56. "Intolerant"

Can we use the word "intolerant" to describe British Prime Minister David Cameron? Six months before the recent riots he said, "Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values" (New Yorker, 7-4-11).

So, if he won't tolerate he will be intolerant, right?

Technically that's right, but humanly it isn't. Today's human beings hear "intolerant" and think "bigot," one who "is intolerant of those who differ with him." That's not fair to Cameron. He doesn't care if you differ with him. He just wants you to differ with him — or the government, or the society, or the culture — inside the traditional democratic frame, the one supported by what he calls "our values."

And you're right with him, I believe. You have to be. You said (in Post #42) that "democracy depends on a certain character, and character is developed over time, in a tradition." You and Cameron believe in the superiority of your tradition — which, some would observe, is singularly a male, Protestant, European tradition. They suggest that you are prejudiced against other traditions.

Ugh, "superiority." Categorical assertion of it is the stupidest thing anybody, European or non-European, can do in these times. It throws us right back into the old culture wars, cultural relativism vs. cultural absolutism, that mess. No, friend, never say "superior" unless you add "in such and such a way, for this or that purpose." One culture is superior (meaning, usually, in the way it trains its children) in commercial enterprises, bookkeeping, city skills. Another is superior in woodcraft, farming, country skills. Somebody asks, "Why are you encouraging young people to adopt the values of this culture?" You answer. "Simply because that's the way (the commercial, say) to get ahead now. It's a better fit for their needs." That's all you have to say. It says "superior" but in a way that's easy to accept. It doesn't express an attitude; it states a fact.

Oh man, you sound modest but I see what you are doing. You are writing Cameron's next speech for him: "My dear fellow citizens. What do we all need? A functioning democracy. What culture, what values, are best fitted to that need? This one, now prevailing in England. Turn to it, children. Learn the craft. This is the way for all of us to get ahead."

That's easy. That's exhortation. It's the speech after that that counts. If we all need a functioning democracy then, in our name, he'll be justified in breaking down those segregated communities and interfering with those separate lives. "Acquire these values or else." Will he say, "No more concessions to your native language"? "No more social services for your radicals"? Whatever he says it's going to be heard as, "Our way or the highway." The word "intolerant" is sure to come back into play.