Here at Culture War College, we study the realities of the cultural battlefields from our opponents’ perspectives. We’ve heard a great deal about tolerance from them in recent years, so if tolerance is what those who oppose us want, then let’s look at just what that means and explore that concept for a moment. We may find some common ground.
My opponents want me to be tolerant of their positions and opinions by asserting that, at the very least, I need to keep my positions and opinions to myself. I can have them, but I need to just internalize them and not publicly advocate for them. They’ve told me this. But when they make that assertion, what they are truly telling me is that they are intolerant of my public positions and opinions. This creates a paradox of tolerance. One of the founders they embrace more often, Thomas Jefferson, put their conundrum this way:
“Let us reflect that [the Earth] is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves.” (See Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII)
What Jefferson advocates as “free inquiry” suggests that “tolerance” doesn’t imply agreement. Far from it. If anything, the converse is true. Tolerance implies that a disagreement exists between parties and, in this circumstance, tolerance is the end state that we should want to achieve if “reason and persuasion” fail. To be tolerant does not mean that one has crossed over the intellectual divide between you and agreed with the other. Far from it. So, if tolerance is the desired end state, and yet an opponent is telling me that I have to silence my opinions because they are expressing theirs, then who’s the intolerant one here?
That wasn’t tolerance you heard about at Berkeley or Notre Dame. As a teacher in university, I’m constantly perplexed by these demonstrations of intolerance at the one place free inquiry should be embraced. So, what if it’s Milo Whoeverheis or Ann Whateverhernameis? If you advocate for tolerance, you disagree. So, disagree.
But, there’s another aspect of tolerance that advocates seldom want to discuss. Tolerance implies the pre-existence of something called a “standard.” Next time you’re asked to tolerate someone, ask them, “What’s the standard you want me to tolerate?” A disagreement might exist between us about the taking of innocent human life called abortion; but, I’m sorry. I defer to a higher power regarding who draws the lines of life and death, and so you’ll find me not tolerating abortion in any case, even though we disagree. You see, in a discussion of tolerance, standards often get in the way of tolerance outcomes (sometimes spelled “agendas”). So, standards aren’t necessarily on the “front burner” of tolerance advocates.
A question for my friends on the left: What’s the risk of engaging true tolerance? Well, the risk is that you can’t suppress someone else’s worldview, beliefs or opinions without becoming what you’ve complained about all along: intolerant. The risk is that you can’t re-define “tolerance” to imply “agreement” and convince others to “buy” it. The risk is that it no longer matters what the meaning of “is” is because others can define “is” for themselves. When reason and persuasion are employed, people can—wait for it—discern the truth for themselves.
So, it seems now, that among my opponents who have recognized this, the agenda is no longer tolerance. Now it’s about my opponent’s brazen intolerance by the use of force (damaged or destroyed private property in the streets and hissy fits over who gets to speak where) or the brazen defiance of the rule of law, or the brazen mockery of a Kathy Griffin. And that is supposed to “win” me (or anyone) over to their side of the cultural divide?
You want to see me struggle with the notion of true tolerance? Just engage the left’s agenda to place the government between me and my God and see what happens. This notion sounds more and more like reality to me every day and could certainly qualify as one of the myriad reasons for why the Democrat lost the last election. No one’s talking about it, because it could be true. If true, that would be a real problem for those with that agenda, huh?
Our nation is so deeply divided, and I know this sounds paradoxical to my opponents. But why don’t you try some tolerance? Conservatives didn’t exactly riot in the streets under the previous president. We weren’t perfect, but we supported the rule of law, just as my opponents were counting on during the prior administration. I’m at a loss as to how my opponents have missed this. Conservatives just don’t find brazen intolerance, lawlessness, or the use of force as Jefferson described it, all that noble, or intellectual, or . . . seemly. Far from it. Disagree with the current president if you want. I have many times. Then, during the next election cycle, run a better candidate with a better message. If you can. But, for the time being, let tolerance be the end state between us.
Finally (and thanks for reading), is there common ground between us? You decide. You are my friends and family. I haven’t unfriended you. And if your worldview differs significantly from mine and you’re still reading this post without unfriending me, then we’re practicing tolerance. Don’t you wish everybody did?