Feb 24, 2019 4 min read

”There’s battle lines being drawn

Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

Young people speaking their minds

Getting so much resistance from behind

It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down”

- Buffalo Springfield

The first part of my review of tolerance ended with this question: 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 Midwest, 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 midwestern 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 who 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.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.