From the book
Born Liberal, Raised Right: How to Rescue America from Moral Decline -- One Family at a Time

In this current generation I see too many people, young and old alike, who lack emotional resilience. When they were young, their parents obviously came to the rescue whenever another child upset them, and they defended them from anyone in authority who tried to hold them accountable for their behavior. It should be of no surprise that indulgent, hyper-defensive parenting is at the root of politically correct speech.

The basis for political correctness

To be politically correct in our speech is to be sensitive to people’s feelings. This means we avoid specific words and phrases that particular groups or individuals have decided insult or offend them. These “protected” groups might include races, religions, sexual preferences, or people with unique physical features—anyone, actually, that liberals determine needs protection.

Liberals, you see, own political correctness. They define it and they enforce it—they are in charge of deciding who is to receive PC protection. They are not in charge of it because they thought of it first and beat conservatives to the punch. It is theirs because PC thinking is an inevitable expression of their hyper-defensive view of parenting. Just as liberals view children’s feelings as vulnerable, they also relate with adults in the child role as weak and in need of protection, as well. They are people who have never learned to live with others’ wrong opinions of them.

This brings us to the very core of PC thinking.

If you have never thought of this before, then consider that political correctness is based on the premise that people—certain people—need to be protected from harm. To identify who those certain people are, we need only determine who or what in nature needs protection. The answer is obvious—it is the weak that need protection. The strong certainly do not need it. Propriety teaches us that the strong, in fact, are expected to be sensitive to the vulnerabilities of the weak and protect them.

There you have it. At the root of political correctness is the assumption that some people are emotionally and socially weak, and, therefore, uniquely vulnerable to getting their feelings hurt. Liberals expect the strong to be sensitive to the emotional vulnerabilities of the weak, lest they suffer hurt feelings beyond their ability to bear.

It is a wonder to me that no one in a protected group has complained of being insulted by politically correct protection. Who in the protected groups would want to be thought of as weak or vulnerable? How insulting! That, however, is exactly what political correctness is based upon. It says certain people lack the emotional resilience to handle another person’s words or opinions. Sticks and stones may break their bones, but apparently words will kill them.

Responding to political correctness

Believers in political correctness strive to shield the weak from hurt feelings by placing legal restrictions on the strong. But is that wise?

When someone or something is weak and vulnerable, what is really most helpful for them? Is it only to protect them or is it to strengthen them?

If the vulnerable one is a malnourished child with a weak immune system, do we simply put him in a bubble and keep him away from germs for his entire life, or do we feed him the best nutrition to make him strong? Do we not strengthen him rather than merely protect him?

Don’t we learn from nature that it is best to strengthen the weak rather than shield them forever? An athlete grows stronger and better prepared for challenges by constantly facing them. Our bodies only develop antibodies to disease by encountering germs. Calluses only form to protect our soft tissue because of constant abrasion. Are we not harming the “vulnerable” in our society—weakening their immune systems, you might say—by merely sheltering them from influences that can make them grow? Isn’t it obvious that the protectiveness of political correctness makes the weak weaker and preoccupies a culture with its wounds?

When people become wound-oriented they grow a huge chip on their shoulder and become hypersensitive to any perceived offenses. Whether they realize it or not, their thin skin is an admission that they lack control over themselves, and the strong have power to determine their well-being. The existence of their wounds is a clear acknowledgement that they are weak and helpless, and under the power of the strong. The very idea that the strong are responsible for the responses of the weak is classic victim thinking.

As a result of politically correct thinking in our society, the strong often grow to resent the easily victimized, because they feel forced to “walk on eggshells” lest they accidentally offend. Social unity, consequently, tends to break down, because communities are comprised of those easily offended and those trying not to offend. Today, we are experiencing a subtle social tension that didn’t exist fifty years ago.