Reality vs. Political Correctness: Amnesty and the Fight for America's Soul

Dr. Ben Carson once made the observation that “political correctness” acts as a “muzzle” to quell legitimate dissent against the status quo.  That is undoubtedly a true statement.  But to drive in the stakes and build our intellectual ramparts on this point is little more than ceding coveted ground in an argument against a completely unfounded doctrine that presents falsehoods as facts. 

There is a more fundamental observation upon which we can mount our legitimate defense against the doctrine of “political correctness,” and it lies in the simplest inspection of the phrase “politically correct.”  Inherent in those two words’ juxtaposition is a certain insidiousness and intellectual dishonesty.  For if something is “correct” from an objective point of view, what need is there of the qualifying descriptor?  This phrase, “political correctness,” exists only to substantiate arguments that would otherwise be “incorrect” unless viewed in the context of a peculiar political lens.

As such, any arguments made on the basis on “political correctness” are necessarily predicated upon ideological preferences, not the “facts,” “pragmatism,” or “science” -- which are so often claimed as the impenetrable bastions of the modern social engineers who champion “political correctness.”

Framed in another and perhaps more accurate way, the sole purpose of a doctrine of “political correctness” is to upend reality itself by delegitimizing facts, pragmatism, and science in favor of promoting a constructed morality and worldview predicated upon something other than those things. 

The evidence of this is all around us, and it would be undeniable in a crucible of “pragmatism,” if our national debates were to truly take place in such a venue. 

The unprecedentedly rising wages and increased opportunity for advancement among black Americans in the 1940s and 1950s, for example, was cauterized at precisely the moment in time in which LBJ created America’s modern welfare state. Yet to acknowledge that outcome and suggest alternative policy for the future is tantamount to heresy, as Paul Ryan recently discovered as he was pilloried for his remarks before the Congressional Black Caucus.  Federal spending on public education has nearly tripled since 1970, while public school employment has increased nearly ten times faster than public school enrollment since that time, and we have deteriorating education standards, and certainly no discernable benefit to show for it. Yet to suggest something other than the wholesale expansion of federal education spending is simply unacceptable in the scope of accepted political sensibilities.  Social Security, to name yet another example, was enacted in 1935, when there were 42 workers contributing to Social Security for every one retiree collecting.  That may have seemed a viable proposition at the time thanks to a healthy fertility rate and a life expectancy of 62, meaning that most Americans would never see the government annuity’s distribution phase at 65.  Today, however, that ratio of payers to payees is roughly 3 to 1, and life expectancies are much higher, with projections showing nothing but a worsening of that fiscally destructive trend.  A reformation of the system is certainly in order. 

Is my observation of these mathematical and demographic realities “politically incorrect,” or a practical observation and pragmatic response to the inefficient and inadaptable nature of these federal initiatives that simply cannot work within the confines of our current reality? 

In short, arguments for “political correctness” are nothing more than arguments against “correctness.”  And considering how entrenched “political correctness” has become in the national dialogue, it seems that we have reached a point at which arguing on the basis of economic reality and facts amounts to radical ideology, and arguing on the merits of unsubstantiated ideological devotion to the idea of federal “safety nets,” however inefficient and economically unsustainable they may be, is deemed pragmatic and sacrosanct.

And now, regarding the supposed moral imperative of legislating amnesty for illegal aliens, we stand at a dangerous precipice.  That may sound an unreasonably dire analogy to the 24% of Americans too inoculated with politically correct pieties to care about something as fundamentally tyrannical as the IRS targeting the political enemies of the state.  But nevertheless, just as ignorantia juris non excusat, ignorance of this bald-faced tyranny makes us no less susceptible to its outcomes.

In 2008, Barack Obama touted himself as a “pragmatist,” telling Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that he would share his “pragmatism about the use of power.”  He wasn’t interested in conservative or liberal, he said.  He was just interested in “what works.” 

Yet regarding the issue of immigration reform, which in “politically correct” tongues means “amnesty,” Obama said on Monday:  “I will continue to push House Republicans to drop the excuses and act… America cannot wait forever… Pass a darn bill.”

It seems silly to ask, but whose responsibility, per that document called the Constitution with which Barack Obama’s education should have left him quite familiar, is it to “pass a darn bill” to fund such a costly endeavor as “immigration reform?”  We lay Constitutionalists call it the Origination Clause, found Article I, Section VII, and it is beyond question that it is solely the responsibility of the House of Representatives -- which is, not coincidentally, the legislative body with the most direct federal representation in terms of the American citizenry.  It is only right, therefore, that this legislative body holds the key to the coffers.  If the House were to, say, pass a bill that broadly finances the expansion and strengthening of border security and financing deportations sans a path to citizenship for those who have broken our laws to live and work within our borders, will that satisfy this president and the political shills that suggest that he has the right to “borrow” the power from Congress to enact a more proper course of action?

We all know the answer to that question.  So when he says, “act,” it’s clear that he means, “act in a manner in which I would approve.”   And knowing this, we know that his meaning is clear when he says, “I am beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own.”

This is the language of “political correctness,” which is, again, an argument against pragmatic, economic, or Constitutional “correctness.”  It is disingenuous in the extreme to present the proposed promulgation of amnesty as anything other than destructive for American producers and their progeny.  This is fact, “political correctness” be damned.

Amnesty for more than 10 million illegal aliens (on the very conservative end of the projections) will necessarily cause an expansion of the federally funded social “safety net” in terms of health care and education, a burden which American taxpayers do not want, and there are pragmatic reasons, aforementioned, to suggest that the expansion of the federally subsidized social “safety nets” is a bad thing for our country.  At the very least, that expansion should be considered and approved by the legislative body to which our foundational contract has assigned the task.  It is not a matter that would have ever reasonably been left at the whim of a single man in executive power.  And for good reason.

If Obama does what his previous actions suggest he will do, which is to act well outside his constitutional tether to advance amnesty for these lawbreakers and their children that have illegally entered our country, he will have made himself an outright despot.  And we Americans will have a choice to either accept his despotism or reject it. 

Shall we answer it with boldness, or with silence?  The time for active dissent is now!

William Sullivan blogs at: and can be followed on Twitter.