Flouting The Establishment

If those who are not ideologically-committed to the ultra-right-wing want a desirable outcome in the 2020 presidential election, it is important they understand why NON-ultra-right-wing endeavors (encompassing Progressives and corporatist Democrats alike) imploded four years earlier.  It was not because the Democratic candidate was too far to the “Left”.  And it certainly was not because she was too populist…let alone too Progressive.  It was because Hillary Clinton–the only alternative to Donald Trump–was off-putting to many swing voters.  There were two main reasons for this:

• She countenanced some of the daft pieties of political correct-ness, which many swing-voters found off-putting.
• As a corporatist Democrat, she was effectively the vicar of the very thing that on-the-fence voters were so set against: the “Establishment”.

There were, of course, a confluence of factors that led to the disastrous outcome in 2016–among them: the glaring inauthenticity of Trump’s adversary (not to mention the DNC’s now-exposed machinations to prevent Bernie Sanders from receiving the Democratic nomination). {1}

As I hope to show here, these two factors explain Clinton’s loss.  Indeed, they represented things for which the rank and file had–and continues to have–contempt; and for very good reason.  (The fact that Clinton ran what Barack Obama described as a “scripted, soul-less campaign” didn’t help either.)  There are effectual and ineffectual ways to promote Progressive ideals; and the 2016 election illustrated–more than anything else–what NOT to do.

But, comes a common response, what of misogyny and racism?  These are certainly valid concerns; and serious problems in need of addressing.  Yet to chalk Clinton’s loss up to bigotry–which is, indeed, very real in some segments of the polis–is to miss the point of WHY what happened happened as it did.  For those who are right-leaning enough to be bigoted were never going to vote for a Democrat anyway.

Incessantly chastising the most odious sectors of the electorate helps nobody.  Courting such voters is pointless; as they are–with very few exceptions–a lost cause.  It is pointless to focus (what is already very limited) time and energy on those who are already too far-gone, and cannot be reasoned with.  Reason is not what determines the worldview of such people.  And it is just as foolhardy to castigate denizens of these “lost” precincts as it is to pander to them.  (As has been demonstrated in every election since 1980, fundamentalist Christians will ALWAYS vote for whoever the G.O.P. candidate might be, even if he is obviously not a Christian.)

Meanwhile, pretending that anyone who fails to toe the party line is ipso facto PART OF that reprehensible segment of the polis only succeeds in turning off almost everyone else (i.e. those who may be on the fence, and persuadable when reasoned with).  Roughly 10% of voters (that is: between 9 and 10 million people) who had voted for Obama four years earlier ended up pulling the lever for Trump in 2016.  Many of them had voted for Obama twice.  Those people were not racist.  There was clearly something else driving their choices.  The fact is that many voters who got swept up in Trump fervor did so for lack of a credible alternative.  Such people may well have been otherwise inclined to back a genuinely Progressive candidate (who spoke to them in the way they needed to be spoken to); and opted for Trump by default.  In some ways, this says more about the options open to them than anything else.

Before proceeding, a word on logistics is necessary.  Here in the U.S., presidential elections are decided not by the vast majority of the electorate; or even by just the “swing voters”.  Due to America’s skewed electoral calculus, elections are decided exclusively by THE SWING VOTERS IN THE SWING STATES.  That is: Irrespective of political party, a candidate prevails only by securing the swing-states’ points in the electoral college, which is often on a knife’s edge, ready to teeter one way or the other, depending on which kind of perturbation happens to sway them at the time.  (See Appendix 2.)

For better or worse, it’s the swing-voters that make the pivotal difference in the electoral college.  Consequently, it is incorrect to suppose that Trump triumphed due to factors that were NOT salient with that particular segment of the electorate.   To fixate on things that define hidebound ideologues (that is: those who would never vote for anyone other than the G.O.P. candidate) is to squander vital resources.

It is imperative that Progressives understand why the Democratic candidate lost in 2016…lest the same mistake be repeated, leading to a second victory for Trump.  This entails focusing on the motivations of swing-voters; not on trying to convert True Believers.

