TOLERANCE

          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.