May 14, 2016 5 min read

It has often struck me in this election year how political and social labels shape our dialogue with one another.

Indeed, it has become difficult to determine where a person stands on important issues based on broad labels. When we pin one of these labels on another person, we often jump to conclusions about that person’s political or social views. This tendency makes civil and constructive discourse on important issues more antagonistic than it needs to be. Political and social conflict are inevitable in a pluralistic, democratic society. Misunderstanding each other is not.

In exchanging ideas, 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 labeling someone a racist, sexist or immoral individual.

My suggestion regarding political orientation would be for people to identify their standing by specifying a well-known 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,” “William F. Buckley conservative,” “Lyndon Johnson Democrat” or “Sen. Angus King Independent,” we would know much more about the views 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 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 someone else’s political views based on an overly 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 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 Rainer Forst in his work on the culture of toleration.

Intolerance is self-explanatory. It would cover opinions most of us share, including those involving pedophiles, terrorists or other individuals who engage in conduct outside accepted norms. “Intolerant” would also be an appropriate label for avowed racists, homophobes, or chauvinists.

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 suggesting their communities and places of worship should be subject to surveillance. North Carolina has passed legislation that would fall under the umbrella of “passive tolerance” because it 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 standing against gay marriage.

When these 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. In many respects, an analysis centered on permissive tolerance makes it easier for both sides of a conflict to understand the positions of their opponents.

The last category is “respectful tolerance,” where citizens may have fundamental differences between each other but regard each other as having equal social, legal and political status. Different ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and views on social issues are all tempered by respect. There is no attempt to assimilate the minority into the majority, and diversity is encouraged. 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 participants recognize that healthy conflict is the basis for our pluralistic democracy. Understanding the other is as important as being right. Compromise, rather than all-or-nothing positions, become more prevalent.

No classification system can account for all our differences or overcome human stubbornness. 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.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.