The Strength of Democracy - Tolerance

Lately, the push for more and more control of free speech is increasing rapidly.  We see this in the new policies on twitter, facebook, and other social media.  We see this as activists protest lectures at universities and attack people they see as having views that oppose their own.  The irony is that although these people believe they are doing good for society, the reality is just the opposite: they are damaging our society greatly.

All the nations in the world these days that are considered to be a good place to live have one thing in common: they are democracies.  We notice that democratic countries are more civilized, more progressive, and more tolerant.  It's in these countries that we see gender equality, religious freedom, and respect among fellow citizens.

So naturally, the question arises: What is it about a democracy that makes it progressive?

 

The strength of democracy is that it allows varying and conflicting viewpoints to exist.  People with opinions that are in complete disagreement with one another are still able to live in the same society peacefully: democracy is not about the will of the majority imposing itself on to the minority - quite the opposite - it's strength comes from preserving that minority viewpoint.

As a result, democratic societies are able to find and take advantage of better ideas and ways of being.  Because we don't suppress viewpoints, ideas and concepts that are good for the society as a whole are able to be heard, considered, and then ultimately accepted by the majority.

For example, think about the concept of equal rights in England.  200 years ago, British society was a patriarchy; the household was run by the husband and his word was law within the family.  So how did things change into today's society in which women have equal rights, and such a concept would be considered outlandish?

It happened because the first women and men who supported the first of equal rights were able to speak out.  They were not dragged off into jail for presenting a viewpoint that opposed the common views of the day.  They were not punished for having an idea that was different than the socialtal norm of the day.

And over time, as more and more people heard the idea, the idea of equality began to spread until eventually it was adopted, and it is now commonplace today.

This example illustrates exactly why we, as a democratic society, cannot support the suppression of ideas or viewpoints, just because we don't agree with them.  Imagine how our society would be today if the first people to speak up for equal rights were beaten and jailed?  How would things be if Martin Luther King Jr was arrested and all his followers given the death penalty for expressing their ideas?

When someone protests against free speech, or calls for a person to be publicly attacked because of their viewpoints, that person need to be opposed.  They are trying to shut down the very thing that makes democracy strong: the tolerance of ideas that are different that the norm.

Anyone who wants to repress another person's right to feel, think, or act a certain way - is being a tyrant, and un-democratic.

But wait, you say.  So often we see this, but we also see how people say it is "necessary" or for a good cause.  People try to justify their behavior in repressing others by essentially saying it is for a "greater good".

Is that a realistic claim? 

No.

What history has shown us is this: in a society in which everyone is free to express themselves, good ideas and things that will benefit the society as a whole - end up getting adopted and accepted.  The free expression of ideas allows society to change - rapidly, and for the better.

Bad ideas, such as REAL hate speech - end up going nowhere.  Ever since WWII, there have been people who still speak out against the Jews.  But if you live in the USA, ask yourself this: how often does the topic of the extermination of the Jews ever come up in ordinary life?  We don't see it in movies, we don't see it in mainsteam media, we don't see it anywhere - because it's a ridiculous idea that the majority of society has rejected.

So allowing a few people to believe and speak out for such a dumb idea - ends up *causing no harm to society whatsoever.*

And that's the point: there is no need to censor "hate speech" or to "control ideas" - because bad ideas like race hate, repression of women, etc, will never be adopted by mainstream society anyways.

This is why when activists argue for control of speech and thought, they need to be opposed.  Those activists do not understand what they are really asking for: they would like one of the core fundamentals that makes democracy progressive and positive for humanity to be removed.

And for what?

These people are acting out of an irrational fear that somehow the entire society is going to go insane and decide to embrace something like race hatred.  That is never going to happen.  And the more loud these activists get, the more violence they use, only proves the point that they are wrong.

Free speech and tolerance is what makes democracy progressive.

Democracy's strength is that is accepts all viewpoints, all speech, all ideas - and the end result is that the best of those things can be heard, become popular, and eventually end up changing society for the better.

But for democracy to be strong, we must allow freedom of speech, no matter whether we personally agree with another person's viewpoints or not.

LKvi

Trump Derangement Syndrome is just identity politics

It's interesting to watch how the Republicans are reacting these days.  Trump recently gave a State of the Union address in which he announced a lot of positive things, but the Democrats did not applaud this at all.  They criticized and complained about everything.  Even the Black Committee did not applaud when it was announced that the unemployment rate for blacks was at a low.

