Tolerance Is Inevitable, Eventually
What we are really seeing are desperate attempts by those who ultimately will be unable to stop the cultural and societal changes they loathe
The process of the evolution of human progress and thus of culture and society is not linear. It never has been. Considering new ideas and becoming more accepting in general has typically required generations, sometimes many of them, to achieve incremental enlightenment. However, a lengthy tipping point — primarily technological developments in communication: from television to internet, significantly increased the rapidity of socio-cultural change. What was very gradual progress requiring decades or even centuries now takes place within a few generations…or less. Basically, rapid change begets more change, more rapidly. And this rate of change creates pushback from those who don’t like what is happening.
As a result, we are now witnessing an increasingly divisive struggle between those who resist change and those who want more of it. Nothing exemplifies this as much as the passage of laws in some states that actually codify the right to discriminate on the basis of beliefs — be they religious or just personal. Some governors veto these efforts — often because of very negative reactions by corporations, some don’t. It seems inconceivable that such laws could actually exist in a time when tolerance and diversity are a significant part of modern culture, particularly in metropolitan regions (~125 of them in the U.S.).
These laws are particularly intended to prevent cities from passing laws that do not meet the approval of those with conservative agendas — that is, individuals who do not like the changes taking place in society. Many of the legislators passing these restrictive laws represent areas that are rural. The conflict between city and country has existed for as long as cities have. Cities are places of innovation, wealth and openness, placing them in conflict with rural regions. As people from other states and countries have moved to cities in these states for education or careers — often bringing with them more openness and tolerance, these cities become increasingly liberal islands within their states.
The attempts to control cities are misguided, and disturbing, but pragmatic analysis says they are doomed. First and foremost, these laws are not going to stand constitutional challenges. Claiming the right to discriminate as a form of religious freedom has no long-term prospects of success. And a large percentage of citizens do not support intolerance and discrimination. Civil rights are an integral part of modern societies, and selectively undermining such rights for very consecrative reasons can and will have negative consequences for states that pass such laws.
What we are really seeing are desperate attempts by those who ultimately will be unable to stop the cultural and societal changes they loathe. Conservative whites are going to become minorities in many southern states within the next 10 to 25 years, and combined with the growth of metropolitan regions there, will slowly lose the ability to impose their intolerance on others. The ability of conservatives to restrict civil rights and condone discrimination through state legislatures will eventually be lost as demographics shift and voters push back against intolerance.
Almost a quarter of the U.S. population, and an even a higher proportion of young people, are nones — being non-religious, atheists and uninterested in religion. Many others are religious but moderate in their beliefs and opinions. Those who experience diversity are often comfortable with and supportive of tolerance and inclusiveness. Fiscal conservatives can be moderate to liberal on social and cultural issues. The aggregation of these individuals is far greater than those who are socially very conservative — representing, at most, 20 percent of the population. The twenty-first century will represent an era of increasing intolerance for intolerance.
So, I’m pragmatically optimistic in the long term even while being pragmatically pessimistic in the short term. People tend to be more tolerant when things are going well for them and there’s a sense of well-being and relative optimism about the future. But when the competition to get by is strong and there’s little sense that things will be better in the future for themselves, their children, their way of life…tolerance is more challenging. The greater good seems unavailable, even nonexistent.
Those who are male, white, older and at most have a high school education are being left behind or out in the new global economy, and they are the least tolerant, most angry members of society. The populism that appeals to them includes intolerance and xenophobia. We probably can’t do much about this other than create jobs where there are things to be done, such as repair, maintain and develop new infrastructure — except conservatives want smaller government and are least inclined to fund this kind of spending. For the rest of us, tolerance is an important part of doing the right thing for the right reasons. We’ll get there, but we have quite a ways to go.
