Political correctness hinders full, robust debate on controversial issues

Several weeks ago, a couple of events spawned a firestorm of debate and discussion.

A racially-motivated church shooting in South Carolina, coupled with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the redefinition of marriage, fueled some passionate discourse on those two very varied matters.

The back-and-forth got so heated that friendships, real-life and online, were ended.

More than one person was seen to remark that their social media feeds made it appear as if the Civil War had broken out in a Skittles factory, so many graphics of Confederate battle flags and rainbows were posted.

While robust discussion of history and current events is always a good thing, some folks involved in those parallel debates went into them with a very one-sided view. Many of them feel that if you oppose the redefinition of marriage, you’re a bigot or a homophobe (one of the most-misused words in the English language today), and if you support the display of the Rebel flag or don’t want Jefferson Davis’ statue removed from the Kentucky Capitol, you’re a racist.

Any surprise that those opinions are mostly held by people on the left side of the political aisle? Does anyone else shake their head at the irony that the people who preach tolerance and acceptance are some of the most intolerant and unaccepting people in the world?

Here’s a news flash. Not everyone who opposes the redefinition of marriage hates homosexuals. Some have very valid religious reasons for their beliefs. Others think the court decision changing the definition of marriage nationally and taking the ability to define who can get married away from the states is flawed.

People who display the Rebel flag aren’t necessarily endorsing racism. Some use that image as a symbol of a rural, southern lifestyle. They aren’t advocating a return to the days when blacks were slaved.  They see it as a representation of fast cars, loud trucks, camping, hunting, fishing, cold beer, “Dukes of Hazzard” and country music.

But in today’s politically correct society, it doesn’t matter the intent of the expression. What matters is how it’s perceived. And if some group takes offense at something, then by all means it must be changed or eliminated.

The assumption that people who oppose the redefinition of marriage hate homosexuals, or that people who fly Rebel flags are racist, has stifled an honest discussion of the issues. Many are afraid to make their true feelings known on these and other subjects, lest they be branded with unflattering and untrue descriptions and suffer repercussions for their opinions. Telling the truth has somehow become less important than making sure no one is offended.

For years, persons who came to America without going through proper channels were called “illegal aliens.” That is a perfect term to describe them and their status. Yet that term has somehow become offensive, with the politically correct crowd preferring the terms “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker.” That has led to a number of jokes, one of the most popular being that we can’t call a drug dealer by that term anymore; we have to call them “unlicensed pharmacists.” Another controversy broke out last week over the use of the term “anchor baby” to describe children born to illegal aliens – excuse me, undocumented immigrants.

My humorous observation is that I’m surprised there hasn’t been a movement to get the British rock group Genesis to change the name of its early 1980s hit song “Illegal Alien” to something more PC.

But there’s nothing humorous about how the concept of political correctness keeps us from having a serious discussion of the issues. One of the reasons Donald Trump has found popularity as a presidential candidate is because of his bluntness.  During the recent Republican presidential debate in Cleveland, Trump addressed the subject. "I think the big problem this country has -- is being politically correct," Trump "And I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either."

People don’t want to be described in ways that aren’t necessarily true. Who wants to be branded a racist or a homophobe just because you disagree with current popular opinion? It’s gotten to the point that if you counter the phrase “black lives matter” with the statement, “all lives matter,” you’re politically incorrect. Some politicians have even apologized after being criticized for saying “all lives matter,” proving that it’s often easier to cave to the prevailing sentiment than to stand up for truth.

We have to get past this notion that no one should be offended if we are going to have a frank, open and honest dialogue on important issues. Until we do, we can’t expect things to get better.

Some views on the news

My detractors – and even some of my friends – think I’m in the tank for the Republican Party.

They’re obviously not paying attention.

I tend to be more critical of Republicans than I am liberal Democrats. That’s because I have higher expectations of Republicans. I expect them to be conservative, and I don’t like it when they don’t act in a manner consistent with what they profess to believe. I don’t consider myself a partisan. I am, however, an ideologue, and proudly so. I usually tell people I’m not a Republican, but I’m a conservative.

That’s not a popular thing in certain circles. There are some people who believe our elected Republican leaders, especially in Washington D.C., can do no wrong. It’s heresy to criticize John Boehner or, especially in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. Express disappointment with something McConnell says or does and there are folks who will call you a liberal, say you don’t understand how government works, or otherwise belittle you simply because you’re tired of so-called conservatives acquiescing to liberal demands and positions.

But I’ve never been afraid to point out a bad idea, no matter where it comes from, and a couple of Kentucky Republicans floated a really bad one last week.

Senators Damon Thayer and Chris Girdler said they’d be filing a bill in next year’s General Assembly session to force local school districts to delay the start of classes each year. Currently, most school systems in eastern Kentucky go back the first week of August. Urban districts and those in less mountainous areas wait a week or two longer to begin the school year. Thayer and Girdler want to push back the starting date to either the last week of August or after Labor Day in September. They cite decreased tourism spending and increased school energy costs as the reason.

