A PROPOSAL TO HELP MOVE FROM “BEING RIGHT” TO “UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER” IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

It has often struck me in this election year how political and social labels shape our dialogue with each other.  Indeed it has become difficult to determine where a person stands on important issues based on broad labels (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, angry white male). When we associate one of these labels with another, we often jump to invalid conclusions about that person’s political and/or social views.  This tendency makes civil and constructive discourse on important issues more difficult and at times more antagonistic than it needs to be.  Political and social conflict are inevitable in a pluralistic democratic society, misunderstanding each other is not.

For those who wish to share ideas, either orally or in print, we need a better system for determining both political and social orientation in America.  The old labels are either too open to multiple interpretations or too ugly to withstand face to face discussion. An example of the former is labeling oneself a democrat or republican which in today’s political environment tells us little about a person’s views. Examples of the latter are to label someone a racist, sexist or immoral individual.

My suggestion regarding “political” orientation would be for actors to identify their standing by specifying a well know individual who shares their views or time period that represents their political orientation. Thus when we speak to or read an article by a “Theodore Roosevelt Republican”, or “William F. Buckley Conservative”, or “Lyndon Johnson Democrat” or “Senator Angus King Independent”, we would know much more of the positions held by the speaker or author. For example, describing oneself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative akin to Bill Clinton says much more than simply being called a democrat.

Such an adjustment to foster clarity would have several positive effects.  First, it would require those of us interested in political discourse to do our homework and learn more about political history, philosophy and thought.  Second, it would remove many of the unwarranted assumptions we make about another’s political views based on an over broad label.  Third, it would compel us to rethink our positions and make sure our overall orientation is consistent. Fourth, it would recognize that personality is often as important as positions in choosing a political orientation.

My suggestion regarding “social” labeling is a bit more complex than the political variety.  I would replace many of the negative social terms now popular in speech and print with three new classifications:  intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.  These terms are not my own and were developed by the contemporary German political philosopher Forst Rainer in his work on the culture of toleration.

Intolerance is rather self explanatory.  It would cover opinions most of us share including those involving pedophiles, terrorists or other individuals who are responsible for conduct outside accepted norms. Intolerant would also be an appropriate label for an avowed racist, homophobic, or sexist.

The second classification, “permissive tolerance”, gives qualified permission to the members of a minority to live according to their believes or to be accepted on the condition that the minority follows certain rules, laws or conditions. For example Donald Trump has advocated permissive tolerance toward immigrants by excluding families who entered the country illegally.  Ted Cruz has advocated permissive tolerance toward Muslims by subjecting their communities and places of worship to surveillance.  North Carolina has passed permissive tolerance legislation that specifically targets transgender individuals in their use of public restrooms.  Many conservative evangelicals demonstrate permissive tolerance toward homosexuals by having no objection to civil unions but being against gay marriage.

When the above examples are viewed through the lens of permissive tolerance, the debate changes in a way that I believe is more manageable.  The majority granting permissive tolerance often feels the minority should thank them for being more accepting than in the past.  The minority does not feel it is enough to not be exiled or persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equal.  In many respects a permissive tolerance analysis makes it easier for both sides of a conflict to understand the position of the other.

The last category is “respectful tolerance” where citizens may have fundamental differences between them but morally regard each other as having equal social, legal and political status.  Different ethnic backgrounds, different religions, different views on social issues, all tempered by respect.  Here there is no attempt to assimilate the minority into the majority and diversity is encouraged to make the whole stronger than its parts. Respectful tolerance is the sweet spot of political and social conflict resolution.

With respectful tolerance, conflict between competing interests remains.  However, a civilized debate takes place on a level playing field.  All actors recognize the healthy conflict as the basis for our pluralistic democracy.  Understanding the other is as important as being right. Compromise rather than all or nothing positions is more prevalent.

Where do I see these dynamic categories shifting before our eyes?  The  vestiges of passive racism as embodied in the “black lives matter” movement and minority incarceration, drug policy and urban education in America are examples of positions shifting from permissive to respected tolerance.  In international affairs, our changing foreign policy toward Cuba and Iran are examples.  The understanding and treatment of mental illness is also making this shift.

No classification system can account for all our differences or overcome our human nature to be right rather than to take the time to understand each other.  I am sure that others could propose classifications with more clarity. My goal is simply to start the conversation in developing systems to consider political and social conflict in a more positive and constructive way.