Once we understand this, it becomes clear that over the course of 2016, anti-Trump PR was poorly orchestrated.  During that pivotal time, the strategy employed by non-Trump supporters was to attack Trump supporters for being bigots.  By labeling Trump’s advocates racists and/or sexists, gas was thrown on an already blazing conflagration. {14}

When it has come to any presidential race, those who actually were bigots were never going to be persuaded to switch their support to the Democratic nominee–especially after being castigated for being bigoted.  Meanwhile, once tentative Trump-supporters (i.e. NON-bigots who may have fancied Trump) heard their perceived political adversaries lumping them in with ACTUAL bigots, they were pushed even further into Trump’s camp.  Throwing in their lot for a bumbling demagogue was essentially a “Go fuck yourself” to all those who considered them deplorable.  (In other words, their urge to pull the lever for Trump was not so much out of support for right-wing political positions; it was an act of defiance.)

To reiterate:  When it comes to campaigns, focused as they are on the near-term, die-hard ideologues are NOT the target audience when it comes to persuasion. {15}

Meanwhile, in relevant segments of the polis, support for Trump was often more out of spite than out of a well-thought-out assessment of Trump’s (comically vague) policy proposals.  The ham-fisted strategy of the Clinton campaign–alienating large swaths of the American electorate–simply gave POTENTIAL Trump supporters more to be spiteful about.

This brings us to the present assessment.  My singular aim is to proffer an explication of why SWING VOTERS (particularly those in swing-states) opted to either stay home or–out of some virulent combination of spite and frustration–pull the lever for Trump in 2016.  This fickle part of the electorate was–understandably–seething with resentment; and seeking to vent in whatever way presented itself.  As it happened, such people ended up channeling their ire against the figure who seemed to most embody the despised Washington Machine (Clinton); opting instead for a wild-card who railed against the status quo and spouted bold promises (Trump).

This was not (necessarily) because such voters were misogynistic and/or racist.  Rather, it was because they were fed up; and–consequently–highly susceptible to the wiles of a demagogue who “spoke their language” in the most accessible (read: simplistic) manner.  In short: These swing-voters were credulous and disoriented; so easily hoodwinked.  Their vote for Trump was not the result of some meticulous process of critical deliberation; it was a strident rebuke.

And so it went: A tough-talking, tell-it-like-it-is “outsider” seemed to be just what the doctor ordered.  Perceptions are EVERYTHING; so it didn’t matter that–in reality–he NEVER told it like it really was; or that he was just as much an insider as anyone who’d ever sought the Oval Office.  The irrefutable fact is that almost all of Trump’s policy positions were–and continue to be–indistinguishable from those of any ultra-right-wing politician of the past generation: from abortion and guns to taxes and corporate welfare.  (If anything, he went FARTHER rightward–as with accelerated support for Israel’s fascist regime.)

Here, I will refrain from addressing the many reasons to vote for the only viable Progressive candidate in the 2020 race (who also happened to be the only viable candidate in the 2016 race): Bernie Sanders.  The present essay is not a disquisition on policy.  In any case, Sanders’ positions are already well-known:

• His recognition of healthcare as a human right (that is: treating it as a public service rather than a consumer product)
• His support for a “green New Deal” (transitioning the country to clean energy)
• His endeavor to end the Warfare economy (curbing the obscenely-bloated military-industrial complex)
• His determination to reverse the massive tax-breaks / subsidies for large corporations and the ultra-wealthy (thereby ending corporate socialism)
• His long, consistent track-record on supporting civil rights.

Of course, those are all very good reasons to support Sanders.  But it wasn’t his endeavor to reign in the for-profit sick-ness treatment industry…or his mission to get all money out of politics…that drove people into Trump’s arms in 2016.  And it wouldn’t be a reason for any sane person to opt for Trump in 2020 either.

Rather than litigate the merit of specific policy proposals, the purpose of this essay is to ensure the explanation for Trump’s triumph in 2016 is crystal clear.  My hope is that the American electorate does not make the same mistakes in the 2020 election that it made four years earlier.

So the thesis here is relatively simple: Trump was victorious in the 2016 presidential election because so many people (particularly swing voters in swing states) were repelled by p.c. culture; and craved ANYONE who seemed to rage against “the Machine”.

Hence it is to the motivation of SWING VOTERS that we turn.  Predictably, we are presently (in 2020) seeing a reprise of 2016, with the corporatist Democrats (who are sure to lose again to Trump) pitted against Progressives (who’s standard-bearer continues to be Bernie Sanders).  To repeat: Sanders–we now know–would have won THEN, and will surely win if given a chance NOW.