This is a bad idea. What they in essence propose is to trade the month of August for the month of June. Most eastern Kentucky districts hold classes right up until the end of May as it is, mostly due to weather concerns.  Even what my dad called a “skiff” of snow is enough to cause most rural systems to cancel classes. While state roads may be in good shape, county-maintained roads aren’t. Many school districts have snow plans, where they only run buses on main routes, but they’re hesitant to use those plans. Parents often keep their children home when buses run on a snow plan. This costs the schools money, because in Kentucky, schools are funded based on average daily attendance rather than enrollment.

When winters are exceptionally harsh, like this past one, classes can be pushed back into June even if the state grants a waiver for instructional days missed. Even this causes problems for some, and if August is basically swapped for June, those problems would be compounded.

Kentucky allows local school districts to hire teachers who only have their undergraduate degrees, but the law requires teachers to obtain a master’s degree within a certain number of years after they’re hired. Most teachers working to earn their post-graduate degree, or additional certification such as their Rank I accreditation, take summer classes. Colleges offer summer classes in June and July. If the teachers are busy in June in their classrooms, they can’t take the required college classes to be able to keep their jobs. Such a schedule change would be very detrimental to them.

When I was in school, we usually didn’t start classes until after the state fair had begun. My dad was a teacher, and we usually managed to make it to Louisville on a weekday to attend the fair before school got underway. But my sophomore, junior and senior years of high school coincided with the bad winters of 1977, 1978 and 1978. All three of those years, we got out of school for Christmas and only got a handful of days in before district tournament time in March. I graduated in the last week of May. After that, schools began starting the year earlier to make up for bad winters.

This isn’t the first time in recent months that I’ve disagreed with Girdler. Last year, he was harshly critical when the city of Somerset opened its own gas station to combat what city officials thought was gouging and collusion on prices. I thought Girdler was wrong then, and I think he’s wrong now.

*****

Speaking of gas prices, news reports last week said the cost of a gallon of gas would be going up in Kentucky because of a BP refinery shutdown in Indiana. We, along with a number of Great Lakes states, were said to be the ones most affected by the problem.

That’s funny. I thought Kentucky was under the thumb of Marathon, and that the Marathon refinery in Ashland had a monopoly on gasoline distribution in Kentucky, and that’s why we pay too much for gas. At least that’s what Jack Conway, attorney general and Democrat gubernatorial candidate, has always said. I guess this development blows a hole in Conway’s argument.

*****

And speaking of Conway, it’s become apparent that one of his key campaign points is going to be that his Republican opponent, Matt Bevin, is not a Kentucky native like Conway is.

Democrats must have short memories. Two decades ago, Kentucky’s governor was a Democrat named Brereton Jones. He must have been a Bluegrass native, right? Nope, he’s from West Virginia.

I guess non-native Kentuckians can only be governor when they’re Democrats, right?

Matt Bevin: Striking fear in the hearts of Democrats and establishment Republicans alike

It’s hard to tell who’s more frightened of Matt Bevin winning the governor’s race: Kentucky Democrats, who are used to controlling the reins of state government; or establishment Republicans, who fear not being invited to the party as he sets up his administration.

The reason Democrats are terrified is easy to discern. They don’t want to lose their grip on patronage hiring, awarding of contracts, spending on governmental programs and the other trappings of power that they’ve come to expect as their birthright in the commonwealth.

It would be awful if the local Democrat chairman can’t decide who should get scarce state jobs in the local highway garages or social services offices. If bigwigs in Frankfort can’t reward donors with contracts, which are often hidden inside other contracts that are written in such a way so as to remove any chance of competitive bidding, they’ll be unable to wield power. And if funding is cut for their pet programs, they lose the opportunity to keep voters beholden to them.

But why are some Republicans so scared? If they are really opposed to the policies that would be continued or implemented during a Jack Conway administration, why are so many expressing reservations about Bevin?

The obvious answer is that there’s little difference between a Democrat and an establishment Republican, which is why they’ve been given the derisive nickname of RINO, for “Republican In Name Only.” But is something else going on? Are there petty jealousies involved? Most likely, yes.

One well-known Republican columnist, who has a reputation for being a Mitch McConnell sycophant, has written several opinion pieces blasting Bevin and expressing doubts if he’d be any better of a governor than Conway. He, apparently, has not gotten over the fact that Bevin dared to challenge his political idol in an attack from the right flank in last year’s U.S. Senate primary.

And another well-respected columnist, whose work appears in several papers across the state, has published allegations that several unnamed Republican officials and party leaders are worried that Bevin would bring in a number of Tea Party types and others who are unfamiliar with how Frankfort works.

And this is a bad thing? After nearly four decades of almost-continuous one-party control, Frankfort needs an enema. The capital city is full of people who are wed to inefficient and wasteful bureaucratic policies and procedures. There is a “we’ve always done it this way” mentality that needs to be exterminated. The one-size-fits-all approach the state uses is too inflexible to deal with real-world situations. The entire system needs to be overhauled from top to bottom.

Entrenched interests won’t get it done. Outsiders with fresh, bold ideas are required to make the changes Kentucky needs.  Establishment Republicans haven’t been able to change Washington, D.C. They’ve had control of Congress for two years now, yet they haven’t forced President Obama’s hand on anything yet. Why not try Tea Party ideas? Do the RINOs really think they have the answers, especially when the base of the party has a hard time telling a RINO from a Democrat these days?

