Frank's Musings

The signers of the Open letter that will appear in the October 2020 Harper’s Magazine would probably object to the characterization of their opinion piece as being politically correct.  In fact, it is exactly the opposite.  And yet, I would expect the usual foes of similar liberal views also to disagree with  the letter writers’ denunciation of the tyranny of institutional style-setters.  (How political is the celebrated tome written by Strunk and White?)

Broadly accepted standards of belief and behavior always set boundaries on an individual’s freedom to act independently.  The LGBTQ community certainly knows that.  Even those in the medical culture protect their careers by accepting more trauma from dealing with extreme health emergencies like COVID-19 thanmay be good for their physical and mental well-being.  (cf. the story of the suicide of Dr. Breen in the 7/12;2020 NYT.)  Both of these examples refer to only one level of the constraints that certain communities place on our individuality.   Indeed, another more general point of the Open Letter is that we adhere to political correctness not only at the expense of our careers, but more importantly at the expense of our democratic values.

  

The rebuttal of that letter reminded me of Kayleigh McEnany’s defenses of President Trump’s lies or misstatements.  Like her, the rebutters assume that their readers will easily be convinced of the unreliability of an opposing view by countering with the statement of irrelevant facts.  The illustrations used in the Open Letter of sanctions on nonconforming views were surely not meant to argue those cases; they were only meant to show how frequently not toeing the common line is met with punishment because ie discomfits the consensus rather than because it really harms anyone or the violates the principles of the institution.

The accepted norms of a liberal democratic society should aim to uphold order while allowing as much individual distinction and excellence as does not jeopardize its existence. The overriding standard of conduct in that society must uphold the common welfare=.   That means maximizing each person’s welfare to the extent that it doesn’t reduce the common welfare.  A narcissist would have trouble adhering to this standard—maybe that’s the point of the Open Letter.