Alas.  As with last time, the Establishment–along with mainstream media–is gunning for the former.  CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have shown unabashed, unrelenting contempt for Progressives-in-general, and for Sanders in particular; as has the DNC, DLC, CAP, and every other corporatist arm of the Democratic party.  The contention that such “mainstream” operations are even remotely concerned with Progressive ideals is risible.

The fact of the matter is that the apparatchiks of corporatism–in both its Republican and Democratic incarnations–despise Progressives and everything they stand for.  But swing-voters are not doomed to sycophancy.  They can be won over by a genuinely Progressive option, should it present itself cogently.

Meanwhile, corporatist Democrats despise Sanders (too far left) as much as they despise Trump (too far right).  Put another way: They don’t like Trump because he’s even farther to the right than THEY are; and they don’t like Sanders because he isn’t far enough to the right. (See Appendix 4.)

The question, then, is: Have NON-right-wing voters finally learned their lesson?  Or will we have a repeat of the 2016 election in store for us?  Should a 2016 redux occur in 2020 (entailing a second term for Trump), it will be for roughly the same reason: Espousing an Establishmentarian (i.e. corporatist) candidate who flies the “Democrat” banner; and who abides political correctness in a fumbling attempt at moral preening.

We will look at each of these problems in turn.

Political Correct-ness:

Let’s start with political correctness–replete with all the absurdities of identity politics and the cloying pageant of faux outrage over the latest frivolity du jour.  The dismaying results of the 2016 election served as a deafening repudiation of the p.c. approach to social justice–an approach that animated the campaign of Clinton and her (ersatz-Progressive) acolytes.

The results of the election (especially in the Rust Belt) was a reminder that–far from helping to promote social justice–p.c. tends to just annoy a lot of people; turning them away from (Progressive) causes that they may have otherwise supported.

Too often, p.c.-mongers exhort us to sacrifice candor on the altar of propriety.  As Progressives who have the merit of our convictions to offer, we need to stop doing that.  The 2016 election made all-too-clear that p.c. alienates potential allies; driving crucial parts of the electorate (spec. swing voters) away from Progressive policy choices–the merit of which does not depend on divisive argumentation.  Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential race served as a demonstration of this phenomenon.

For anyone familiar with right-wing commentary, it should be quite clear: By incorporating p.c. into their repertoire, those on the “Left” only furnish Reactionaries with anti-liberal fodder, thereby emboldening those who may have nascent right-wing proclivities.  Put another way: The repercussion of countenancing p.c. is the provision of rhetorical ammunition to right-wing rabble-rousers. {2}  To wit: Progressivism does not require p.c.; rather, it is positively hamstrung by it.

Indeed, p.c. is the ultimate saboteur of the Progressive cause, as it is invariably associated with the “Left”…and thus, erroneously, with Progressives.  Being as it is authoritarian and puritanical, p.c. is antithetical to Progressive ideals.  In their sanctimonious posturing and censorious attitude, p.c.-mongers are manifestly illiberal–just another version of any other sermonizers who are obsessed with etiquette (call it: semantic prudery).  It passes propriety off as a prosthesis for probity; and so abjures us to castigate anyone who deviates from the latest puritanical catechism.

Political correctness enables socio-economic elites to launder their culpability in socio-economic injustices.  This serves as an elaborate diversion; as it directs public attention away from the iniquities of those elites, by making an exhibition of their “woke-ness” with a few well-placed token gestures; and and a boorish litany of ingratiating lip service.

This charade only works on the most credulous of non-right-wing voters, who are not paying any attention to actual POLICY positions…and are taken in by such oleaginous posturing.  “I may be supporting right-wing policies, but look!  I’m wearing a kente cloth and have a copy of Coate’s “Between The World And Me” tucked under my arm!”  (For more on this semiotic swindle, see my essay: “Robin’s Zugzwang”.)

It comes as no surprise, then, that Trump got almost 10 million MORE votes in 2020 than in 2016—which included an INCREASE in support from both Latinos and African Americans (not to mention East Asians).  Meanwhile, charlatans like Henry Rogers (a.k.a. “Ibram X. Kendi”) are able to charge tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of having a 1-hour round-table discussion…with him IN PERSON. (!)

