Tolerance is allowing individuals to have and express various points of view, and especially those which are at a variance with one’s own. Tolerance is permitting beliefs and opinions to be presented and promoted.
A simple example suffices: in an imaginary town, Mr. Jones and Mr. Miller are both candidates, hoping to be elected mayor. Each candidate has his own group of supporters. The citizens who support Mr. Jones, however, acknowledge the right of other citizens to support Mr. Miller, and reciprocally, the supporters of Mr. Miller recognize the right of other citizens to advocate for Mr. Jones.
This is already obvious from the various republics with which the reader will be acquainted.
The question becomes unclear, however, because of slogans and political rhetoric which uses a variety of words: “welcome, affirm, support, accept, celebrate.” These words point to something different than tolerance.
This can be seen in example. Civil society expects the supporters of one candidate to tolerate, or allow, the supporters of a competing candidate to live unabused and free to express their allegiances. The supporters of Mr. Jones for mayor tolerate the supporters of Mr. Miller, and vice versa.
But civil society does not expect the supporters of one candidate to “welcome, affirm, support, accept, or celebrate” campaigns and advocacy for a competing candidate. Such an expectation would be the very opposite of what is understood to be a democratic society. A free society does not ask individuals to surrender their opinions and views; rather it asks merely that they tolerate the existence of competing views, and contend with those competing views in a respectful disagreement.
Thus the public should reject the perpetual call for voters to “welcome, affirm, support, accept, and celebrate” some political viewpoint. The citizens should, on the contrary, “tolerate and allow” diverse viewpoints.
The reader will transfer this principle and apply it to the controversial questions and “hot-button” issues of the current time.
