In an insightful article, Kristian Niemetz argues
... Political Correctness is really just a special form of conspicuous consumption, leading to a zero-sum status race. The fact that PC fans are still constantly outraged, despite the fact that PC has never been so pervasive, would then just be a special form of the [tenuous to dubious, G.T.] Easterlin Paradox [which asserts: the more income, the less happiness; and analogously, the more PC-dominance, the greater the craving for desiderata consonant with PC, G.T.]
When Political Correctness is
really all about expressing one’s own moral superiority, PC credentials would be akin to what economists call a ‘positional good’.
A positional good is a good that people acquire to signalise where they stand in a social hierarchy; it is acquired in order to set oneself apart from others.
Make sure to read the entire article at the source.
In my view, this insight strengthens the case for time-tested classical liberalism (whose ideas are uncorrupted by political fads) and calls into question libertarian Political Correctness in as much as the latter cultivates a select minority position instrumental in making its adepts stand out as being morally superior to others.
Over the years, I have increasingly come to suspect that large numbers of libertarians are strongly tempted by the psychological effects of owning the positional good "liberty".
Among the strongest indicators that seem to support my suspicion is the remarkable disinclination of libertarians to take a self-critical look at their creed. Personally, the moment I begin to develop my position vis-à-vis liberty in a new direction, adding new aspects and questioning superficial but standard views, many of my fellow libertarians first frown, and quickly lose interest, preferring a once-and-for-all-belief to changes in the well-trodden paths.
Their tendency is clearly to relate to liberty as rigid orthodoxy, as a canonical unchanging set of beliefs, rather than as method - i.e. as a principled guide to learning and doing new things, not least in the political arena.
This also explains abstention from politics which is the more pronounced the "purer" libertarianism is. Participation in politics is a very tough test to put one's creed to. It is not possible to succeed politically without learning and changing some of the views one used to have. Not an inviting prospect for the politically correct libertarian perched high up on a position of immutable moral superiority.
Of course, classical liberalism does comprise a number of fairly immutable principles, but they are meant to keep us flexible and on our toes with regard to our thinking and our politics, and the principles of liberty are certainly not meant to be exempt from critical discussion and revision if needed (see for instance The Harm Principle and the Benefit Principle).
See also Politically Correct Nourishment ..., and The Fault in Public Choice, Liberty's Vacant Preserve - the Environment, How Adam Smith Taught Karl Marx Nonsense.
Comments