By the time you read this, the California recall election is already on its way to the annals of history. Regardless of who won (if such a determination has even been made yet), the week leading up to yesterday’s vote is worth noting as a prime example of political ugliness.

Last Thursday the Los Angeles Times broke reports that Republican frontrunner Arnold Schwarzenegger had sexually harassed and groped women throughout his career as a bodybuilder and actor. What turns these revelations into such an especially low blow is not their substance but their very convenient timing.

Because of the accusations, which may very well have merit, Arnold’s campaign had to focus its final energies on drafting the most remorseful of apologies, rather than convincing California voters to vote for Arnold. And, like clockwork, on Monday rumors and reports were resurrected of Gov. Gray Davis’ alleged temper tantrums against former staffers. Though the Davis allegations have not received as much media attention for one reason or another, both campaigns ended on the noble note of who could sling the uglier mud. Both hardly offered guidance for voters who might have hoped for a culminating summary of each candidate’s positions.

Such smear campaigns are damaging far beyond the individual public figures they disgrace. It is a sad commentary on the collective intelligence of the American public that they can be so easily swayed by such transparent smear jobs. But these campaigns are only as harmful as we allow them to be. If the American people could think with their brains, then attempted smear jobs would fall on deaf ears.

If Arnold’s accusers were that offended by his actions, they would have pressed charges. At the time, however, it may have seemed like a ridiculous response to being hit on by Mr. Universe. And maybe Gray Davis has a renowned temper, but if it was that traumatic to his “victims,” they should have spoken up sooner.

There was another notable fall from grace last week, a stinging double-whammy against perhaps the country’s best-known conservative commentator. Details about Rush Limbaugh’s alleged prescription narcotic addiction come, for the most part, from a former maid paid six figures by the National Enquirer for her story. That said, speculation may not be the most fair game until there’s something more reliable on which to speculate. But when the drug news broke, Limbaugh was already in the spotlight after suggesting, in his capacity as an ESPN football commentator, that “the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” Within days, he decided to resign.

The comment was made in the context of a discussion about a specific player’s performance, a topic by no means foreign to pre-game commentary. Its meaning, Rush asserted later in the week, was the disconnect he perceived between the player’s image in the media and his performance on the field. At face value, it seems the comment could just as easily not have mentioned race and still made the same assertion.

It was a stupid comment to make, if for no other reason than the fact that a conservative commentator so much as hinting at race makes the ears of the PC police in this country perk up. Believe him or not, Limbaugh reiterated emphatically throughout the ensuing controversy that the comment was not in any way racially motivated. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but when it comes to taboo

“-isms” in this country, innocent intentions should be redeeming.

All people are ignorant, in some way, about some group of people, be it a race, a religion or a political persuasion. People therefore sometimes say stupid things, motivated not out of hate or malice or even fear, but out of pure ignorance. Why does our society think it’s right to crucify these people, slapping them with labels like “racist,” “sexist” and “homophobic,” while crushing their credibility and demolishing their careers? Is this really more beneficial to society than simply and calmly enlightening them as to their lapse of knowledge? Does anyone honestly think alienating and denigrating the less knowledgeable is the way to build a tolerant and accepting society?

There is a distinct divisiveness inherent in the concept of political correctness. On the surface it purports to advocate tolerance and unity, but its dark underbelly reveals a malevolent tendency to divide otherwise good, honest people. But, again, political correctness is only as destructive as we allow it to be. When Americans decide to live their lives based on facts, not feelings — on reason, not fleeting passion — then political correctness will release its iron grip on the First Amendment once and for all.