When Political Correctness Stands in for Morality

Pope Francis arrives just in time to bring the plight of the unborn to light

Ken Allard

[Republished from the Washington Times, September 21, 2015]

This week’s visit by Pope Francis comes just in time. He is an apostolic missionary courageously reaching out to a once-religious country that now ruthlessly kills its unborn, mercilessly harvesting and selling their body parts. It is somehow fitting that our local witch doctors helpfully enshrine political correctness as a convenient substitute for morality. True Religion is mostly a phrase we use while adorning our butts in ever-widening swatches of denim. Otherwise our most devout beliefs are humanism, self-interest and relative morality.
In God We Trust has been replaced by “If It Feels Good Do It“.

Now maybe you are neither Catholic nor Christian or even skeptical of all organized religions. Even so: Is it reasonable to believe that we can sacrifice as many as 60 million unborn infants since Roe v. Wade without somehow enduring the consequences for their deaths? That grim reality became visible only as the technology of covert video improved, allowing us to witness the real work of Planned Parenthood. And yet the technology of infant-murder-by-medicine has been enshrined since 1973, when the Supreme Court updated the Dred Scott decision for the 21st century.

The Bible calls that sort of thing “the shedding of innocent blood,” matter-of-factly promising divine justice to right the scales. Speaking of which: Threescore and 10 years ago at Nuremberg we harrumphed to the world that such mass murders were “crimes against humanity.” Even the traditional argument, “I was just following orders,” was no defense in the face of such evil. Six million died in Nazi death camps, horrific and intolerable, yet only ten percent of the death toll from our domestic holocaust. For an unsettling perspective, rent the classic movie “Judgment at Nuremberg” from Netflix. Every argument advanced by the implacable American prosecutors as former Nazis stood before the bar of justice has a deeply chilling effect if you ask the same questions today against the backdrop of sustained American infanticide.

But why am I telling you this when my usual function as a writer is to focus on national security issues? If you think we are somehow immune from divine or temporal retribution, then you probably don’t understand the direct challenges to our national survival that are growing exponentially. Today the national security community — other than tenured professors sworn to uphold convenient and untroubled orthodoxy — is divided over the issue of which threat gets here first. Will technological hubris, strategic incompetence or economic collapse be listed as the proximate cause on our national death certificate.

Is it an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack from Iran or North Korea that fries our electronic circuitry and reduces us to a pre-electrical society? (Poetic justice in a way since we did precisely the same thing to Iraq in Desert Storm.) Or possibly our national demise will take place after another cyber attack from China, the long-dreaded Electronic Pearl Harbor now known as “The Assassin’s Mace” among Chinese military strategists. Or maybe our hyper-inflated national debt ceiling — $18.5 trillion and counting — suddenly implodes, crumbling our national defenses. As a Texas oilman once told my cadets during his guest lecture: “At best, military power is just a violent form of economics.”

But why worry about our external defenses when the nation itself is rapidly unraveling? Now living in Texas, I recently witnessed the local malaise now accompanying those ominous macro-portents. Two weeks ago, the Friday night football game celebrated by Texans for generations suddenly became ugly when two players from a San Antonio high school blind-sided a referee. When the YouTube video of that incident quickly went viral, most people down here expected the prompt expulsion of both culprits. In order to reinforce the larger educational point, many San Antonians expected that the school district might even rule that the remainder of the team’s season should also be forfeited. After such an incident, how can you stress teamwork and sportsmanship without taking strong practical actions to reinforce those threatened ideals?

Neither of those things happened, of course, since school administrators in Texas are as feckless as their PC colleagues elsewhere. Instead, both students now attend an “alternative high school” while the football season rolls on just as before. They both now claim as well that their gutless attack was justifiable retribution because the referee used “the N-word,” an uncorroborated charge but one guaranteed to paralyze neurons, synapses, and intestinal fortitude wherever that dreaded charge is invoked.

But that is the core problem with relative morality: There really are no absolute standards of anything. Even when the videotape provides the most damning evidence of spearing a ref or butchering a fetus, political correctness will always rescue us. Its only core value: Moving those troublesome goalposts whenever needed.

Col. Ken Allard, a retired Army officer, is a military analyst and author on national security issues. He is a believer who proudly calls San Antonio his home.

+ + +