In the end, p.c. is little more than a discursive poultice laced with sugar-coated toxins.  It is entirely performative, and operates on a strict regimen of blasphemy laws operating under the auspices of social-justice reform.  To be an aficionado of p.c. is to be anti-Progressive; and to ensure that swing voters are alienated by the “Left”.

Yet rejecting p.c. is not enough.  After all, TRUMP flouted p.c. to staggering aplomb.  Just as any idiot can be politically correct, any idiot can be politically incorrect.  On November 8, 2016, it was made clear that neither the protocols of p.c. NOR the mere repudiation of it is the ultimate solution to the problems that afflict America’s disoriented, perpetually-distracted polis.

That it is not enough to eschew p.c. is illustrated by the fact that the majority of anti-p.c. sentiment comes from nefarious quarters of the American agora (that is: from the ultra-right of the political spectrum).  Indeed, being politically incorrect is no guarantee of honesty–as has been demonstrated throughout history by brazen demagogues who employ a brusque tell-it-like-it-is schtick.

In the U.S. presidential primaries of 1968, white-supremacist George Wallace amassed a large following.  His appeal (beyond the usual paeans to Christian Dominionism, “states’ rights”, and “law and order”) was his refusal to mince words.  In a world where mealy-mouthed rhetoric is de rigueur, this was rather refreshing–even if the SUBSTANCE of his politics was risible.  After all, in politics the world over, it’s all about OPTICS rather than the merit of the content.  Wallace’s ardent supporters were not merely the standard assortment of Reactionaries (racists, super-patriots, and theocrats); they included those who told reporters that they admired him because “he says what he thinks.”  One encounters the same appeal with Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s stage-managed performance came off as pandering.  It’s not that Clinton seemed kinda phony; it’s that she really was phony.  Indeed, everything about her radiated phoniness–from each feigned look-of-concern to each gratingly fake laugh.  She exuded disingenuousness with virtually every word, every gesture.  Most people found such a put-on intolerable for the same reason they find p.c. intolerable: they can’t stand those who put on airs.

To reiterate: Those who propound p.c. confuse propriety with probity.  While p.c. serves as a noetic anesthetic, a robust public discourse–in America or anywhere else–requires something entirely different: a hefty infusion of critical reflection and brute candor.  It is not a dearth of sensitivity that plagues us; it is a dearth of rectitude.  When we are already afflicted with ubiquitous epistemic sedation, an endless sea of ingratiating affectation is not going to solve any problems.

We fail to see that much of the electorate cares far more about straight-talk than about the nuts and bolts of any particular policy proposal.  One is much more likely to say, “I may not agree with him on everything, but he’s brutally honest; ya gotta give ‘em that” than “Whether or not he’s sincere is tough to say, but he says all the things I want him to say; so let’s roll the dice.”  Reciting pieties from an assigned script doesn’t cut it; one must be AUDACIOUS.

The prodigious appeal Trump commanded vis a vis his credulous flock was roughly as follows: “Wow!  This guy’s not afraid to say ANYTHING.”  This unprecedented gall felt like a breath of fresh air to those who were sick and tired of the same old pablum being churned out by an establishment that only seemed to be conversant in boilerplate.

Gall seems impressive irrespective of the merit of what is actually being said.  So rather than being off-put by Trump’s bluster and callowness, America’s dim-witted are bewitched by it.  His (contrived) patina of “outsider” status (regarding the despised political establishment) was compelling, even if it was balderdash.  For those hoodwinked by Trump’s bluster, the penthouse suites of Trump Tower were a sign of gaudy ostentation were unproblematic; for his gilded life was located outside the vile swamp that lay within the Beltway.

The consummate showman, Trump convinced his audience that he was being CANDID.  He read his audience, then played them like a fiddle.  Had he REALLY BEEN honest and forthcoming, or had he been an even remotely eloquent speaker, he would have utterly failed.  Instead of worrying about polish; he lobbed grenades. 

Of course, one would normally think that people would be repelled by Trump’s crude bluster; in that it resembled the puerile fanfaronade of a petulant child on methamphetamines.  Yet being unseemly was a moot point; Trump wore his gall like a badge of honor.  Restive blue-collar workers weren’t off-put by this; they found it REFRESHING.

