How Political Correctness Stole Christmas

How Political Correctness Stole Christmas

“It’s the most wonderful time of the year,” my car radio announced.

Despite the long-awaited return to common sense and American values that many of us rightfully anticipate post-election, Christmas still feels “stolen.” Wherever I go—to the store, restaurant, airport, office, theater—I am greeted by a bland, plural “Happy Holidays” or wished a nameless, singular “happy holiday.” When I respond with “Merry Christmas,” a few brave souls reply in kind, while countless others feel embarrassed or even outraged by my gutsy “microaggression.”

This reminds me of the communist prohibition of Christmas celebrations during my childhood, when decorating a fir tree, regardless of one’s faith, was a private act of courage and resistance. Santa Claus was renamed as “Grandfather Frost,” Christmas party as “New Year’s party,” and Christmas vacation as “winter break.” The American left is following in the same footsteps.

As Dennis Prager explains, Christmas is a federal holiday, so it is perfectly appropriate to wish a Merry Christmas to our fellow citizens. It may not be every American’s “holy” day, but it is still an official “holiday” for all Americans. “Merry Christmas” does not oblige anyone to practice a religion; it is just a benevolent wish, like “Good Day.” Christmas is a quintessential American celebration. By removing any references to it, leftist ideologues seek not to be kind and inclusive, as they claim, but to attack the West and its Judeo-Christian roots. They hide behind the façade of political correctness, while excluding 90% of the U.S. population and disrespecting an iconic American tradition that has brought us much unity and joy over the centuries.

Of all the weapons that leftist ideologues employ to manipulate speech and minds, “political correctness” deserves special mention as a cautionary tale of a surreptitious totalitarian takeover of democratic speech. There are different theories regarding the genesis of the term “political correctness” and the nature of the phenomenon.[1] On the surface, it is factual incorrectness with the apparent purpose to avoid offense.

Some authors believe that the term originated as an inside communist joke; others argue that it might have originated in earnest but later gained popularity as a joke. Angelo Codevilla explains:

“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.” “Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.” The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself.

Political correctness during communism taught children to regard the communist party as an all-powerful goddess who cared for people better than their birth mothers. Obsequious poets rushed to compose odes to the party, which was personified and spelled with a capital “P.” One poem I was forced to memorize as a child proclaimed: “She knows no bounds in her love for us. | What didn’t she suffer for our sake? | This is our universal mother.” Another communist bard waxed lyrical how the Party was always right even when she was wrong—this, in a nutshell, is the purpose of political correctness.

Political Correctness: Kindness or Tyranny?

A Hertfordshire recruiting agency in the United Kingdom posted a job announcement in 2010, listing “reliable” and “hardworking” among the desired candidate’s qualities. The agency director reported that her advertisement had been rejected by a job center for potentially offending unreliable people!

While kindness and respect toward our fellow human beings are admirable traits, one can be kind and respectful without distorting or negating historical and scientific facts. Should we pretend the Earth is flat lest we might offend flat-earthers? Politically correct regulations purport to prevent offensive discriminatory language. Why, however, should we need government intervention to teach us basic humanity and sensitivity? This has been—and should be—the job of families, as the government has no business policing language.

There will always be kind and unkind people, and no amount of bureaucratic tyranny will transform human nature. Decent people do not purposely use offensive epithets to discriminate against those who are different.[2] Unkind individuals, on the other hand, will not become suddenly considerate on account of politically correct prohibitions—as distasteful as their offensive or foolish comments may be, they are entitled to free speech.

Political correctness should not be confused with euphemisms. Euphemistic and metaphorical language has existed for millennia due to good manners, literary sophistication, or a desire to protect children. Political correctness, on the other hand, seeks to punish those who disobey its diktats.

Codevilla reveals the purpose of political correctness: “Because the point of P.C. is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself. Much less is it about creating a definable common culture or achieving some definable good.”

It is the restriction of free speech that political correctness is after. It is not about kindness but, as Knowles demonstrates, about language and mind manipulation.[3] It hides behind the pretense of politeness, while creating an Orwellian “newspeak.” Its totalitarian essence is well documented and analyzed, and its Marxist roots are evident.[4] They go back to the core of Marxist theory, which flatly rejects the notion of objective truth or universal morality.

The intolerance toward any disagreement with politically correct ideology must be fought with facts and reason by anyone who cherishes freedom of speech and thought. Moreover, political correctness goes way beyond threatening freedom—it reduces language and reality to the absurd and demands compliance with it.

Hitherto unambiguous words such as “man” or “woman” now denote an arbitrary gender category, based on individual preferences and subjective feelings. People with actual gender dysphoria should not be mocked or mistreated; they, as human beings, deserve kindness and compassion, but this need not mean that science and grammar are a matter of personal choice. Humans have immutable sets of either male or female chromosomes, and third-person pronouns are governed by strict grammatical rules regarding gender and number.

The tyranny of the absurd is the natural progression of political correctness, since it will not stop when we agree to simply tolerate absurdity out of politeness or a misguided respect for freedom. As Orwell famously warned, totalitarian ideologues will not be satisfied until we admit that two plus two equals five.

That is why linguistic and historical knowledge is indispensable in reclaiming reason and common sense. It acts as a potent antidote to propaganda and tyranny. It helps us navigate the modern terminological maze of ubiquitous absurdity—and liberate Christmas from the absurd prison of political correctness.

[1] Knowles 2021, passim, provides a detailed analysis of the term, its history, and applications; see, especially, pp. 41–57. Cf. Hughes 2011.

[2] Cf. Deist 2015.

[3] Knowles 2021, passim.

[4] Cf. Kirchner 2017; Knowles 2021; and William 2016.

=====================

Nora D. Clinton was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son. 

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.