TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE

“Everybody's joining up to fight
For the right to be wrong
I need some
Sentimental hygiene”         Warren Zevon

The subject of tolerance in a mature democratic republic such as the United States would appear to require little thought or discussion.  One would assume that tolerance of others is a positive notion that always signifies good character and is an enlightened, liberal goal, above reproach. 

In fact, the history of tolerance in political theory and philosophical circles reveals that the concept of tolerance is complicated and is often exercised without any compassion or even true acceptance of others. Since the time of the classical philosophers there have been two opposing schools of thought. On the one hand are those who believe tolerance is a positive force that can be used to strengthen diverse societies.  On the other is the belief that tolerance is nothing more than another tool of the majority to keep well-meaning minorities in their place.

 I have concluded that as tolerance is utilized in practice today, it is often anything but a virtue.  On the bright side, understanding tolerance as it relates to “the others”, with whom we are in conflict, can provide a roadmap to help us understand the difficult social, political and moral issues with which we struggle.  The key is to recognize the difference between intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.

In order to understand tolerance, it is important to recognize that majorities cannot come to tolerate a racial group, a religion, a sexual orientation, gender roles or any other minority without first having an objection to the particular group the majority decides to tolerate. Most often, the gift of tolerance from the majority to the minority comes at a price and with rules.  This has been defined as permissive tolerance. 

Consider the following examples of permissive tolerance from American and European history.  Jews will be tolerated but must live in ghettoes and pay special taxes.  African Americans will be tolerated as long as they live in red lined districts, accept impediments to voting and racial profiling.  Non heterosexuals will be tolerated under “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies or as long as they do not seek marriage status.  Women in the work place will be tolerated as long as they accept lower wages for equal work.  In this manner majorities throughout history, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, have used tolerance to dominate minorities.  In this context, tolerance is about power, not morality. 

The problem with permissive tolerance, as history has often proven, is that the majority may change its collective mind and have the original objection to the minority reinstated.  In this way intolerance returns and the minority is again persecuted, with no rights at all.

 Moreover, permissive tolerance is often used to compel assimilation of the minority into the majority.  While some assimilation is necessary to encourage a “national identity”, when the majority demands changes to fundamental values of a minority, it becomes an obvious affront to the minority seeking to maintain its own views and identity.

The process is a bit different for individuals as opposed to majorities who claim to be tolerant of others. When one who believes they are tolerant says: “I was racist in the past but now I am tolerant of minorities who mind their own business”; or: “homosexual behavior is against the Bible, but now I tolerate them as long as they are not permitted to marry”; or “I tolerate women at work as long as they do not bid on the highest paying jobs”, this is hardly a virtue. 

The minorities we attempt to shower with permissive tolerance want no such thing.  It is not enough to not be 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 equally in every respect.  This is called respectful tolerance.

I will consider two additional questions raised by the tolerance debate.  First, when is intolerance (refusal to tolerate or respect opinions contrary to one’s own) the appropriate course to take?  After all, notwithstanding our democratic freedoms and liberties, the majority is rightfully intolerant of incest, pedophilia, terrorists and anyone who would exercise the “assassins veto” by killing another individual who disagrees with them. (think Saudi Arabia and Russia).  But where do we draw the line? When do we come down on the side of individual freedom and when do we seek to ban unacceptable views and behavior?

This leads directly to the second question.  Should we confront those who practice unacceptable intolerance like racism, homophobia, religious persecution and attacks on the LGLT community by coaxing them back into tolerance through rationale discourse or should we attack their views with vigor to show our displeasure of intolerant behavior? Here lies one of the paradoxes: In order to preserve tolerance, must we be intolerant toward those who are intolerant? 

Since the election of Donald Trump, this question has become a daily dilemma for many progressive Americans. Some take the position that Trump supporters must be met with intolerance because they will never change.  Others (myself included) believe that the key to winning back democratic supporters is to stay tolerant toward these voters who elected Trump and show respect for their opinions and concerns.

