On Tolerance

Tolerance is proclaimed over and over again to be one of the great virtues of our ostensibly postmodern age. It seems to walk hand-in-hand with the other proclaimed virtue of diversity. If one is accused of being intolerant of people who are, or who behave differently, or who believe differently, then the accused is understood to be some sort of troglodyte worthy of extreme verbal excoriation and social stigma, and perhaps legal action as well! And what is wrong with this? Who could possibly be against tolerance? The issue is, of course, that the American "liberals" who preach tolerance (and diversity) practice intolerance while deriding their opponents as intolerant.

What the modern American liberal doesn't seem to understand is that tolerance is only possible when we vehemently disagree with something or someone. Let us examine homosexuality in the light of our topic. The traditionalist conservative society which enforces anti-homosexuality laws does not practice tolerance in this issue. This case is such that the majority sees homosexuality as wrong and has determined that the power of the state be brought to bare against its practice. Conversely, this modern American liberal (hereafter liberal), in the expression of his social liberalism, might see nothing wrong with homosexual practice and consequently celebrate it as an example of diversity. Neither group has practiced tolerance. The man who sees homosexuals as deviants but who nevertheless believes that they have a right to live their lives unagressed upon by both their neighbors as well as the police power of the state practices tolerance. A person can only be tolerant of something with which he disagrees. What the modern American liberal really has done is confuse tolerance and acceptance. (I chalk this up to sloppy thinking, but it could actually be strategic in its origin.)

The liberal says that he loves diversity. But this love certainly does not extend to a diversity of thoughts and opinions. The television and print media in the United States march lock-step for the Democratic Party and a left-of-center worldview with almost total hegemony. There is only one center-right television network which is allied with the Republican Party. For this, Fox News is viciously savaged. Fox News may not be totally "fair and balanced" as they purport themselves to be, but more importantly they provide balance to the other networks. The liberals who control the government-media complex are intolerant of the diversity of opinions found in a free society. Because the Democrat Party liberals have controlled the major media for so long and so completely, the non-conforming media has mostly been relegated to the Siberian tundra of A.M. radio. Lo! and behold! Left alone, A.M. radio became strong and viable because of the freedom found there. And as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, the Democratic Party apparatchiks and liberal ideologues find not joy in the diversity of varying viewpoints and tolerance for those who see things differently than themselves. In the name of tolerance they descend as locusts and brand their enemies as purveyors of hate and ignorance to whom no one should listen. In the name of diversity they demand the power of government be used to diminish or silence the voices of their opposition through appeals to the Orwellian "fairness doctrine." How tolerant! To the Democratic Party liberal diversity is one hundred diverse people with exactly the same views. And tolerance is being OK with that.

You still think liberals are tolerant? Black conservatives are Uncle Toms and race traitors. When was the last time you saw Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas interviewed for their sage advice on matters of race? Do you think the Congressional Black Caucus would have welcomed the opinionated Vernon Robinson? No way! Vernon's not willing to toil on the DNC plantation. How about women. We all remember 1992- the Year of the Woman. We were all told to celebrate the gender diversity in the Senate with the election of a number of liberal Democrat women. Fast forward to more recent memories. Why could not 2008 be Year of the Woman part two? After all, Hillary Clinton ran a serious race for the nomination to the presidency in her party and Sarah Palin was actually on the ticket to be Vice-President in hers. But alas, it was not meant to be. The Fourth Estate had already informed those of us on this side of the talking box that that election year was about assuaging the collective national racial angst. It was to be a propitiation for the national sin of racism. The thought-meisters were pulling hard for the Obama-Biden campaign. And what happened to Caribou Barbie? They declared political Jihad on her. Hillary Clinton's plethora of $6300 pantsuits were a passing bit of trivia, but the fact that Extreme Wardrobe Makeover- Sarah Palin Edition cost 150 grand was a multi-week talking point. America liked Sarah Palin. The Democrat media needed to create a reason why people couldn't relate to her. (And besides, no one wants to talk about real issues anyway.)

Tolerance involves respecting others even when I have no respect for their way of life, the choices they make, or how they believe. Tolerance is allowing one father to refuse to let his son join the Boy Scouts because he believes the organization promulgates a Christian worldview, allowing another father to refuse to let his son join the Boy Scouts because he believes it does not endorse a "true" Christianity, and allowing the Boy Scouts to run their organization as they see fit. So what is this ethic of tolerance? It is an American ethic. It is an ethic which, though I may disagree with others vehemently, causes me to never force others to accommodate me. I do not want others to force me to accommodate them. That is not to say that society must tolerate crimes (unlawful aggressions against people), or that I cannot even try to persuade others to abandon their own lifestyles in favor of my own. Speech, discussion and persuasion are integral to human language and cannot be separated from the human experience without the direst of consequences, even in its attempt. The issue then is aggression. When I aggress against others, whether to steal from them, kill them, or silence them, I wrong them. Consequently, the manipulation of the state to aggress against the people with whom one disagrees is a most egregious form of violence. For underlying the regulation of the people is the initiation or threat of force by the police power of the state against others through which its proponent seeks to control his fellow human beings. This is political violence. This is the tool of totalitarians everywhere.

So what is diversity and tolerance. Diversity is all the unique individuals of the world with all their own individual beliefs, talents and desires. Tolerance is my not having to accommodate them and their not having to accommodate me. And freedom loving people everywhere are OK with that.