The Republicans reacted with surprise and outrage: why weren't the Democrats and the majority of American citizens not happy?  Why wasn't the reaction one of approval and excitement?  After all, that's what a government is supposed to do.

Imagine for a moment if a government, "X", announced that in the past year:
* They had cut taxes
* Unemployment rates were down
* Companies were investing in the country and creating new jobs
* Crime was down

To any impartial person, this would seem great.  They would rate government "X" as doing an fantastic job, because those things are exactly what a government should be doing for it's citizens: creating opportunities for jobs, wealth, lowering taxes, making things safer, etc.

But to the Republican's surprise, the reaction wasn't positive - there wasn't an outpouring of support for Trump - there was no praise for these accomplishments.  So how did they react?  They came up with a new phrase: "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

And now, whenever there is a positive accomplishment, but someone (particularly the media) speak badly of it, the Republican's just say that person has Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Is it really that simple?  Are people really that stupid that they would hate Trump for no reason at all?

No.

And this is what's interesting about it, because it shows that Republicans just don't get it.

It doesn't matter if Donald Trump personally gave a million dollars to every single anti-Trump hater: it would not change their opinion of him.

In other words, it doesn't matter how well or poorly Trump does - he will NEVER be accepted and approved by many people in the country.

Why?

Because of identity politics.

During the presidential campaign, the Democrats did an excellent job of portraying Obama and Clinton as these two very likable characters.  Obama was a black man who came from a tough upbringing but believed in himself and persevered.  Clinton was all about women's liberation - she was the champion of women's rights and was going to be the first female president.  Her victory would be a victory for all women - for the first time in history, there would be a female president.

Trump, on the other hand...  Yuck.  He was portrayed as a typical insensitive, arrogant, priviledged white male snob who never had to work a single day in his life.

And Trump, wasn't sensitive about this.  He openly said that he didn't care about being politically correct or "presidental" - and he showed it.  Trump constantly make insensitive remarks during the campaign and insulted other candidates.  What Trump didn't understand was that while what he was saying was true, the way he said it made him come across as a boorish brute and played into that image of him that the Democrats were trying to create.

And the Democrats seized on this.  They showed campaign ads where Trump was being this way -- all of which was done to build up the clear public image of Trump as a moronic bully, and Obama/Clinton as these two nice people.

Although the Democrats lost the election, they won the identity politics battle.

Most people who hate Trump with a passion do so because of how they identify Trump: he's a moron, a bully, a mysogenist, etc.  In other words, most anti-Trumpers don't hate Trump because of what he's done as President, they hate him because of the image they have of him.

And that's what the Republicans don't get.

Yes, it's true that Trump has hired tons of women and minorities, he's honored the Jews at the wall in Isreal, he's had great success at getting taxes cut, etc. - but none of that matters.

Once a person identifies someone in a certain way, it is very, very difficult to get them to change their opinion.

Consider a religion for moment that uses God and the devil.  Suppose you are talking with a follower of this religion: it means they strongly believe that God is good and the devil is bad.

Now imagine trying to convince this person that God is actually evil and the devil is actually good.  

That would be nearly impossible to do!

And that's what the Republicans are up against.  There are so many anti-Trumpers who have the identity image that Obama/Clinton are good, and Trump is bad - it is going to be nearly impossible to change their minds, NO MATTER WHAT TRUMP ACTUALLY DOES.

It's strange to see how so many Republicans don't understand this.  Even Donald Trump Jr expressed his disbelief that people aren't happy.

So if you're a Republican like these ones, just understand that you're in an impossible situation and that these anti-Trumpers will continue to hate no matter what happens.  They have an image of Trump as being so bad, and they aren't about to change that, because that's what they associate Trump as.

Now, if you're on the other side - you hate Trump because you see him as bad and Obama as good - consider the recent developments.  The FISA memo shows that there was a huge political corruption during the campaign, in which the FBI was used for political purposes - something that should never happen in a democracy - and the people involved in it - were the "good" people - Obama and Clinton.

So, objectively, it's simple.  Trump is not as horrically bad as the image of him portrays, and likewise, Clinton/Obama are not these perfectly "good" people either.

Those are just identities that have been built up for them.

The truth lies in the middle: once we move past identity politics, then we can evaluate a person accurately.

This is why identity politics is such a bad thing: it creates images of politicians that are not real, and prevents them from being judged based on MERIT and ACHEIVEMENT - which is the actual basis for objective evaluation.

Republicans are now ignoring this; they are asking the public to judge Trump objectively, based on how he's doing as President.  And they need to recognise, that is just not going to happen with people who have identified Trump as a tyrant.

LKvi