When one is struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table, fixating on frivolities of p.c. seems silly–even offensive.  Finally, at long last, here was a man who didn’t bother with decorum; he spoke THEIR language.

In other words: Trump may have been completely full of shit with every word out of his mouth, but he SEEMED to be a straight-talker.  Consequently, he had an almost irresistible appeal amongst those who were untroubled by the fact that he obviously had no idea what he was talking about.

No matter.  The more proprieties Trump flouted, the more appealing he became to those seeking to buck the reviled Establishment.  He offered a breath of fresh air to the disenchanted swing-voter; even though it was all HOT air.  Thus Trump’s LACK OF eloquence had the effect of making him more relatable.  Rather than attest to his illiteracy, his crass perorations made him seem more in communion with the unprepossessing everyman.

Trump’s garishly uncouth comportment was proof of his anti-Establishment bona fides.  The more he seemed to break the rules, the more galvanized his support became.  That many on the “Left” were niggling sticklers for inane proprieties made this juxtaposition even more stark.

By contrast, Trump’s overly-rehearsed opponent was the epitome of “more of the same shit”.  Hence his brusque “fuck the system” attitude–reckless and utterly vacuous as it may have been–made him appear to be just what the doctor ordered.  Unfortunately, in contemporary American politics, appearances (read: image) is all that matters.  That Trump was just another out-of-touch, self-important oligarch who would be a shill for the same ol’ corporate interests was–tragically–a moot point to those who were swept up in the fervor of his puerile ramblings.

Trump’s feigned contempt for the Beltway oligarchy was encapsulated in his obdurate flouting of political correctness–an ad hoc feint that made him seem honest and valiant to those who fell for his antics.  His brazen irreverence–crude yet compelling–was thereby perceived as a badge of his anti-Establishment bona fides.  That he simply transplanted one oligarchy with another was lost on his ardent supporters.  They sought to “drain the swamp” by–unwittingly–flooding it with MORE toxins.

Rather than “draining the swamp”, Trump filled it with an even more noxious brew…and called it progress.  (Even worse than a contaminated quagmire of corrupt bureaucrats, Trump ensured it would become a toxic bog of plutocrats and theocrats.)  Instead of “draining the swamp” as he promised; he made the swamp even more toxic than it had already been: teeming with Wall Street goons, avaricious corporate executives, and ultra-right-wing ideologues.

In an intellectually blighted society like America’s, we should have seen this coming.

And so WHAT OF structural inequality and (actual) bigotry?  These are serious issues.  Yet aficionados of p.c. are far more concerned with catering to the tetchiest members of the populace–who are encouraged to claim “offense” whenever others use idioms that they deem to be unseemly.  There is a peculiar obsession with etiquette on the so-called “Left”, of which many of its denizens are seen as the embodiment.  This is a huge problem.  After all, puritanism is a RIGHT-wing phenomenon; as is an authoritarian mindset.

Suffice to say, p.c. is deleterious to the integrity of public discourse.  And the weaponization of etiquette by a horde of ornery schoolmarms doesn’t help matters.  Indeed, it is a foolproof way to make people run as fast as they can in the opposite direction.  That they end up running headlong into the arms of a demagogue should not come as any surprise.

Progressivism will only appeal to a wide audience once it expunges p.c. from its repertoire.  In the meantime, the so-called “Left” espousing p.c. only serves to galvanize the ultra-right–furnishing them with an endless supply of fodder against which to inveigh, and thereby rationalize misguided antipathy toward Progressivism.

In sum: p.c. hurts the Progressive cause.  Want a surefire way to ensure Progressivism loses all credibility with the rank and file?  Tout p.c. and then call yourself a “Progressive”.  This doesn’t merely hurt the Progressive cause; it dooms it.

Being as it is entirely about coddling our sensibilities, being politically correct not only requires no critical thinking; it actively discourages it.  All the pearl-clutching–mixed with intermittent spurts of contrived indignation–makes level-headed people wince.  Such histrionics reminds us that virtue-signaling requires no actual virtue.

Most people recoil at all the sanctimonious finger-wagging by puritanical nit-pickers; as most those in the working class have far more important things to worry about than the imaginary hazards of untoward phraseology.  In an already-bewildering world, demands that everyone be indiscriminately “respectful” can be downright exasperating.  It’s no wonder, then, that so many Americans are so off-put by the notion of “social justice”–negatively stigmatized as it has become, thanks to p.c.-mongering.