The conceptual framework developed by the esteemed political philosopher, Rainer Forst, offers a commonsense solution to some of these questions.  He believes that tolerance and justice are closely correlated. The majority or individual with an objection to a particular group or behavior must justify its objection by asking: “are my reasons for objecting sufficient to reject the group or practice as a law abiding citizen?… The objection cannot be based on religious or ethical views or some traditional belief that can be generally justified in a pluralist society.”  See: The Power of Tolerance, A Debate (2014)

This approach also works when confronting unacceptable intolerance. Rejection of an egregious behavior, belief or group must always be supported by justifiable legal/ethical norms rather than by emotions or unsupported subjective standards of the majority.

By applying this simple test, it is possible for each of us to make our own value judgments on whether to reject a behavior or group as outside the parameters of a modern democratic society, or whether the group or behavior deserves our respect. The Trump supporter in the Mid-West, concerned about losing his job and worried that the information age and globalization are leaving him behind can be shown respect by progressive democrats, not intolerance.  

Under this model it becomes possible for competing interests to live together in conflict, but with a high degree of understanding.  In weighing whether to be tolerant: rejection or respect become the only two choices.  We eliminate permissive tolerance which has been the cause of so much unbridled resentment by minorities, trying to make their way in the modern world.

With permissive tolerance, majorities are resentful because the minorities who are tolerated do not accept the concessions that are extended to them and remain angry. Minorities are resentful that society has failed to offer respect instead of superficial permission for their views.   For example, I believe the Democratic Party was guilty of permissive tolerance in the last Presidential Election, toward many Mid-Western voters and their views. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” label on Trump supporters was even worse and bordered on intolerance toward a large portion of the electorate.   When there is no justifiable reason for an objection toward a minority view or behavior, it is time to demonstrate respectful tolerance, with no strings attached.

I will finish with an observation that may not be obvious to all.  When one respectfully tolerates another religion, racial minority, political ideology or the like, this does not mean that one is adopting that person or belief as one’s own.  Conflict between competing interests remains and the (civilized) debate continues on a level playing field.  After all, this healthy conflict is the basis for our pluralistic democracy.

For those that take the time to understand tolerance, a new method of understanding “the other” opens up.  It compels each of us, when in the majority, to consider what it is like to be in the minority, where permissive tolerance feels a lot like no tolerance at all.

 It also works when confronted with a political debate, where both factions are too concerned with “being right” and complaining about the intolerance of the other.  Searching for objective justifications for the other’s position encourages respectful tolerance and civility as we seek to regain a semblance of political order in our fragmented society.

THE NEW CUBAN REVOLUTION

Part I of my commentary on Cuba concerned the Cuban people and their adaptation to socialism following the 1959 revolution. I will now review what our group from the Washington County Bar Association learned, concerning recent political events and the state of Cuban-American relations, on our recent trip to the island.

Other than the Miami Newspapers and the Latin American press, there has been little reporting on the significant changes that are taking place politically in Cuba.  With the notable exception of South Florida, Americans are not aware that a new Cuban Revolution is in full swing, one that is characterized by new leadership and a new constitution rather than by bullets.

For the first time since 1959, a man not named Castro is the head of state in Cuba. Effective in April 2018, Miguel Diaz-Canel, became Prime Minister. The previous head of state, Raul Castro, brother of former leader, Fidel Castro, remains First Secretary of the Communist Party and Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.  Diaz-Canel is scheduled to replace Castro as head of the Communist Party in 2021. This represents a clearly non-dynastic form of succession for the Communist Party as well as the Republic of Cuba.

With this background in place, the next phase of the revolution is underway with a new comprehensive constitution. A constitutional referendum is scheduled for February 24, 2019 following much debate and many amendments. Voters will be asked to approve the draft passed by the National Assembly in July 2018.  The referendum is expected to pass, with a large majority of Cubans casting ballots (86% of voters participated in the last general election) following an intense period of discussion, education and local media exposure. Cuban exiles were invited to participate in the discussions leading up to the final draft. In traveling around Havana, we saw many bill boards dedicated to explaining the referendum.

