Tuesday, April 20, 2004
I am embarrassed to find "Political correctness, or, the perils of benevolence" by Roger Kimball, published in The National Interest, largely agreeable.
Kimball misses the point though, by focusing simply on the political correctness and "benevolence" of the Left. The religiously inspired politics of the Right, viz. Gay rights, abortion, Church & State, is not fundamentally different: substitute "traditional values" for "political correctness", and "morality" for "benevolence". Both have an idealised view of not only what people should do, but more importantly, what they should think; both insist it is not enough just to do good works, one must also Believe (with a capital "B") in Good (or God). Either way, it is really too much; I can't and am not terribly interested in being a Saint, secular or holy. Not being bad is hard enough.
Kimball misses the point though, by focusing simply on the political correctness and "benevolence" of the Left. The religiously inspired politics of the Right, viz. Gay rights, abortion, Church & State, is not fundamentally different: substitute "traditional values" for "political correctness", and "morality" for "benevolence". Both have an idealised view of not only what people should do, but more importantly, what they should think; both insist it is not enough just to do good works, one must also Believe (with a capital "B") in Good (or God). Either way, it is really too much; I can't and am not terribly interested in being a Saint, secular or holy. Not being bad is hard enough.
post a comment