Skip to main content

How "Tolerance" Ruined America

In describing the "mysterious factor of difference" which has "wrought such a strangely different result here in our country," as opposed to the "fate of Europe... [which is] to be always a battleground," President Calvin Coolidge concluded in his speech, titled The Genius of America, delivered October 16, 1924, to a delegation of foreign-born citizens, that "[i]t was not a single factor but the united workings of at least three forces, that brought about the wide difference." President Coolidge went on to characterize a culture of tolerance unique to the United States, which had demonstrated "peace, harmony and cooperation" in helping "to rid [the countries of the Old World] of the bad traditions, the ancient animosities, the long established hostilities": 

"Among these I should place, first, the broadly tolerant attitude that has been characteristic of this country. I use the word in its most inclusive sense, to cover tolerance of religious opinion, tolerance in politics, tolerance in social relationships; in general, the liberal attitude of every citizen toward his fellows. It is this factor which has preserved to all of us that equality of opportunity which enables every American to become the architect of whatever fortune he deserves." 

Upon reading President Coolidge's speech, one learns of a number of important American themes, not least of which is the theme of opportunity for those of initiative. However, for the purposes of this particular writing, we shall focus on the importance of the term "tolerance" in the American purview, the particular sort of which, presently taken wildly out of context, inspired so many visitors and immigrants to the shores of the New World. 

As President Coolidge described in his speech, it has been a "universal tolerance" which has largely distinguished the United States from the Old World, in particular a "universal tolerance" and "liberal attitude" toward religious opinion, politics, social relationships, and his fellow citizens. By this liberal attitude, of course, President Coolidge meant little more than an attitude of "universal tolerance" whereby one's fellow citizen was unmolested and spared the persecution of the Old World, left generally to "become the architect of [his life and] whatever fortune he deserves." 

The reader of the modern age, however, would be quick to translate this "tolerance" into a twisted and expedient form of "acceptance" or "endorsement," but this would amount to a gross misinterpretation of the term, and a betrayal of the "natural and correct attitude of mind for each" American. As described by President Coolidge: 

"It is the natural and correct attitude of mind for each of us to have regard for our own race and the place of our own origin. There is abundant room here for the preservation and development of the many divergent virtues that are characteristic of the different races which have made America their home. They ought to cling to all these virtues and cultivate them tenaciously. It is my own belief that in this land of freedom new arrivals should especially keep up their devotion to religion." 

In his speech, President Coolidge goes to great lengths to characterize the American form of "tolerance" which had distinguished, and arguably continues to distinguish, the United States from the Old World. Far from "endorsing" or broadly "accepting" divergent values, views or virtues, President Coolidge celebrates a particular willingness to tolerate those divergences. Indeed, he bolsters this position with his belief that Americans "ought to cling to all these virtues and cultivate them tenaciously." Take notice of the fact that President Coolidge neither lightly suggests nor even strongly recommends that Americans cling to their virtues; on the contrary, he commands that they "ought" to cling to them and cultivate them "tenaciously". 

This command from President Coolidge is one which critically clarifies the meaning of "tolerance" in his speech, one which surely transcends time in the way that it catalogues the sentiments and objectives of its time, and just as importantly the various lessons it affords Americans today: Americans who desperately need to appreciate the value and meaning of "tolerance," who need to be reminded of the value and purpose of their "views" and "virtues'', and who need to remember how to develop and protect them along with their continued tolerance of others. 

After all, whether in the confusion, some newfound hope or identity, or in their zeal for some new and progressive cause, many have hastily abandoned their values in favor of life without any. President Coolidge spoke prophetically on this very trend: "Disregarding the need of the individual for a religious life, I feel that there is a more urgent necessity, based on the requirements of good citizenship and the maintenance of our institutions, for devotion to religion in America than anywhere else in the world. One of the greatest dangers that beset those coming to this country, especially those of the younger generation, is that they will fall away from the religion of their fathers, and never become attached to any other faith." 

Whether an earnest endeavor in faith or toward truth, ideally with one inspiring a strong conviction in the other, it is important to never compromise on the important values, lessons and truths they produce. While politicians, from time immemorial, have long exploited the decency and respectability of the people, the case is little different for the peoples of the United States who've championed tolerance and who've thereby been swindled into gradually sacrificing their own convictions and values at the altar of allowable opinion and political correctness. The time has long since passed that Americans "ought to cling to [their] virtues and cultivate them tenaciously." They must first reclaim them. 

As President Coolidge concluded in his speech, the best method for promoting this action, for maintaining all of our high ideals, for helping other lands and other peoples, is by giving undivided allegiance to America, maintaining its institutions, and, by leaving it internally harmonious, making it eternally powerful, as an example to the rest of the world, in promoting a reign of justice and mercy throughout the earth.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f