Hey RNC, after you get done kissing the feet of the Commissars of Politically Correct Orthodoxy, you may want to listen up. The way to fight PC is to actually fight PC. You can’t complain about the liberal press and the cultural Powers That Be unfairly calling you bad names and accusing you of wrongthink, and then turn around and kiss their feet on cue. They call you bad names and accuse you of wrongthink because you kiss their feet on cue. Your dutiful thoughtslavish response empowers them. Stop empowering them.
At issue is a series of Facebook posts made by Michigan Committeeman Dave Agema. One involves homosexuality. One involves Muslims. The most recent one involves race. I don’t have time to cover each incident in detail. Suffice it to say, it does look like Mr. Agema could stand to be a little more careful and cautious. But the way to deal with his his lack of carefulness is not to feed into and reinforce the hysteria. Offer a nuanced criticism of what warrants criticism, and then offer the general disclaimer that Mr. Agema’s opinions are his own and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the GOP, and leave it at that.
For example, his most recent alleged outrage was that he linked to an article at American Renaissance. The article is the first person account of a public defender and his impressions regarding race based on his work. The alleged outrage is that he linked to American Renaissance at all. We decry PC here, but reality being what it is, perhaps it is not the wisest move for a GOP official to link to an article at AR on his Facebook page. That said, don’t let the other side get away with the implication that linking to AR is in and of itself an act of crimethink.
So, let’s say you are a generic GOP figure who is being asked to respond to the supposed outrage. What you are supposed to do is express your outrage and call for his banishment from polite society, Don’t do it. It empowers them. Here is an example of how you could respond otherwise:
Reporter: “Sir, what do you think about Mr. Agema linking to the white supremacist American Renaissance website?”
Generic GOP Figure: “You’ll have to ask Mr, Agema what his thoughts were when he posted the article. Was there something in the article he linked to that was factually inaccurate?”
Reporter: (Likely thrown off) “But Sir, do you condone linking to a known racist website?”
Generic GOP Figure: “You’ll have to ask Mr. Agema why he chose to link to that particular website. What did the article he linked to say that was objectionable?”
Reporter: “But, don’t you think it’s wrong for him to link to a hate site? What is the Republican Party going to do about this?”
Generic GOP Figure: “What Mr. Agema does on his personal Facebook page reflect his views alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the Republican Party. What was it in the article itself that you are suggesting was hateful or inaccurate?”
This is idealized for the sake of length. I’m sure it wouldn’t go this smoothly. But you get the point. Don’t give them outrage. Don’t give them what they want which is condemnation of crimethink qua crimethink. Make the issue about facts. Is the public defender embellishing? Is he making things up? These are his personal recollections. Is he deliberately lying?