New Series: The Truths that Dare Not Speak Their Names

“Political correctness” had its heyday back in the late 1980’s/early 90’s.  People still refer to it, of course, but as an actual movement – the kind that briefly was establishing speech codes across America’s college campuses – its sun has set.

Except, curiously and in a weird kind of way, in politics.  I don’t know why it is, but in American politics – especially American presidential politics – a strange kind of political correctness attaches to both parties, to both parties’ supporters, and to both parties’ supporting pundits, and it prohibits people saying flat out some things that everybody knows to be true but about which we are all supposed to pretend we are completely unaware.

Here are two examples of truths that everybody recognizes, but nobody says:

Chris Christie's Latest Argle-Bargle

Steve Benen flags Chris Christie making the following statements in a speech he gave over the weekend flirting with, denying completely, or keeping the door open (depending on who’s interpreting his statement) for a presidential run:

A lot is being said in this election season about American exceptionalism. Implicit in such statements is that we are different and, yes, better, in the sense that our democracy, our economy and our people have delivered. But for American exceptionalism to truly deliver hope and a sterling example to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated, not just asserted….

Without the authority that comes from that exceptionalism — earned American exceptionalism — we cannot do good for other countries, we cannot continue to be a beacon of hope for the world to aspire to for their future generations. (emphasis added)

Benen quite reasonably asks if the suggestion that America isn’t automatically an exceptional country isn’t some sort of Republican apostasy.  But what strikes me about these statements is that they seem a perfect example of the type of argle-bargle that politicians are so adept at spewing that rely on the audience to provide any meaning to them at all.

I’ll admit, when I first read Christie’s statement I thought he might be saying something with which I personally have agreed for some time.  The truth is, I think the United States does have a history of doing some exceptional and extraordinary things, but I certainly do not believe – as the Right seems to – that this somehow means everything the country does is thereby alright simply because the country does it.  Using a pack of lies to justify invading another country that posed no threat to us or to others, torturing people, breaking the law and spying on its own citizens – pretty heinous things, not redeemed because the United States government was the one acting so heinously.

But, of course, Christie never specified what it is he meant when he made these fundamentally vapid statements.  He left it up to the audience to decide precisely what it is America should be doing in order to maintain its much-vaunted “exceptionalism.”  And given that he was speaking before a Republican audience, to the extent people were nodding along with him those people were probably thinking along the lines of, “Yeah, that’s right.  We need to eliminate corporate taxes, the estate tax and capital gains tax and let the uber-wealthy keep more money.  We need to cut out unemployment benefits, food stamps, and assistance to the poor.  Then America can take its rightful place as leader of the world again.”  They were, in short, nodding along to a speech very different than the one I completed in my head.

I see this all the time, politicians making speeches that are long on exhortation and short on specifics.  If you pay attention you realize that they are effective because the speaker only points the audience toward something vague like, say, “excellence,” and then leaves it to the audience to fill in the blanks.  It’s highly effective, and allows the speaker to be all things to all people without actually committing to being anything to anyone.

2012: Who the Hell Are We?

Via John Aravosis over at Americablog I found this press pool report from Sunday:

At his first fundraiser in San Jose, President Obama took aim at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, without naming the Texas governor by name, and was critical of the recent GOP debates.  He said the 2012 election will be “a contest of values.”

“Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republicans but are puzzled by what’s happened to that party . . . .  I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately?  You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change,” he said to applause.  “It’s true.  You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay.

“That not reflective of who we are,” Mr. Obama said.  “This is a choice about the fundamental direction of our country.  2008 was an important [elec]tion.  2012 is a more important election.”

Yes, please . . . more of this.