The earliest mention I've found is in this 1793 court case, Chisholm V. Georgia:
It was purportedly defined by Harry S. Truman in 1945:In the United states, and in the several states, which compose the Union, we go not so far, but still we go one step farther than we ought to go in this unnatural and inverted order of things. The states, rather than the people, for whose sakes the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention. This, I believe, has produced much of the confusion and perplexity which have appeared in several proceedings and several publications on state politics, and on the politics, too, of the United states. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? "The United states," instead of the "People of the United states," is the toast given. This is not politically correct. The toast is meant to present to view the first great object in the Union: it presents only the second. It presents only the artificial person, instead of the natural persons who spoke it into existence. A state I cheerfully fully admit, is the noblest work of Man. But, Man himself, free and honest, is, I speak as to this world, the noblest work of God.
It is defined by Merriam Webster as:Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by clean end!
Can being politically correct become politically incorrect?politically correct
: agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people
Full Definition of politically correct
1. : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated
Government Propagandist-In-Chief Condemns Political Incorrectness As "The Furthest Thing From Brave"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-3 ... hing-brave
Some have called Cass Sunstein "America's Goebbels" since he sugggested that the government "formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech," and was engaged by President Obama as 'Information Tzar'. So today's op-ed from the government's propagandist-in-chief, condemning those who choose to push back against political correctness, should be read with a Bernaysian perspective as Sunstein attempts to delegitimize any and every effort to argue against the government's view of the world.
Authored by Cass Sunstein, originally posted at BloombergView,
* * *Among Republicans, it has become politically correct to be politically incorrect. Actually that’s the most politically correct thing that you can possibly be. As soon as you announce that you’re politically incorrect, you’re guaranteed smiles and laughter, and probably thunderous applause. Proudly proclaiming your bravery, you’re pandering to the crowd.
A math-filled new paper, by economists Chia-Hui Chen at Kyoto University and Junichiro Ishida at Osaka University, helps to explain what’s going on. With a careful analysis of incentive structures, they show that if self-interested people want to show that they are independent, their best strategy is to be politically incorrect, and to proclaim loudly that’s what they are being. The trick is that this strategy has nothing at all to do with genuine independence; it’s just a matter of salesmanship, a way to get more popular.
Focusing on the role of experts rather than politicians, Chen and Ishida note that in many circles, political correctness is “associated with a negative connotation where people who express politically correct views are perceived as manipulative or even dishonest.” For that reason, the unbiased expert has a strong strategic incentive, which is to “deviate from the norm of political correctness” to demonstrate “that he is, at least, not manipulative.” Of course, the deviation is itself a form of manipulation, strategically designed to convince people that the expert can be trusted.
Chen and Ishida’s punchline is that whenever experts care about their reputations, “we cannot regard political incorrectness naively as a sign of blunt honesty since it can easily be an attempt to signal one’s hidden characteristics rather than the true state of the world. ” With respect to Republican candidates, that’s putting it much too gently. It’s the strategic go-to line when things get tough.
Consider the Republican chorus in this light. Donald Trump complains that we have “become so politically correct as a country that we can't even walk. We can't think properly. We can't do anything.” Ted Cruz is more concise: “Political correctness is killing people.” Ben Carson insists that the biggest threat to free speech comes from what he calls the “Political Correctness police,” who have “created fear in a large portion of our population, causing them to remain silent.” Mario Rubio says the “radical left” is using a “politically correct way to advocate Israel’s destruction.”
It’s true that in some left-wing circles, especially on college campuses, political correctness is doing serious damage, because it entrenches a particular ideological orthodoxy (and dampens necessary dissent). In some places, you reject that orthodoxy at your peril. If you say that you oppose affirmative action or an increase in the minimum wage, you incur a kind of reputational tax, and the price may be too high to be worth paying.
But those who deplore political correctness tend to entrench an orthodoxy of their own. And when they do so, they get an immediate reputational subsidy, in the form of a boost in popularity. Chen and Ishida show that when experts or politicians decry political correctness, they are engaging in what economists call “signaling."
One of their signals is that they are willing to poke a finger into the eye of left-wing orthodoxies. By embracing political incorrectness, Republican candidates proclaim that they will not be cowed by, or even compromise with, their political opponents.
The other signal, and the more important one, involves authenticity. If a politician makes some outrageous statement, and follows it with a suggestion that he deplores political correctness, you might well conclude that you can trust what he says. Whatever else they are, those who make outrageous statements seem honest and real rather than programmed or scripted. That’s what a lot of voters are demanding.
But there is a sham here, and it’s ironic. The very Republicans who proclaim their rejection of political correctness have committed themselves to a host of policy judgments that are, in their circles, politically correct. Those judgments help define the prevailing orthodoxy. If you want to survive, you had better not question any of them.
Here are some examples: Gun control is a terrible idea. The Affordable Care Act is a disaster. The United States shouldn’t be doing a lot to combat climate change. Affirmative action is bad. The Barack Obama administration is a dismal failure. Ronald Reagan was great. The minimum wage should not be increased.
None of the leading Republican candidates dares to challenge even one of these statements in public. If Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Carson supported an aggressive effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or called for a boost in the minimum wage, you might not agree with him -- but you’d know that he really was willing to be independent and to say what he thinks.
Condemning political correctness? That’s telling people just what they want to hear. It’s the furthest thing from brave.
So now you have been told what to think.