Obama the Evader

According to the Wikipedia article, the phenomenon of political correctness may have its origins as far as 1793.  Political correctness of 1793 may have been used in a different sense altogether, so I find this to be a shaky reference into the history of political correctness.

As we move past 1793, the chronical jump takes us to 1970s.  I suppose, then, that nobody utilized the process of political correctness between 1793 and 1970.  I exaggerate, of course. 

“Political correctness” as a string of two words has come to mean something like a “euphemistic use of language,” “gender, race, religion, age, disability inclusivity.”  The list may be growing even as I write this.  Linguistically, this is odd—these two words should rather denote a way of doing politics.  Politics done logically, let’s say.

Including and since the 1970s, political correctness has taken different forms, given the inevitable passing of time and needs of the people.  But, what remains at its core are two things: first is the change in state and/or federal law as connected to usage of language and different groups representing linguistic usage, and the second is existential awkwardness. 

The appetite for constant changing of the law to suit the fickle needs of different groups of people has to do with identity politics.  Those who subscribe to it are bound to an extreme form of particularism.  Particularism, which (paradoxically) leads to an exclusivity and a separation from the rest of the humanity.  In an attempt to be inclusive, the proponents of identity politics actually end up practicing a form of “identity monarchy.” 

In truth, the objective is not inclusivity but a possession of superiority of one voice over the other, regardless of the fact whether the truth is contained in the voice.  Remember Associate Justice Sotomayor’s comment, which put particularism—in this case, cultural and racial—above objectivity.

The exploration of one’s identity as a member of a particular group should not be frowned upon.  But such exploration should enhance person’s ontological make up.  It should not begin or devolve into a craving for political struggle, a craving, which according to the leftist principles will never be satisfied.  The fact whether one group of people is experiencing oppression by another group of people has to be evaluated objectively, and this takes an existential approach to political realities.  In other words, to know identity, one must get into the essence of what makes that particular identity.  The essence of an identity is what connects the universalism of humanity to the particularism of an individual.

Which leads me into my second point—existential awkwardness. 

A few days ago, President Obama spoke at an event in Cincinnati, Ohio.  During the question and answer period, he imposed a rule, “insisting he would only take questions from a female and then a male, and not two in a row from people of the same gender” (Terrence Jeffrey, CNS News, July 16,2012).  The White House transcript of that speech (including the Q&A session) reveals this awkwardness.  It is one thing for a President to be slightly rhetorically challenged (to use a kind of inclusive inspired language); nobody’s perfect.  But this is not the case with Obama.  His rhetorical clumsiness is directly linked to his existential ungainliness. 

Because Obama’s modus vivendi is directly linked to his hunger for power, his relation to the people is that of paternalism (see video for further reference).  While pressing on inclusivity (“girl-boy, girl-boy, girl-girl, boy-girl”—are you getting tired just as I am?  Sounds like some 80s pop tune), Obama in effect exercises tyranny over what constitutes gender and language.

Obama is a great evader.  The linguistic and gender inclusivity are means through which a political strategy of obliqueness side tracks the people from the questions at hand.  I have always wondered whether this is because he is incapable of spontaneity or because he is cunningly and purposely stilted.

The acceptance of identity politics revels in pointing to itself.  Continuously.  When, at the Ohio event, Obama said “I’m gonna make sure that women get equal time with men,” the reaction of this section of the American people was far more revealing than Obama’s words.  They cheered, applauded—the appeals to ego and to the specificity of gender stroke the delicate thin skin of the women involved.  The implication being “it all about me.”

Although, I am not a Christian, I cannot help but think of Byzantine icons, in which Mary always points to Christ.  Not to herself.  I am not implying that we can all reach the heights of Mary’s submission to the will of God, but shouldn’t we at least try?