Notably, most uses of the term are by those who see it as a social label and explanation for activities of "the left" in the US (a fairly nebulous category, by the way, but one which holds at least as much power to those who use it as "the right" does):

• One blog calls political correctness the "creeping dictatorship of the left". http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/
• Here's a "definition" of political correctness which ties it to the general decline of civilization, and calls it "the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values."
• There's a Campaign Against Political Correctness
• Here's another link that gives some examples
• And here's a story that links it to the Frankfurt School (wrongly, by the way, although it is true that Critical Theory is concerned about the use of language)
• And yet another: Political Correctness: The Awful Truth
• And finally, a less biassed account

Representation

Political correctness is clearly linked to the idea of representation, and in fact representation is at the core of the concept. Basically, the assumption of many who see the term as having currency is that there is a "plain" or direct way of speaking about subjects, and there is a socially inflected, indirect way of speaking. Speaking does not change the object which we speak about, and so speaking directly is to be preferred.

On the other hand, those who think that representation matters hold that you cannot take apart what is from the way it is presented. Speaking does create. At the very least, it perpetuates ways of framing and understanding subjects that may take their subjugation to be natural.

The core question, then, is whether representation goes all the way down or not. Is reality tied up with representation, or is there a reality that we can usefully access that is apart from representation? If it is the first, then political correctness may well be a red herring at best, and a way of asserting power to normalize representations at worst. If it is the second, then political correctness exists and is the exertion of power, the "dictatorship of the left" as the earlier blog mentions.

Or is there something between these two? Is it possible that we can never get away from representation, but that in fact there are modes of language policing that are actually restrictive of thought?

Perhaps the real problem with the idea that representation doesn't matter, is that it allows us to think that we know something when we really don't. Take representations of Indians, for example. There are a host of sports teams that continue to use references to Indians as names and in their promotion (Redskins, Braves (including the "tomahawk chop"), Eskimos, etc.) These are mostly meant positively, to use images of fighting spirit. However, they also tend to be almost the only thing that people "know" about Indians. So, they fit into an easy, and a false, place in the American imagination. We imagine, for example, that they are the white peoples' friends and always have been. We don't ask about broken treaties, we don't ask about current conditions on reservations.

Some who have argued against using these names have been accused of political correctness. They have been charged with ignoring history and tradition. Which is it? Do these names cover over the reality of white interactions with Indians, or is this just political correctness?

Reason

There is also a wide divergence over the nature of reason. In fact, on this issue, both those who see political correctness as rampant and those who do not claim reason on their side. Here are the arguments:

Political Correctness is a scourge: Reason means speaking clearly about things, and means being able to speak your own mind. Both of these are jeopardized by political correctness. The first is the case because political correctness requires us to substitute unclear language for clear language. The second is the case because this is enforced by political or bureaucratic entities, in effect silencing those who might want to speak they way they've always spoken. As well, this policing of language may also prohibit us from speaking of some things entirely, effectively covering over or ignoring social problems we need to address.

Political Correctness is not a scourge: Reason is not served by leaving people out. Language as it stands has been the product not of everyone, but of a few. Thus, we find ourselves framing the world to the advantage of those few, effectively stigmatizing or leaving out many others. Words matter, and they don't simply transparently reflect an objective reality. We understand our reality only through our words, and our ability to reason depends on that. So in fact, by treating language as a transparent conduit of reality, we cover over our ability to reason and effectively admit that the status quo is correct for everyone.

Civility

Part of the charge against political correctness is that it entails a loss of civility, that is, the ability to have a reasonable conversation between those whose opinions differ. There is therefore a social aspect, not simply a political aspect to the charge of political correctness. Using the term about someone usually also entails suggesting that they are intolerant, humorless, and confrontational. On the other hand, those who take representation seriously (and who would likely not use the term "politically correct" about themselves) regard those who do use the term as themselves being intolerant, in their persistence in using insensitive language.

Politics/Ideology

Another difference between those who use the term and those who don't: Those who use it tend to think that not everything is necessarily political, but that it can be made ideological (which in fact is what they argue happens under political correctness). On the other hand, those who don't use the term tend to believe that everything actually is political (even if that may not be obvious on the surface), and that it is not ideological to raise that point. In fact, these people argue that the refusal to recognize the political aspects of language is itself a political act, reinforcing one's own status quo.

This results in a difference in the tactics of arguing (and this brings together all these points, about representation, reason, civility, and politics): the ad hominem is not necessarily regarded as illegitimate by those who argue that everything is in fact political. It matters who argues for what, because we need to determine what their interests and allegiances are.

The ad hominem is classically seen as a flawed form of argumentation, an irrelevancy. Strictly speaking, Enlightenment reason eschews it, as it is the argument that matters, not who happens to hold it. Reason is seen as autonomous. However, many of those who decry political correctness use ad hominems as much as anyone else. Professors' views, for example, are regularly criticized and rejected for the sole reason that they are professors, and part of an ivory tower elite. An African-American arguing for African-American rights or proper representation is seen as engaging in political correctness, because they have a self-interest in the outcome of the argument (as if others don't).