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.