The establishment has a jealous grip on its control of the GOP. Look at how poorly they’ve treated constitutional crusaders like Ted Cruz. And recall how righteously indignant McConnell’s troops were when Bevin ran against him last year and called him out for his anti-conservative actions.

Despite Jamie Comer’s bizarre speech at a non-political event long before the governor’s race even started about how he couldn’t be controlled, and despite the general wisdom that he was sympathetic to Tea Party causes, most of the state’s GOP establishment had lined up behind him in the primary. No doubt, his administration would have been comprised of many old-line Republicans that often dance to the same puppet masters as do the Democrats. That all changed when Comer torpedoed both his own candidacy and that of rival Hal Heiner late in the campaign, paving the way for Bevin.

And now, the establishment frets that it won’t be business as usual in Frankfort. And that’s a good thing. Real change requires real change agents, and the same old faces and ideas won’t get it done.

If recalcitrant Republicans allow Conway to be elected just because Bevin’s not a good ol’ boy who plays by the same go-along-to-get-along rules that McConnell and John Boehner do in D.C., then they’ll have no one but themselves to blame. Surely, they can’t think that a Bevin administration that espouses what Republican ideals are supposed to be would be worse than a Conway administration that stands in opposition to everything they hold dear. But power, and the desire to hold on to it, makes people do strange things.

The enigma that is Rand Paul

(Note: This column originally appeared in some Kentucky newspapers the week of July 27.)

Rand Paul is somewhat of an enigma.

He’s a favorite of many conservatives, yet he espouses positions that sound like they’d be right at home in the platforms of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

He’s seemingly changed his stance on so many issues that it’s hard to determine where he stands on some of them, getting a reputation among some of his detractors that he thrives on telling differing audiences exactly what they want to hear.

He’s tried to establish a bit of independence from his father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, yet he relies on his father’s network of supporters and donors while at the same time trying to appeal to voters who aren’t fans of his dad’s brand of politics.

As one of the first announced presidential candidates, he spent some time at the top of the polls, but he’s taken a back seat lately as candidates with broader appeal (Scott Walker), establishment support (Jeb Bush) or a penchant for bombastically speaking truths (Donald Trump) have entered the race.

And he’s always asserted that being a Kentucky senator is his first priority, even as he started plotting a run for president almost as soon as his improbable election to the Senate in 2010 was certified.

It’s that last bit that has some people wondering, since the announcement last week that Paul will be skipping Kentucky’s most storied political event, the Fancy Farm picnic so he can campaign for president in New Hampshire, just how committed he is to defending his Senate seat.

That Fancy Farm revelation has some political pundits and observers wondering just how sincere Paul’s commitment to his re-election bid really is. Despite its location in a remote corner of the Jackson Purchase area in far western Kentucky, miles away from any major media markets, Fancy Farm is the “can’t miss” shindig for Bluegrass State political figures. And with elections for statewide offices on the ballot this year, there will be considerable interest in this year’s festivities.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned Paul’s push to have Kentucky Republicans switch from a primary election to a caucus to allow him to get around Kentucky’s law that would only allow him to run for one office at a time. The change to a caucus is not a done deal. State GOP leaders will be deciding within the next few weeks whether or not to move forward with that plan, and there is some opposition to it. If the party does not approve a caucus, then Paul will definitely have to decide whether he wants to pursue his presidential ambitions, or try to remain Kentucky’s junior senator.

Some are beginning to wonder if Paul’s inattention to his re-election efforts might allow a well-funded and aggressive Democrat to sneak in and claim the seat. Although no Democrat has yet announced an intention to run yet, several names have been floated. The Democrats have always prized having the controls of state government more than federal offices, though, so it’s most likely that any of them who are thinking of running next year will wait until after November’s elections to announce.  And it’s further possible that the likely candidates are running for statewide office this year (Alison Lundergan Grimes and Adam Edelen being two of the most oft-mentioned.)

Mitch McConnell still has a tenuous hold on control of the state GOP, despite a number of well-publicized stumbles in the last few years. One of his staffers was recently named executive director of the Republican Party of Kentucky. McConnell and Paul have a well-documented relationship that has always been a bit contentious. McConnell supported Trey Grayson over Paul in the 2010 GOP senatorial primary, but came on board for the general election. McConnell has voiced his support for Paul’s presidential aspirations, but no doubt his loyalties lie with Bush or another establishment candidate, as their views mesh better with McConnell’s than do Paul’s. McConnell has also thrown his support behind the idea of a presidential caucus, but given the fickle nature of McConnell’s loyalties, that could change. (Don’t believe me about that? Ask former Gov. Ernie Fletcher about that subject. Or former U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning.) McConnell and Paul recently had a well-publicized spat over surveillance issues that got a lot of attention nationally.

The next few weeks will be critical to Paul’s presidential campaign. They may also prove critical to his senatorial re-election bid. He may be forced, via one reason or another, to choose between them. How it all turns out will be as interesting to Kentucky political observers as the Donald Trump phenomenon now is on the national scene.