James Taranto:

Not all Donald Trump supporters fit the media stereotype of economically dislocated white men of middle age or older. The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf last week published a lengthy email exchange with a 22-year-old, college-educated man from San Francisco who describes himself as a libertarian and backs Trump with enthusiasm. Here he explains why, and also why he insisted on anonymity:

For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it’s just instant shunning. Say things online, and they’ll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it. Being anti-PC is not about saying “I want you to agree with me on these issues.” It’s about saying, “Hey, I want to have a discussion and not get shouted down because I don’t agree with what is considered to be politically correct.”

Last August George Will declared Trump a threat to the “conservative movement” and its “project,” begun in 1955 with the founding of National Review, of “making conservatism intellectually respectable and politically palatable.”

From the standpoint of Friedersdorf’s correspondent, that effort would have to be judged a failure. In his world conservatism not only isn’t respectable, it’s a threat to his livelihood.

One suspects he works in the technology industry, though he doesn’t say. The cultural of political correctness is equally oppressive for those in other fields dominated by the left, including entertainment, most of the news media, and almost every college campus. And because of the cultural influence of those fields, the left’s cultural dominance affects people in all walks of life, as Glenn Reynolds notes in USA Today:

By limiting what people can think and say, political correctness has hollowed out America’s universities, cheapened and distorted its politics, and served (and this last is entirely intentional) to make those who favor traditional American values like free speech feel marginalized and at risk. . . .

Almost as irritating to a lot of people, though, is the extent to which self-described “conservative” politicians, pundits and media organs have gone along. Part of this is because PC is often misleadingly sold as politeness, and elite American conservatives are suckers for etiquette. Part of it is because those conservative leaders move in an upper-middle-class environment where academic norms govern everyone, including them.

The latter point is somewhat of an overstatement. Those of us who make our living purveying conservative ideas—what Charles Murray calls “Establishmentarians”—are not really bound by insane “academic norms.” Not only do we have far more freedom to express our views than Friedersdorf’s Trump supporter (or than, say, a student or untenured faculty member at any college or university this side of Hillsdale); we get paid to do it.

To use Peggy Noonan’s term, we are protected. The Constitution, of course, protects all Americans’ right to speak and think freely, but only against government action, and imperfectly in practice. What does the conservative movement have to offer people whose freedom is unprotected against a hostile dominant culture?

There are no obvious policy solutions. The left would deal with an equivalent problem through measures like antidiscrimination laws, hiring quotas and massive subsidies. But such means are uncongenial to the conservative ideals of limited government and individual freedom. So in order to maintain the purity of their “movement,” conservative leaders are rejecting their followers. “The saddest part of this election may in fact be the revelation that voters are as bad as the politicians,” writes the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin.

The laughable inadequacy of conservative responses to Trump does not, of course, demonstrate that he would be a good president, or a destroyer of political correctness. In an April post making the case for Ted Cruz, French invoked the Underpants Gnomes of “South Park” to convey his skepticism about Trump: “The core ‘argument; for Trump is essentially the following. Step 1: Elect Trump. Step 2: ????? Step 3: America is great again.”

Friedersdorf’s correspondent elaborates on how he sees that second step:

This is a war over how dialogue in America will be shaped. If Hillary wins, we’re going to see a further tightening of PC culture. But if Trump wins? If Trump wins, we will have a president that overwhelmingly rejects PC rhetoric. Even better, we will show that more than half the country rejects this insane PC regime. If Trump wins, I will personally feel a major burden relieved, and I will feel much more comfortable stating my more right-wing views without fearing total ostracism and shame. Because of this, no matter what Trump says or does, I will keep supporting him.

Friedersdorf, who is not a conservative but a left-leaning libertarian, is skeptical, and not without reason. On the other hand, as David French has acknowledged, “the true battle for our country isn’t political, it’s cultural and spiritual.” He made that observation in March, in the course of explaining his shift from Maybetrump to Nevertrump: Trump, he had concluded, is an unrepentant sinner and a cruel jerk “who takes a wrecking ball to the core values I hold dear.”

Maybe. But the “wrecking ball” is central to Trump’s appeal, and he has shown an unusual capacity to influence the culture, as liberal William Galston acknowledges in his Wall Street Journal column:

[Trump’s] campaign has ruthlessly exposed the illusions of well-educated middle-class professionals—people like me.

We believed that changes in law and public norms had gradually brought about changes in private attitudes across partisan and ideological lines. . . .

Mr. Trump has proved us wrong. His critique of political correctness has destroyed many taboos and has given his followers license to say what they really think. Beliefs we mocked now command a majority in one of the world’s oldest political parties, and sometimes in the electorate as a whole.