The Need for Tolerance
Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 1:57PM In the book “Culture War”, Morris Fiorina, Samuel Abrams, and Jeremy Pope argue that America has not become more polarized, but rather political realities force its citizenry to make polar choices. Their evidence is convincing, and their argument appears to hold more water than an in-ground pool. This doesn’t affect the reality that the nation still feels polarized, however. Anyone watching or reading the news, or simply having a political discussion among peers, can feel it. To get information, we often tune in to the most diametrically opposed news sources - Fox News and CNN, and we should likely disabuse ourselves of the notion that the BBC and (dare I say) NPR are unbiased.
The result is a populace that cannot help but demonize those who think and feel differently. While this may be an innate human trait, surely we must fight it. The political left should refrain from its verbal call to arms when their beloved Obama is criticized, and remember the not so long past eight years of vehement criticism of President Bush. Likewise, the political right should remember these times as they prepare and unleash their barbs against the current administration. Similarly, as the right wing becomes frustrated by lacking bipartisanship, they should remember the years in which they controlled Washington and did little to extend an olive branch to the left.
The recent “Tea Party” movement is a great example of the present situation. Groups of people making their voices heard is a very American concept. One need not agree with their stance, but they certainly must tolerate it. Demonizing such demonstration has no place in this notion of tolerance. The right to think and feel independently, demonstrate, and vote accordingly is at the essence of liberty, while the demonization of those who think and feel differently is at the heart of tyranny.
2 Comments | tagged Yost
Reader Comments (2)
I wonder, however, how tolerance plays into the reality that, at some point, you have to say "I'm right, you're wrong" and make a policy decision based on your own perspective. Furthermore, how do you have a set of moral or ethical principles, truly believe in them, and entertain ideas that you feel are misguided? How do you strike a balance?
Is the solution to take in as much information as possible, weigh it (as objectively as possible) and then make a decision? Obviously, those in power who happen to disagree with those out of power can respectfully disagree all day long, but in the end they will make the decisions. I take Jon's point as follows: not that those with decision-making power shouldn't make decisions based on their own ideology, but that nobody--decision-maker or not--should disrespectfully deride others' ideals; instead, they should present the merits of their own case and respectfully dismiss the merits of the other side.