A VIEW FROM THE CHEAP SEATS
By Rich Trzupek
Tolerance - Or Not
It�s a word that gets tossed around a lot these days: �tolerance.� Most frequently it is used by the opposition to describe the qualities that conservative Republicans lack. �Intolerant Bible-thumper� is part of the required lexicon for Democratic bloggers.
As the northwest suburbs most articulate � and best-looking - conservative Republican, I find the accusation fascinating. It�s a political tool of course, only marginally useful since the label largely plays only to the choir, but � like a lot of words � �tolerance� is slowly losing its meaning.
Tolerance involves acceptance, but it should not include applause. Indeed, when we � tolerate� something, it usually means that we don�t approve, but that the degree of disapproval does not rise to a level that require punitive measures.
A parent, for example, may tolerate the fact their kid�s room is so messy that it�s home to previously undiscovered strains of bacteria. That doesn�t mean that said parent approves. It means that they�re willing to leave the issue in their kids� hands while they continue to hope that their offspring will do better.
In the same way, is it �intolerant� for someone (most likely a Republican someone) to oppose gay marriage, or abortion, or affirmative action? Of course not. It�s entirely ridiculous to hang such a label on someone who opposes a program, not a person.
One may have a great deal of sympathy for a young woman who feels that abortion is her only option. I would argue that we should be understanding and empathetic. But sympathy for the person and their situation does not have to translate into approval of the action.
The twin acts of not pressuring to judge the person, while we simultaneously condemn the action, is the essence of what tolerance truly means.
Yet there are those who would turn that formula on its face. Unless one approves of everything that everyone does, then one is supposedly �intolerant.� Or, more properly, one must approve of every action on the critics� agenda.
Consider another example. Does opposition to gay marriage mean that Republicans hate gay individuals? You�d certainly think so if you pay attention to most liberal Democrats. If you�re not for gay marriage, then you�re supposedly guilty of the type of persecution that would do the Nazis proud.
Which is just plain silly. Granted, there are extremists who would like to eradicate homosexuals from the world. Those people, however, are a distinct minority, even among the GOP, Democratic propaganda not-withstanding.
Most of us � the vast majority of us in fact � are more than willing to tolerate (there�s that word again) and embrace gay individuals. Live and let live and all that. But when it comes to an institution that is a foundation of society, it�s OK to opine that marriage should retain its traditional definition. There�s nothing �intolerant� about it, unless our definition of intolerance has been reduced to �giving everybody everything they want, in spite of your personal beliefs.�
�Tolerance� also seems to demand that we �celebrate diversity� these days. Note that we don�t say �accepting diversity��we are rather required to �celebrate� it. The distinction is important.
The different heritages among Americans have long been a point of pride. I�m an old Polack. My daughter carries both Polish and Mexican genes. My best friend in high school happened to be African-American. All of these distinctions � and all the others � are points of individual pride, as they should be.
Yet, one of the things that makes those distinctions so worthwhile is that they are enjoyed in the context of a universal: at the end of the day we�re all Americans, sharing a common heritage, history and humility. No one has to tell us to remember our roots. We know that. We understand where we come from and take pride in those roots.
�Celebrate diversity� sounds like a suggestion, but it too often translates into an agenda for a new social order. The �American� part of Afro-American, or Polish-American, or Mexican-American is supposed to fade into insignificance. If we demand Americanism, then we are guilty of intolerance.
And that�s silly too. It�s OK to demand a national language, to look to national history and to share a national vision. None of these things needs to diminish our individual heritage. Indeed they can enhance the experience. Assimilation makes the whole stronger, it need not destroy the parts.
If we must celebrate diversity, we should not be so foolish as to condemn homogeny � which is what the former principle too often implies.
Too often the people who throw the �T-word� around are the most intolerant of all. While they are just as willing to accept the individual, they refuse to consider that anyone else might legitimately wish to limit a particular action that an individual may undertake. Doing so, in their world, is �intolerant.�
We have another word for people like that, who refuse to consider any point-of-view other than their own. Once upon a time, we called them bigots.
