dumped. As GT was from Maori policy.
But if anyone resists the selling of the right wing party line, we are now simply called stupid - being “liberal/left” PC and offside from the right wing man “mainstream” not good enough for you anymore?
October 29th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Hi Craig,
You seem rather bothered about what sort of people support equal rights for “non-mainstream” citizens. As one of those pesky types let me say that I am motivated, not by a hand-wringing-beeding-heart lifestyle, but by long memory of how N.Z. used to be. Do YOU remember when Muldoon contested an election by declaring (in print) his cabinet to be “Man for man the better team.”? When it was considered good fun for groups of young men to get a skinful and go out looking for queers to beat up? When birth certificates were boldly stamped with the word “illegitimate” so that the child could be judged by the actions of the parents? When all co-ed schools had male principals as a matter of course? When Maori parents were told that their children would only succeed if they did not learn the Maori language at home?
And as for promoting nuclear disarmament: we just wanted the reds to invade N.Z!
I have many, many more examples. Suffice to say that I would not return to those days. Craig, tell me how you view the 50s. A golden age, or grey conformity?