The Paradox of Tolerance

by Stacy Fitzgerald

Americans have sprinted into a predictable pattern of accepting the intolerable. 

When Donald Trump was first elected president in 2016, stunned Democrats made promises to reject and resist the blatant racism, sexism, xenophobia, and mean-spiritedness he and many of his supporters represented. Never before had we had a president that openly mocked the disabled, called military service members suckers, sought a ban on Muslims entering the country, and stoked racial hatred.

Trump welcomed white supremacists into his administration, including Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and embraced men who would later be convicted of felony crimes, like Roger Stone, Paul Manafort,and Peter Navarro. Trump would later go on to be impeached twice, incite an insurrection when he lost a free and fair election, and, following his presidency, be convicted of sexual assault as well as 34 felony crimes.

Yet, somehow, we’ve normalized the characteristics that he represents. That’s a despicable and dangerous thing because American society’s tolerance of the intolerable threatens to destroy its existence.

The Paradox of Tolerance

In psychology, the paradox of tolerance suggests that if society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, undermining the principle of tolerance altogether. If that doesn’t describe where we find ourselves as Americans after the re-election of Trump, I don’t know what does.

In normalizing his crudeness, criminality, and corruption in favor of the promise of lower gas and food prices and more riches for the haves, we’re again accepting the worst moral example for our highest office, the Office of the Presidency. If our message to our children and future generations is that a moral compass doesn’t matter, we’ve delivered that message loud and clear. And if it doesn’t matter for the person who holds the Office of the President, a position that once required a person of high ethical standards, what message are we sending our citizens and children?

Tolerance requires the willingness to deal with something in another person that you may disagree with for yourself. At the opposite end of the spectrum, intolerance is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviors different from one’s own. There is a time to be tolerant and a time to be intolerant.

We’ve all now spent the better part of this week listening to armchair analysts and talking heads opine about what went wrong for Kamala Harris and the Democrats, what drove a higher percentage of people to vote for Trump, and why the polls were wrong, but at the end of the day, in my view, what matters more than anything else is what Trump’s election says about us.

The Haves and Have Nots

The message that we’re sending women with his election is that your rights to bodily autonomy are all but gone, the leader of the free world can be a convicted sexual offender, and you dare not ever think about running for the office of the presidency because it’s a job for a man. A troublesome reality of Trump’s election, though, is that more than half (53% of white women voters seemingly support this mindset, though black women largely reject it (voting 92% for Harris).

A second Trump presidency and Republican control of the executive, judicial, and (at least)  half of the legislative branch will significantly curtail women’s rights in America. And though Trump says he will not pursue a national abortion ban, can women trust him to keep his word?

The restriction of women’s rights should be a non-starter for women. However, our views on the issue contradict some of our votes. Most women say they support women’s rights, but did their vote demonstrate that? There were some foxes in our henhouses. 

The president-elect has also said he will cut business taxes and taxes for All Americans. Yet, the Center for American Progress, a non-partisan, independent policy think tank, notes that those who benefited the most from Trump tax cuts in 2017 were overwhelmingly wealthy, with households in the top 1 percent of income distribution receiving an average tax cut of $61,090. The irony of being the candidate perceived as better for the middle class while implementing tax cuts that heavily benefit the 1% is not lost on this writer.

Economic haves and have-nots will  be made during Trump’s presidency, and some of the very people who voted for him will be in the latter group, not the former.

No Shame in Supporting the Intolerable

The sad reality is that we’ve accepted the intolerable in favor of anticipated financial gain, so the intolerable is now typical.

Decency, morality, and kindness are honorable and valued qualities in a president. Let’s hope that we haven’t crossed into this dark place where we normalize the offensive permanently.

Stacy Fitzgerald is a full-time marketing and communications pro and part-time freelance writer using her considerable experience in living while black to engage in conscious storytelling.