In Praise of Pluralism
Good, Bad, & Ugly
There are very few political values which are neutral and structural. The principle of elected representatives is one. So is the idea of ‘one man, one vote’ (with man carrying its somewhat archaic usage of adult human being). Neutral values are those which set the rules of the political/cultural game and are conceived of as inherent goods. Equity is a structural value but it exists to effect a deeper social change (the equalizing of privilege according to its advocates; I would say it’s often a fake value used by elites to signal virtue while grabbing administrative power to make hiring and funding and selection decisions… but I have to credit its advocates with sincerity for the most part, as I make a rule of doing).
The neutral structural values related to political participation tend to be globally popular, because they are still hotly contested in most countries and they are seen as guarantors of basic political access for citizens. Those related to ideas are much less popular. I would argue that the principle of freedom of expression has never commanded a real majority of support in most societies (even the US) and that our endowment is a function of the philosophical brilliance of our revolutionary founders. People simply can’t understand that their ideas aren’t necessarily the best and they instinctively think that ideas which oppose and offend their values are ipso facto socially harmful. People always make the same error today when they label a comedy sketch or song lyric “offensive”… as if its offensiveness is an inherent attribute. What they mean is that the words offend them and the idea that their sensibilities might be mistaken or distorted or fragile seems never to occur to them.
Pluralism is dying in the United States. You might scoff at that idea but I would guess that that’s because you don’t really know what pluralism is any longer… it’s been so negated and attacked by our educational system and our cultural elite for so long. Pluralism (in the context of ideas and debate and expression) is the neutral acceptance of all ideas, viewpoints, values, and proposals (barring those which are so damaging to public order or social harmony that their expression has an unacceptable and immediate risk of violence).
An example: You might think that pluralism is support for Obamacare (the Affordable care Act, or ACA) and support for our current insurance-based system, and support for a single-payer system (like Europe) and other models. In fact, pluralism mandates that we let those who want to racially discriminate or discriminate based upon sexual orientation in provision of healthcare be heard. Pluralism mandates that anarcho-capitalism (the dissolution of all coercive government and tax gathering authorities in favor of a pure private market for all goods and services) be given a hearing. It supports the consideration of radical primitivism, which is the dismantling of all super-local and corporate institutions and the forfeiture of all technology… and even symbolic thought. Pluralism mandates that Nazis and eugenicists and pro-chimera ideologues be allowed to express their beliefs.
The First Amendment protects all ideas from state interference.
That means that local governments and state should not investigate people who air such beliefs. IRS audits should not be deployed against them. Government agencies should not be in communication with employers or technology companies in order to monitor or silence or penalize them.
Medical policy is fairly anodyne. Let’s use another example: race. The principle of pluralism protects from all government interference pro-segregationists, Christian identitarians, white nationalists, black separatists, Klan organizers, fascists, pro-genocide theoreticians. If you recoil at some of those ideas and begin to feel that they should not be allowed to be expressed in American society (that they “have no place here”) you are proving my point. The impulse to suppress and silence offensive and marginal ideas begins on the margins but it doesn’t stay there. It always ends up suppressing beliefs held by large numbers of citizens (increasing a sense of alienation and persecution amongst those groups) and it always ends up benefitting the powerful. There has never been a different outcome in the millenia-old tradition of state control of ideas.
Here are some ideas which are not yet enforced by the state but which, if many activists have their way, would be:
Gender Identity* is a real construct which can be as salient as biological sex
Bigoted and hateful ideas* (Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, etc.) have “no place” in American society
Racial equity* is a positive value and a worthy social project
Differences between men and women are socially constructed and women are historically disadvantaged and should be given special consideration*
Anti-immigrant proposals and rhetoric* are inflammatory and should be stigmatized and suppressed
Mental health and sexuality and identity* are all value neutral categories which should carry no stigma or reputational cost
Sexual orientation* is (1) a biological default over which the individual has no personal control and so which should carry no opprobrium OR (2) a personal choice which is so deeply personal an fundamental that it should carry no opprobrium
US history is a story of oppression* and error which should be judiciously evaluated according to modern values
Hostility toward other groups* should be discouraged and disallowed.
You might agree with most- or all-of the above statements. That should be irrelevant in the realm of public policy. You should be able to agree with all of the above statements and still hold that the state has no place in promoting them but that is almost never the case. If they’re your values they should be everyone’s, you probably feel. Most people instinctively feel this, about whatever values and beliefs they hold dear.
To illustrate the difficulty with state promotion of ideas I italicized and asterisked some subjective and contentious terms. I will give a few examples:
Hostility toward other groups* should be discouraged and disallowed.
What about Nazis?
Sexual orientation* is…
Is pedophilia is sexual orientation? If not, why not? Should pedophilia carry no opprobrium? How about rape fantasies, somnophilia, necrophilia?
Mental health and sexuality and identity* are all value neutral categories which should carry no stigma or reputational cost.
How about pedophilia? If it’s not a sexual orientation then it is at least a paraphilia. How about schizophrenia? How about the psychology of a racist, would-be mass shooter?
Racial equity* is a positive value and a worthy social project.
Does that men that jobs which disproportionately employ black Americans or programs which disportionately benefit black Americans should be forced to open opportunities and benefits for white Americans? Other than a historical framing, how can this be opposed under the value of racial equity?
At what point has racial equity succeeded? How will we know? How granular should we be in conceptualizing the groups which are being equalized? There are nearly infinite ways to understand group membership… (etc.)
These might all seem like edge cases but they get to the heart of these questions and drastically affect public policy. To believe that all of these values are worthy and that they should all be promoted by the state and, furthermore, that each of these values should be understood and applied exactly as you want it to be or believe it should be is not pluralism. In the context of our hyper-connected, technologized, consumer society it is a ball sliding down a muddy slope toward totalitarianism.
To maintain your freedom you must protect the expression of ideas you find abhorrent.