Predictably, masses of disenchanted working-class people gravitated toward a buffoonish demagogue NOT because they were conscientiously fascistic, but because he seemed to be the only alternative to the namby-pamby balderdash coming from the “Left”.  Trump’s buffoonery was passed off as straight-talk; his empty bluster as resolve; his contrived swagger as confidence; his irreverence as sincerity; his arrogance as strength; his pomposity as panache; and his lofty self-regard as a flashing neon sign that he had the courage of his convictions.

The charade–tacky and obnoxious as it was–proved irresistible to self-styled super-patriots who commanded no understanding of public policy (yet harbored an insatiable urge to lash out at an imagined nemesis).  To make matters worse: When people get most of their information from social media outlets, the bar for erudition is set abysmally low.  Consequently, it is commonplace for celebrity-charlatans to be perceived as geniuses. {7}

The problem was that–in all his buffoonery–Trump was juxtaposed against Clinton, who was ALSO phony.  Of course, in reality, she was no Progressive.  (In terms of both economic and foreign policy, she was a right-wing ideologue paying lip-service to Progressive ideals, as I discuss in Appendix 1.)  Trump’s striking departure from convention was music to the ears of those who felt slighted by the (self-satisfied) powers-that-be.  The more vulgar his bombast, the more FRANK Trump seemed to be.  In a bizarre twist of irony, his caustic impropriety was seen as a mark of his authenticity.  His juvenile swagger was seen as a sign of swashbuckling grit.

Such posturing appealed to those who were drenched in testosterone and steeped in the heady marinade of super-patriotism.  This is to be contrasted with the OBVIOUS posturing of Clinton, who was pretending to be quasi-Progressive when she was clearly nothing of the sort.  So it comes as no surprise that so many were bamboozled by (what can only be described as) Trump’s phony authenticity. {13}

So why did right-wing (faux) populism triumph over the Democrats’ vapid agenda to be politically correct and anoint an Establishmentarian as their standard-bearer?  The restive everyman was not looking for a soothing psychical balm; he was looking for a swashbuckling hero who talked tough.

When seeking to articulate inchoate anger, one doesn’t need it to be done in an ELOQUENT manner; one simply wants it to be COMPELLING.  As any evangelist knows, so long as things are expressed in a way that captivates the target audience, the credence of what’s being said is beside the point.  The idea is to inspire, not to edify.

Trump was willing to say things that “you’re not supposed to say”; and that looked courageous.  He posed as a warrior for “The People”; while Clinton merely mouthed tired platitudes–which came off as pandering.  When people wanted straight-talk, she only had candy-coated banalities from the same old script. 

Instead of coming clean about the moral rot in Washington, Clinton offered supercilious talking points.  Instead of inspiring, she was cloying.

What the country needed was not an analgesic to palliate a temperamental electorate; it needed an un-scripted fighter who refused to play by the rules–a swaggering paladin that it could believe in.  In other words: someone who was not the normal “politician”. 

The grandstanding Trump employed was an intoxicating fusion of braggadocio and executive-board-room gravitas that many found alluring.  It was a bizarre blend of abilities to “fire” villains and “fire up” true patriots (whatever that might be conceived to be).  His self-righteous bluster was construed as brute candor…which is all that many people were looking for.

The more those in power were galled by Trump’s cringe-inducing improprieties, the more his appeal grew.  The LESS eloquent he spoke, the MORE relatable he became.  It was all about thumbing his nose at the vexingly Pharisaic establishmentarians.  He was offering something new and exciting: just what his fawning crowds were hankering for.  And so, in a Kafka-esque twist, an arrogant plutocrat was able to garner enthusiastic support from an indignant electorate that was tired of plutocracy.

As it so happened, this corresponded with the large swath of the polis that had become utterly fed-up with p.c.-run-amok.  For many disaffected voters, p.c. was an emblem of the derided Establishment.  It should have been unsurprising that–exasperated by an alluvion of bullshit–tens of millions were duped into endorsing a proto-fascist alternative.

Bottom line: p.c. has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine Progressivism.  So countenancing p.c. is an act of self-sabotage by anyone on the “Left”.