I chuckle, yes, quietly, dryly, sardonically … .

But mostly I say … écrasez l’infâme!

“A friend e-mails to say that Texas A & M has an annual contest for the best definition of a contemporary expression. This year it was “political correctness.” And here’s the winner:

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

tom

Also, whether or not Marcuse was original, he was the person who actually had the influence, whether someone had the same ideas earlier or not. The point is, as you put it, his theory became practice in our times.

Given this situation, I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for ‘the other side’, I maintain that there are issues where either there is no ‘other side’ in any more than a formalistic sense, or where ‘the other side’ is demonstrably ‘regressive’ and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.
…
For this struggle, I proposed the practice of discriminating tolerance. To be sure, this practice already presupposes the radical goal which it seeks to achieve. I committed this petitio principii [begging the question, or taken as given what was meant to be proven] in order to combat the pernicious ideology that tolerance is already institutionalized in this society.

In other words, there is no such thing as legitimate disagreement with the leftist program. Illegitimate disagreement, which includes everything short of hosannas, should be subject to repression in the name of freedom. The second part of the quote gives away why this repression is necessary: because it is impossible to demonstrate how the leftist program is effectual, necessary, inevitable (pace Marx), beneficial, or even justifiable.

I agree with Marcuse on his last point: there is no way to argue with a committed leftist. They have already embraced “repressive tolerance” as something clever (Orwell called this mental process “doublethink”) rather than a contradiction in terms. Slavery is freedom, if that’s what the Party says. It is certain because it is impossible.

It is also the clearest possible demonstration that leftism is religion in different vestments. It is by necessity and by admission an appeal to faith in what cannot be proven, yet fervently held because it is believed to be the highest good. No wonder they find common cause with Islamic fascism.