The new Constitution calls for the recognition of private property and the creation of a freer market, although it does not go as far as China or Viet Nam in establishing a market based economy.  Even before the referendum, private labor had expanded to 30% of the available jobs. Now, 200 legal forms of private employment will be recognized, mostly in the agricultural, restaurant and tourist trades. We saw firsthand that Cubans entering the private sector were among the wealthiest in Havana.  Private homes were doing double duty as restaurants and art galleries.  Tour guides were able to afford homes and vehicles well beyond the reach of the average Cuban.

The Constitution creates two consecutive five-year term limits imposed on the office of President.  There are provisions that ban discrimination and some general language that would seem to permit same-sex marriage.  There is a restoration of a “presumption of innocence” in the justice system.  A major reform calls for decentralization of decision making by allowing regional and local levels of government to discuss their problems, develop their own resources and to implement solutions.

To get to the heart of the new constitution one must carefully consider Article I as well as the reforms that were not introduced.  Article I, which sounds like it was written with Thomas Jefferson in mind calls for: “A socialist state based on the rule of law, democratic…aimed at the employment of political freedom, equity, justice and social equality…welfare and individual and collective prosperity.” But the devil is in the details.  Despite the new constitution Cuba will remain an authoritarian state with the communist party and military still firmly in control of the political apparatus and major institutions.

 While in the United States we move ever so slowly toward more “collective prosperity” with changes to health care and inequality, Cuba does the opposite, moving at a snail’s pace toward “individual prosperity”.  The age old democratic debate between the principles of liberty versus those of equality plays out in two countries 90 miles apart.

In light of these transformative political changes, what is the state of Cuban-U.S. relations?  One would think that our foreign policy would be to encourage these reforms and to reward Cuba by finally lifting the crippling embargo, that has caused untold suffering to the Cuban people for years.  This assessment would be wrong.

 The Obama administration recognized that Cuba was taking steps to become less authoritarian and no longer posed a threat to America by exporting communism to Latin America.  At the end of his second term Obama took the necessary steps to re-establish diplomatic relations and to ease the embargo.  When President Trump assumed office he immediately reversed course and again placed relations on a belligerent footing.  This was despite the fact that during the presidential campaign, the Trump business interests actively pursued the building of a hotel in the resort area of Cuba.

Some observers would attribute Trump’s actions to a simple knee jerk reaction toward any foreign policy initiative formulated by Obama. Others have focused on a more sinister political motivation based on the politics of South Florida. Marco Rubio and the politically powerful group of wealthy Cubans who defend the United States embargo against Cuba can deliver a great deal of money and enough votes to keep Florida in the Republican fold. Trump needed Florida to win the presidency in 2016 and will need Rubio’s support again in 2020.

It seems obvious to most observers of recent events in Cuba that tourism, foreign investment, and fewer restrictions would do more to encourage further change than a seventh decade of embargo.  Unlike our ally, Saudi Arabia, the Cuban government does not execute political critics.  Our group’s discussions with Cuban intellectuals revealed that politics are openly discussed and that a great deal of political dissent is tolerated.

A recent poll conducted by the Miami press (see Sun-Sentinel, February 1, 2019) shows that as fewer Cubans in South Florida are actually born in Cuba, attitudes are changing. Cuba came in dead last as the social issue Cuban-Americans care most about in elections.  Overall support for the embargo has declined significantly over time with 51% now in favor versus 78% in 1997. 83% of Cuban Americans now believe that the embargo has not worked at all or not worked very well.

Young Cuban voters are overwhelmingly against the embargo. The diplomatic relations resumed by President Obama at the end of his administration were supported by 77% of Cubans born in America.

With this degree of sea change, it is difficult to imagine that the old school conservative Cuban “hate machine” against Cuban socialism can hold together its grip on Miami politics much longer. Once Cuban Americans decide that freely visiting their homeland and removing the economic hardships for the average Cuban are more important than waiting for a regime change that will never happen, Cuban-U.S. relations will permanently open up. 

America will learn to live with its small socialist neighbor, as it has with other illiberal regimes around the world.  The trade and investment opportunities available in Cuba will far outweigh the continuation of an ideological conflict that most Americans do not remember, or care much about.