Some believe that American media, dubbed “lamestream media” by Sarah Palin, is notorious for its liberal tilt, especially in regards to political correctness. Yet, contrary to this perception, research by Rasmussen Reports, a public opinion polling company, found that a large majority of Americans are opposed to political correctness. In the most recent report dating August 2015, Americans answered two questions: 1) “Do Americans have true freedom of speech today, or do they have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting in trouble?” and 2) “Is political correctness a problem in America today?” Of those polled, an astounding 71 percent agreed political correctness was a problem. These statistics show a rising aversion to political correctness, which may be the root cause for the popularity of Republican candidates Ben Carson and Donald Trump, who have been notorious for bold and “politically incorrect” comments. The timing of Carson and Trump’s presidential runs in their professional careers is also perfect: Neither Carson nor Trump needs to concern themselves in career stability, making political correctness even more futile.
Political correctness has become a popular talking point in both the current election cycle and in popular culture. By 2014, 61 percent of American adults found their nation too politically correct, or PC, a 3 percent increase from three years before. Other Rasmussen statistics show that correctness permeates much more than just the political climate of the US: It also affects culture, education, and security. In 2013, 59 percent of Americans deemed that school textbooks were more concerned with political correctness than historical accuracy. Although two-thirds of American adults surveyed in June 2014 labeled hate speech as a serious problem in the country, only 29 percent favored the ban on hate speech, which affects a multitude of identities. Many also place the burden of safety on political correctness: In 2009, 63 percent of US voters blamed political correctness for preventing military action that may have saved victims of the Fort Hood Massacre in which Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30 at the US Army base. Though the FBI had intelligence on Hasan’s communication with terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, agents allegedly did not pursue the case because it was controversial to “go out and interview every Muslim guy who visits extremist websites.”
This majority opinion on political correctness is relevant because it influences the way voters perceive candidates. In this case, Trump and Carson’s unabashed comments are seen as authentic, real, and, therefore, likable. According to social psychologist Melanie Tannenbaum, who analyzed Trump’s appeal in a three part series called “Decoding Trump-Mania: The Psychological Allure of Hating Political Correctness” for the Scientific American, people who are “non-normative, unexpected, or non self-serving” resonate more with outside observers, as they are “more likely to think they have a good chance of really knowing the authentic, deep-down, true personality of the person saying them.” Geoff Colvin of Fortune noted that Trump and Carson are as genuine as they are perceived when he wrote about Trump and Carson’s performances in the Republican debate on September 16th, saying that “As different as Trump and Carson are, they’re both real, and voters can sense it.”
The polls are a sign of the two candidates’ rising popularity. As of October 12, the HuffPost Pollster indicates that Carson and Trump are leading in polls for the 2016 National Republican Primary and the 2016 Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus. In the National Republican Primary, Donald Trump leads with 27.8 percent and Ben Carson follows with 16.2 percent. In the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus, Trump and Carson have support at 26.7 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively.
For both Carson and Trump, a rise in popularity can be attributed to their many headlines on political correctness; it’s been a topic they haven’t shied away from. At the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013, in an audience with President Obama, Carson called for a reform in American speech, noting that “we’ve reached a point where people are afraid to actually talk about what they want to say because someone might be offended.” This past month, Carson compared those who facilitated political correctness to the allegedly apathetic citizens that allowed Hitler to change history in Germany. Fortunately for Carson, his opposition to PC culture has translated into both political and monetary currency. When he claimed that a Muslim should not be elected President of the United States on September 20, his campaign manager immediately tried to end the interview, and there was speculation that this comment would be Carson’s campaign exit. However, by his own admission, his campaign contributions during the aftermath were equivalent to that of his success in the first Republican debate, if not higher. Carson reportedly made $1 million within twenty-four hours after both debates.
Perhaps Trump has been even more successful than Carson in using the issue to his advantage. One would think that lower and middle income American families who made up a collective 77 percent of the population in 2013 would reject a billionaire for president. Yet, Trump’s provocative take on social issues has attracted exactly these folks. Political correctness has shaped Trump’s identity as a political everyman that voters can share complaints with. In response to comments like, “the illegals come in, and the illegals killed their children” about Mexican immigrants, Trump supporters celebrate their candidate’s “common sense.” One Trump fan, Tom Mosier of Bisbee, Arizona, told the New York Times that Trump was “not just pandering to people.” With the aid of political correctness, Trump has changed the dialogue about immigration in America from the precedent that President Obama has set. In November 2014, the president proposed granting temporary work permits to five million illegal immigrants, a stark contrast to Trump’s future plans to build a great wall across the Mexican border and controversy surrounding his use of “anchor babies” as a term for US-born children of illegal immigrants.
There is much analysis of why and how the political newcomers of the Republican Party have been such standouts in a crowded field. Carson and Trump are able to succeed in this task due to the timing of Americans’ disillusionment of political correctness and the perfect timing of their professional lives. Because neither is a career politician and both have achieved success in past careers, they are able to challenge political discourse in America without the same risk as career politicians.
Back in March 2015, Carson’s Campaign Chief Terry Giles gave Politico a statement about career politicians and their ineffectiveness. According to Giles, career politicians “fidget with the dials” and “take baby steps.” Trump and Carson are untethered by responsibility in grooming their careers. However, for candidates like Marco Rubio, images must be kept up. In February 2013, TIME Magazine featured Rubio with the headline, “The Republican Savior,” and his cover story ended with a suggestion of a 2016 White House run, despite the fact that he had been elected to the US Senate in 2010. A career politician who started his legislative career in 2000 by serving in the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio must maintain the expectations of the American public. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, has no continuing career to tend to; he’s already reached his peak. His individual exceptionalism detailed in Gifted Hands probably inspired thousands of high school students to believe in lofty dreams and bootstraps. Donald Trump, on the other hand, will return smoothly to entrepreneurship with arguably more publicity than before. A University of Pennsylvania graduate, Trump has seen success in real estate, television, and his self-named brand.
Though advantageous for Trump and Carson now, for other candidates in the future, being politically incorrect will be a treacherous move. Sociologist and Wellesley College professor Michael Jeffries believes that political incorrectness breeds faulty policy. He cited Trump’s imitation of a Chinese accent as a potential problem in diplomacy between China and the US. Ignoring political correctness could have a greater impact on the global scale. Moreover, today, political correctness is an ideal that’s rife on college campuses, such as Brandeis University, where the Asian American Student Association (BAASA) removed an installation of micro-aggressions against Asian Americans due to complaints that BAASA was committing its own micro-aggression by presenting the installation. With the millennial generation wholeheartedly embracing the right to not offend, condemning political correctness may not gain as many votes a few decades from now.
Photo: Eatbrie1