"political correctedness"?

It's unfortunate that people use the concept of  "political correctedness" only as a negative, when it can also be a way of raising awareness of the ways in which words can wound.  And the phrase has its usefulness when discussing Democratic politics, especially this year.

Jerome Armstrong writes in MyDD that "political correctness on speaking about demographics has arrived, so are accusations of racism for speaking about voters in terms of their voting habits by skin color that far behind?"

Accusations of racism itself - a belief that nonwhites are inherently inferior?  No. Accusations that the Clinton campaign has been exploiting and exacerbating racial divisions for selfish ends?  Yes.   Those accusations are not only not "far behind,"  they've been here for a while.

"Political correctedness" has, of course, become a pejorative term for the habit of criticizing any speech that belittles or stereotypes people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.  The Right has been highly successful in using this phrase to mock and discourage any attempt, however valid, to persuade people not to characterize others in these terms.

Armstrong 's specifically defending the Clinton campaign's pattern of discussing racial voting patterns as an important demographic.   Maybe he's thinking about Hillary's USA Today interview yesterday, where she said "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again ...  how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."  (Emphases mine; note how those "hard working" Americans are "white."  As opposed to ... whom, exactly?)

Armstrong answers his own question - "are accusations of racism for speaking about voters in terms of their voting habits by skin color that far behind?" -  this way:

"I hope not, we can talk about a division without promoting it to happen."

That's hypothetically true, of course.  But we're not talking hypothetically here.  We're talking about the Clinton campaign - a campaign that has worked very hard to make exactly that division happen.  Giving them a pass on it now - especially by using the right-wing frame of "political correctedness" - seems like the wrong move, especially for someone from the more-or-less leftward side of the blogosphere. 

Equivocation from "progressive bloggers" over the Clintons' less admirable tactics has been a continuing source of disappointment ever since this campaign began.  They, of all people, should have rejected those tactics from the start. 

To be clear:  I know what Armstrong meant, and it's a reasonable statement in the abstract.  But applied to these people in this campaign, it's a defense of behavior that Democrats and progressives should reject in the strongest possible terms.

And as for "political correctedness" - progressives should stop helping the Right demonize it.  Sometimes cultural sensitivity is something to promote, not dismiss.  We can all find absurd examples of the principle taken to the extreme - Fox News has been only too happy to document them - but let's not discard a good principle over some bad applications.  And let's not give a pass to people, even those we consider good people, when they use divisions of race, gender, or sexual orientation for their own ends.