The answer is yes - PC is self-destroying, after all - but that isn't necessarily good news.
Clearly, the politically correct ruling elite - based mainly in politics, public administration, the media and education - are decadent.
They hate their own views, hate their jobs, hate themselves, are weary of responsibility.
They don't really like anyone - as evidence by the fact that they avoid-in-droves the people whom they supposedly support.
Exempli gratia: the intellectual elite fail utterly to emigrate to 'Palestine' - which is (according to them) the most admirable and important place in the world for PC elites to support. Or to Cuba, or Venezuela.
The only thing holding-together the PC elite is hatred and fear of domestic conservatives and liberals.
This hatred and fear is indeed rational - as far as it goes - since the PC elites (being aware of their own ineffectiveness and uncreativity, their own corruption, their parasitism) fear a wholesale anti-intellectual back-lash which would consign the current intellectual elite to servile status.
At an existential level, the intellectual elite fear the loss of those lifestyle freedoms - especially sexual freedoms - which serve the PC elite as a substitute for religious hope.
For a PC intellectual to be deprived of his day-dreams is almost literal death.
The nihilist keeps going only by distraction, and distraction only remains effective with a wide range of changing choices; since everyone has their own favoured distractions - what works for them - upon which they depend.
To threaten removal of these distractions (the ever-changing and expanding range of symbolic objects, virtual realities, dreams of holidays, escapes to the country, seductions, ecstasies, adulation, or simply peaceful self-delighted bliss - or of all of these) is to threaten existential death.
At present the PC elite hate and fear domestic conservatives and reactionaries even more than they hate themselves.
So it is fear that keeps things together.
And fear keeps things going - but only on a day by day basis. Only very precariously.
Because at any time PC intellectuals might start to fear themselves, or fear their dependent clients, more than they fear domestic conservatives or reactionaries.
And at such a point there will be a rapid collapse of morale among the intellectual class, and the PC elite will become desperate to hand-over the reins of power - may indeed simply walk-away from power en masse.
But the immediate outcome of a collapse of PC morale is not necessarily likely to be good, because it may be unexpected and what replaces it entirely depends on who would take-over power.
At a national level there may be no suitable group to take-over administration, and the nation state would then collapse down to anarchy in most places with mere centres of organization dotted around the landscape.
The outcome would be very different in different places in the West, and within the US - compare Los Angeles with Salt Lake City; compare a unified national military government with and alternative of hundreds of gangs: where would you rather be if the national government collapsed?
When PC collapses, social order will become the priority (because without order nothing much can happen, and there is only personal-level power: Big men and their family-based gangs); and that which enables the largest and most complex social order over the longest period is likely to prevail.
This will differ locally. People tend always to think about the military as a focus of order.
But 'history tells us' that a society ruled purely by force will not be large or complex; and a society which is ruled by military and priests - a religious state - is therefore likely to prevail - in the long term.
This is why I keep returning to the choice after PC, after modernity: it boils down to a choice between religions.
At present, in the West, that religion seems unlikely to be Christianity.
This is why I cannot feel optimistic about any socio-political future that displaces PC unless it was preceded by a sincere Christian revival among those likely to become the next generation of rulers.
Because if the future rulers are not Christians, then they will be something else.
[Note: I apologise that the above analysis is merely from a secular perspective, and indeed a hedonic evaluation of life; ignoring the most important question of the truth of religions.]