We
learned in our social studies classes that America’s Constitutional Republic is
based on democratic pluralism not direct democracy. In other words, given the size and complexity
of the Country, a multitude of interest groups determine national policy, not
the decisions of individual citizens. These groups are made up of differing
nationalities, political parties, religions, unions, volunteer organizations
and many others. Pluralism works because
each group places pressure on its elected representatives, to work out
compromises with opposing groups, so that the country can be governed
effectively.
Being
tolerant of diversity is a necessary ingredient for pluralism to work. Without tolerance, the coming together of so
many diverse immigrants with different backgrounds and goals, to form our
union, would never have been possible.
When one considers the number of competing interests that have been
forced to find common ground in order for our political system to not only
survive, but flourish, it is not a surprise that our form of government is
unique in the world.
Unfortunately
pluralism and tolerance have come under attack since 2008. In many conservative
districts of the House of Representatives and in some state houses and local
governments, moral outrage and self interest have replaced the capacity to
accept competing claims as legitimate. There is no room for compromise. There is no tolerance or acknowledgement of the
right of opposing interests to exist and pursue their goals.
Pluralistic
democracy comes to a standstill when these conservative groups view opponents,
even members of their own political party, as morally wrong and not worthy of
consideration. Worse, unjust claims are demanded by these groups out of unwarranted
self interest.
The
transformational election of Barrack Obama saw the rise of the tea party and
the decline of tolerance. The President is a lightning rod for certain groups
of conservatives and libertarians for all that is wrong with the world. It has become more important for tea party
representatives and their supporters to defeat whatever policy is offered by
democrats and the White House rather than to compromise for the common good or
even for the individual good of the tea party member and his family.
This
lack of tolerance and inability to compromise is the norm among political
cultures around the world. Among many
examples, Sunni and Shia citizens in Iraq; warring tribal societies in Africa
and leftist and right wing elements in Latin America, all of whom view politics
as a zero sum game. Even in western
countries non tolerance can be prevalent, as between Great Britain and Northern
Ireland; between Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats following
the breakup of Yugoslavia; and between the Basques and the rest of Spain. From these examples it is obvious that
intolerance breeds violence and then greater intolerance.
Until
recently, refusal to compromise among competing groups was not the American
experience. Things have changed now that
we have activist groups of citizens waiving the Constitution or the Bible or
immigration laws, with a subjective non tolerant interpretation of what each
means. This is no different than waiving
the Koran or a separatist flag. It is
the same “all or nothing” mindset.
While
much of this nation has given President Obama a strong mandate to implement his
agenda of immigration reform, more health care, more equality and less foreign
involvement, many of those who do not supported him are unwilling to make any
concessions under any circumstances, to move the country forward. After all, the worse things get, the more
blame for the President.
In
the next presidential cycle, one can only hope that tolerance and compromise
will return to the political process.
That is unless the left reinvents its own tea party, as it did in the
60s. In those years many new left
advocates adopted intolerance and despised compromise. This was to counter the perceived injustices of
big government and the “moral” and “law and order” majorities of the time. If
the radical left continues to keep intolerance on the political table, as the
tea party has done for the last eight years, the American political system will
become more like the rest of the world, where being right is more important
than political compromise and governing.
It
is interesting to note that in recent weeks even the East Washington Council has
shown its support for intolerance over compromise and pluralism, albeit for
different reasons. When disagreements
broke out, several council members found it more prudent to stay on the moral
high ground and quit their positions rather than to remain on council and find
common ground in the trenches of local government. This was so even though East Washington
citizens had voted for them to represent their interests and to provide balance
in addressing the issues at hand. That is exactly the position the Muslim
Brotherhood took in Egypt for many years, favoring honor over the interests of
the Egyptian voters who agreed with their policies. In both cases “I will take
my ball and go home” won out over pluralistic democracy.
The
politics of tolerance and pluralism for the Nation or for a small political
unit like East Washington is the competition of half truths. It is messy but it works.
