Description/Prescription

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/douthat-our-revolting-elites/?hp

In this op-ed, Ross Douthat riffs on the phenomenon that's happening on both sides of the aisle--the disconnection of the political elites from those that they govern--an interesting topic that has come up repeatedly for me recently, and which I'll try to keep in mind for further delving into.

Most recently, obviously, it was Mitt Romney who committed the error of writing off the 47 percent.  In 2008, it was Barack Obama who derided the working class as folks who bitterly cling to guns and religion in the context of an economy that has failed them. 

Douthat has questions to pose to both sides, but the one I'll remark on is the one he poses to Democrats:

"What does it say that rich Democrats can’t fathom why working class Americans might look askance at an elite that’s presided over a long slow social breakdown and often regards their fundamental religious convictions as obstacles to progress?"

The first part of Douthat's assertion resonates with me--there's certainly an argument to be made that the unintended consequences of social programs that have been the flagship of Democratic policies have contributed to social breakdown including dependency on benefits and unstable households. 

His second assertion I find harder to internalize, because while he's certainly right in regards to the perception Democrats allow to persist about their feelings towards Christian fundamentalists (and this perception perpetuates real harm), I don't think this perception aligns with a true interpretation of a Democratic theory of justice. 

An example: Democrats are quick to decry the religious intolerance they see in conservative defenses of free speech with respect to the Terry Jones video, yet tacitly condone religious intolerance towards Christian fundamentalists.  The operative phrase here is "tacitly condone," because I don't think hypocrisy in this respect is at the core of Democratic philosophy; rather, Democrats often fail to clarify a complex issue, and by doing so, perpetuate a stance of intolerance towards social conservatives. 

What complexity is actually at the core of Democratic principles of fairness and justice?  The case of the protests at the American embassy in Egypt continues to be illustrative.  The embassy attempted to affirm religious tolerance while rejecting violence purportedly justified by that religion.  Is rejecting violence predicated on religion inherently intolerant?  By extrapolation, is it intolerant of the American Left to decry bigoted behavior against gay people (to take one example) because said bigotry is a byproduct of religous beliefs? 

I believe it is partly a question of competing principles, and partly a question of sophistry.  On the semantic side, one could go down a rabbit hole of "tolerance of intolerance."  But in trying to stick to something real and useful, sometimes we are forced to make hard choices between ideals that we as Americans hold very dear.  It isn't totally off the wall to say that where one side or the other draws the line is arbitrary, but I think "first do no harm" is a good place to start.  Choosing between limiting harm to others on the one hand and allowing the greatest degree of religious freedom on the other is always going to be a balancing act, but limiting harm will usually be pretty hard to trump for me.  For some people it may be the other way around--some will have a higher tolerance for a little harm, or see religious intolerance as a harm in and of itself--but I don't think the Left's attitude towards Christian fundamentalism is as inconsistent as Democrats often let it appear to be. 

From where I stand, certain fundamental religious convictions of the Christian right are obstacles to progress.  I can't pretend that I am at once 100% tolerant, and still support what I believe are the fundamental human rights of women, gay people, etc.  However, I like to think I stop short of the condescension that most Christian fundamentalists are themselves obstacles to progress, or have nothing progressive to offer our society (or even less to offer than myself.  I have a lot to learn from plenty of them).  I hope I can stand up for my disagreement with certain principles without standing up for ad hominem, flippant attacks against groups of people, just as I try to live with the cognitive dissonance that we can at once promote religious tolerance even while denouncing the violence (in some interpretations) demanded by that religion.   

So, I can understand why working class Americans might look askance at liberal elites, but I partially reject that this looking askance is justified against Democrats on the basis of religious intolerance.  I don't think the Democrats do enough to distance themselves from an ignorant, condescending attitude towards conservative Christians, but I don't think it's fair to say that the Democratic party is wrongly intolerant of a group of people on a religious basis.  I think they are rightly intolerant of beliefs, rooted in religion, that cause harm to other groups of people, and are wrongly silent when they allow the prioritization of primum non nocere over complete religious carte blanche to be conflated with disdain for an entire group of Americans.  When we are silent, we don't just make ourselves look bad--we implicitly condone the simplistic and unjust view that Christian fundamentalists are obstacles to progress, and this causes real harm.