I found myself recently unsettled by the Commentary run under the heading of "Freedom of Speech on a Sliding Scale-Political Rectitude of Balancing the Scale". Ironically I was attracted to the piece because I agree that we (the American Public) are allowing a portion of one of our most fundamental and precious rights slip through our fingers with little more than a wimper. Unfortunately, I wasn’t quite certain of the objective of the commentary, or in the end what its intentions were.

However, to paraphrase Voltaire, while I "may disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death for your right to say it". (Francois Marie Arouet, 1694-1778)

As a former hippie and an acknowledged bleeding heart liberal, I never much concerned myself with political correctness, but more with "telling it like it is". Freedom of speech during the 60’s was as vital to the anti-war movement and the civil rights movements as was breathing. And to not understand that is to not know what these movements were about.

And I think that the writers give those who took part in the hippie phenomenon too much credit, and grant us too much power today. Once those earlier battles were believed to have been fought and won, most of us faded into the fabric of the American Quilt. The movement was almost always a product of the media and when the media decided the war was over, and equality had been obtained, the movement no longer held interest, and it withered away. Many of the women and men who took to the streets all those years ago today are soccer moms and football dads, or grandmothers and grandfathers more concerned about their AARP dues and the cost of prescription drugs than whether or not the 10 Commandments stand on the lawn of Judicial Center in Alabama.

I personally believe the abstract concept of political correctness came from others who wished to confuse, neutralize and defuse truths they don’t want the listener to hear. This is probably a concept that was developed to protect politicians. But in defense of political correctness, and at best it is a frail defense, maybe, just maybe, it forces us to actually think before putting mouth in gear. That before we speak, or act, we actually need to look at the individual sitting across from us, to consider and maybe try to understand, for even a brief moment who and what they are before we insult them for who and what they are. What I hypothesis is not that political correctness is the cause of "lawlessness and mayhem" as suggested by the authors, but more accurately it is the prodigy of the overcrowding of our cities, the lack of good education, the lack of values being taught in our homes, our schools, and yes even our churches, and the "every man for himself" mentality that has evolved in our society since the ‘80’s. This is not the one big happy commune envisioned in 1968.

If the authors are so alarmed that we have become complacent, and conforming, that we have lost our identity, it doesn’t stem from political correctness. I would suggest that a goodly portion of the corruption rests elsewhere. We have created a media that has replaced ministers, and neighbors and teachers and parents and the use of common sense; a media that has no sense of its own history, or its own power, only of its own greed. Even more insidious is the intentional manipulation of the media by politicians and the government. While SLAPP’s are a nuisance, they do not threaten our basic rights, only our patience and perhaps a pocket book or two. But the PATRIOT Act (HR 3162, Title II) has all the markings of doing so, and yet not many have spoken out over the potential assault to our rights that this Act represents. And even then, the outcry that we have heard is more of a whisper than a roar. Why? Because the media says nothing. Maybe the media is not about to bite the hand that feeds them. If any government understands nothing else, it understands this: that the complacent, the conforming and those without identity are so much easier to control.

I would not be so quick to denigrate the "self-styled war experts who tediously exhort the American people", those who appear to be little more than "wealthy high-school dropouts". The suggestion is elitist and naive. I hope the authors don’t mean to suggest that because someone is a high-school drop out they are incapable of holding an intelligent and informed opinion. In fact, in the real America, they are the ones who can give voice to those who have none. Why? Because due to their wealth, they have no need to worry about where the next good story is going to come from.

Ironically it was the peace movement, and the civil rights movement, with little money, and a strong chorus of voices that brought about some of the most fundamental changes in this country, just as it was a rowdy crowd of revolutionaries who were tired of the extortion of a far away king. In the end it is not the wealthy, it is the multitude that can make the most significant changes in this country. Many of our freedoms are being challenged today, but it is not due to political correctness. It is a result of poor (or for the conspiracy theorist, the programmed) education, and a media that has been bought by the highest bidder, that is too easily swayed by trends and not substance or the truth, a media that never lets the facts get in the way of a good story or a good spin. And as long as we live with the illusion of a free media, all rights have been preserved.

The medium, after all, is the message. (Marshall McLuhan- 1911-1980)

Laura M. Phillips