Feb 17, 2019 5 min read

”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 road map 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. Nonheterosexuals will be tolerated under “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies or as long as they do not seek marriage status. Women in the workplace 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?

I will explore this question and other matters in part II of this commentary.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.