Stop Dismissing Everything You Disagree With As ‘Politically Correct’

U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Seth Starr

Political correctness. If you look at any number of comments sections, or a Trump speech, or listen to a lot of very angry people, you’ll hear the military’s failures being laid at the feet of political correctness.

The term gets thrown about a great deal, but what does it really mean? Oddly enough, the term started among far-left Marxists in the 1940s and 50s disparaging those who betrayed their radicalism in order to be accepted in society during the days of the Red Scare. In other words, “politically correct” originally referred to those who were too conservative. Being “politically correct” meant exactly what the plain language of the phrase implied: that the speaker was saying something that was politically in the mainstream.

To most people living today, though, political correctness and its resulting backlash emerged into popular consciousness in the early 1990s. By that time, it had evolved to mean using language that never offended anyone. “African American” instead of “black,” “Native American” or “indigenous people” instead of “Indian,” “disabled” instead of “handicapped,” and the like. It was most prominent in the university setting. College speech codes became the subject of much debate as the line between frank discourse and avoiding offense became the front lines of the cultural battlefield.

Related: Your Time In Service Shouldn’t Be Your Glory Years »

Concern about it had peaks and valleys for the next few years. It popped up here and there, but by and large, it disappeared from view.

Then came the Global War on Terror, and the term reawakened from its slumber. This time, however, it was not usually to describe words. Political correctness came to describe actions that were not tough enough in the eyes of the observer.

Sometimes it was the rules of engagement, not just under President Obama, but also during  the Bush administration. Not destroying religious sites or more strict rules requiring positive identification of the enemy were deemed “politically correct.”

Other times, those who opposed torture were accused of waging a “politically correct” war, thus making it easier for America’s enemies to kill service members.

In 2016, including women in jobs from which they were formerly excluded is “politically correct.”

Even accommodating gluten-free diets can get one accused of being politically correct, rather than just annoying.

The old definition of political correctness at least had a certain consistency about it. Whether one agreed or disagreed about whether old names for ethnic groups were valid or not, “political correctness” was at least a concise delineation of the battlelines on the issue.

There’s really no linkage between torture and women in combat and certainly none between either of those and gluten-free food. Attempts to define political correctness seem to end up like Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.”

Politically correct is really just a politically correct way of saying, “You’re a pussy libtard.”

The strangest part about the current use of the term is that by literal definition, if something is politically correct, it must be the most popular position, otherwise politically, it wouldn’t be the correct position to take. To put it another way, in politics, people seldom take stances that they believe will be unpopular. So to say that political correctness flies in the face of common sense or the popular will is contradictory on its face.

Political correctness is now thrown around so often that for many speakers it is pretty much synonymous with “shit I don’t like.” There are certainly reasoned arguments to be made on both sides of most issues, but the politically correct label has become just a convenient slur dismissing an opposing opinion without a cogent argument. It is a last-ditch effort to impugn the other side. Rather than enumerate talking points, root causes, or data, one can just whip out the trope of “political correctness” and end the argument. After all, who in today’s military culture wants to bear that label?

Labelling something as “politically correct” is not really meant to be a real argument, though. It only signals allegiance to a particular side in the cultural wars that have gripped the United States, military included. Until we start to look for solutions instead of cultural battlelines, those wars will continue to rage.

Soldiers from the 1-118th Field Artillery Regiment of the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team fire an M777 Howitzer during a fire mission in Southern Afghanistan, June 10th, 2019. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Jordan Trent)

Once again, the United States and the Taliban are apparently close to striking a peace deal. Such a peace agreement has been rumored to be in the works longer than the latest "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" sequel. (The difference is Keanu Reeves has fewer f**ks to give than U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.)

Both sides appeared to be close to reaching an agreement in September until the Taliban took credit for an attack that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Elis A. Barreto Ortiz, of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. That prompted President Donald Trump to angrily cancel a planned summit with the Taliban that had been scheduled to take place at Camp David, Maryland, on Sept. 8.

Now Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen has told a Pakistani newspaper that he is "optimistic" that the Taliban could reach an agreement with U.S. negotiators by the end of January.

Read More
Audie Murphy (U.S. Army photo)

Editor's note: a version of this post first appeared in 2018

On January 26, 1945, the most decorated U.S. service member of World War II earned his legacy in a fiery fashion.

Read More
A Purple Heart (DoD photo)

Florida's two senators are pushing the Defense Department to award Purple Hearts to the U.S. service members wounded in the December shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola.

Read More
Ships from Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 23 transit the Pacific Ocean Jan. 22, 2020. DESRON 23, part of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, is on a scheduled deployment to the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erick A. Parsons)

Editor's Note: This article by Gina Harkins originally appeared on, a leading source of news for the military and veteran community.

The Navy and Marine Corps need to be a bit more short-sighted when assessing how many ships they need, the acting Navy secretary said this week.

The Navy Department is in the middle of a new force-structure review, which could change the number and types of ships the sea services say they'll need to fight future conflicts. But instead of trying to project what they will need three decades out, which has been the case in past assessments, acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said the services will take a shorter view.

"I don't know what the threat's going to be 30 years from now, but if we're building a force structure for 30 years from now, I would suggest we're probably not building the right one," he said Friday at a National Defense Industrial Association event.

The Navy completed its last force-structure assessment in 2016. That 30-year plan called for a 355-ship fleet.

Read More
Master-at-Arms 3rd Class Oscar Temores and his family. (GoFundMe)

When Oscar Jesus Temores showed up to work at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story each day, his colleagues in base security knew they were in for a treat.

Temores was a master-at-arms who loved his job and cracking corny jokes.

"He just he just had that personality that you can go up to him and talk to him about anything. It was goofy and weird, and he always had jokes," said Petty Officer 3rd Class Derek Lopez, a fellow base patrolman. "Sometimes he'd make you cry from laughter and other times you'd just want to cringe because of how dumb his joke was. But that's what made him more approachable and easy to be around."

That ability to make others laugh and put people at ease is just one of the ways Temores is remembered by his colleagues. It has been seven weeks since the 23-year-old married father of one was killed when a civilian intruder crashed his pickup truck into Temores' vehicle at Fort Story.

Read More