The Rule of Law in Tension with Political Intolerance

Political Tolerance

The Rule of Law in Tension with Political Intolerance

Throughout the course of this paper I will be examining what causes political tolerance to vary. Engaging with the question of political tolerance is vital to the understanding of whether the rule of law is possible. By looking through the political tolerance literature it seems that the rule of law is in tension with political intolerance. If first amendment rights are selectively given to those that are favorable to an individual as opposed to those that are hated or feared, the rule of law is not possible. Due to this tension between political tolerance and the rule of law, more needs to be done in order to figure out why individuals are more tolerant than others in order to move towards a more politically tolerant society.

The Puzzle of Perceptions of Threat

The greatest question that arises within the current literature is what causes individuals to have higher perceptions of threat and why political tolerance and perceptions of threat varies among different genders. This is highly correlated with political tolerance, but the current scholarship does not have a concrete answer on why some individuals have higher perceptions of threat than other individuals. Solving this puzzle will seek to decrease the amount of political intolerance because the core of the issue can be exposed through engaging in the question of why individuals perceive fear at higher levels than others.

Changing an individual’s perception of threat is not as simple as altering someone’s education level or compelling them to become more active in politics. The ability to fear is likely due to some psychological explanation that makes people less trusting. Narrowing down what this psychological explanation is has the ability to uncover the cause of not only political tolerance but what causes hate or in the extreme, to kill. Threat is based on a personal perception that someone or something will seek to challenge an individuals current state in a way that can cause harm in some way.

Ultimately, higher perceptions of threatand thus higher political intolerance undermines the possibility of peace and stability in society. If everyone is on edge due to the possibility of harm, rights and liberties will continually be restricted in some form.This undermines the purpose of listing out certain rights and liberties within the constitution because if people are politically intolerant and act upon this intolerance, the constitution is a meaningless document. Giving individuals the right to speak should not be hindered by the possibility of that speech being hateful or hurtful. There would be no chance for solutions to arise out of the market place of ideas if every piece of speech that is supposedly damaging or harmful is eliminated from the circulating pool of thoughts. Giving people the right to speak, even if it is a hated group, allows individuals to realize that these opinions are circulating and gives them an option to speak back and prove that those hateful words are wrong or misplaced. Denying rights and liberties due to a perception of threat, does not eliminate the thoughts and desires of the hated group that is oppressed.

Due to the possibility of an instable society with no order or adherence to the rule of law, research should be directed towards solving the greatest puzzle of political tolerance, perceptions of threat.

Literature Review

Education

Many scholars argue that individuals with more education are more politically tolerant while individuals with less education are less politically tolerant (Davis 1995; Sullivan, Piereson, Marcus 1978; Wilcox and Jelen 1990; Gibson 1987; Stouffer 1955; Hinckley 2010; Golebiowska 1995; Marquart-Pyatt and Paxton 2007). Stouffer was the scholar to first illustrate the relationship between education and political tolerance by studying the effects of higher levels of education on the political tolerance of communist and atheist. He found that the more educated individuals were the more they tolerated groups such as communist and atheist (Stouffer 1955). Other findings have not found the correlation between education and political tolerance to be as concrete. Sullivan illustrates that higher education is indirectly related to political tolerance, and it is really what education supplies individuals. He argues that education leads to an association of societal norms, and this is what leads to greater political tolerance (Sullivan, et al. 1981; Golebiowska 1995). By contrast, Bobo and Licari argue that the number of years of education, as related to tolerance, does not correlate as strongly as the cognitive sophistication that education results in (Bobo and Licari 1989).

Self Esteem

The current literature illustrates how higher levels of self esteem relates to higher levels of political tolerance (Bobo and Licari 1989; Gibson 1987; Davis 1995; Eisenstein 2006; Gibson 2006; Sulivan, et al. 1981; Patricia, et al. 1992). This illustrates that when people are more confident of themselves they are more politically tolerant of other individuals.

Dogmatism

The personality trait of dogmatism, or openness to disagreement, has been widely accepted among scholars to relate to political intolerance (Gibson 1987; Gibson 1992; Hickley 2010; Darren 1995; Peffley, Rohrschneider 2003). This trait is often associated with being related to education, and those that are less educated are more dogmatic (Gibson 1987).

Gender

A notable finding within the political tolerance literature relates to the differences of politically tolerant attitudes among men and women. Women tend to be more politically intolerant than men (Hinckley 2010; Golebiowska 1999; Stouffer 1955; Marquart-Pyatt and Paxton 2007). In contrast, certain scholars have found that among adolescent individuals ages 14 to 17, women are more politically tolerant than men (Sotelo 1999; Avery 1988).

Internalization of Democratic Ideals

The literature reveals that the more an individual internalizes democratic values that more tolerant they are of their most hated groups (Sullivan and Transue 1999; Gibson 1992). Similarly, scholars have also noted that individuals holding democratic ideals are more politically tolerant (Hutchinson and Gibler 2007; Gaasholt and Togeby 1995). This may not hold in all countries, however. The relationship between holding democratic ideals and political tolerance is more significant with a longer history of democracy. Relatively new democracies may hold democratic ideals but are not tolerant (Peffley, Rohrschneider 2003). This does illustrate that individuals in countries that have a longer history of democracy are more experienced with the constraints of power and thus, more willing to allow disliked groups to voice concerns or run for office. In addition, these people could have a higher perception of political freedom as apposed to those in relatively new democracies. Perception of political freedom does relate to higher political tolerance (Gibson 1992).

Democratic Activism

Among the current literature there is widespread agreement about the relationship of individuals that are more politically tolerant and individuals that have more politically active (Peffley, Rohrschneider 2003; Hutchinson and Gibler 2007; Gibson 1987; Marquart-Pyatt and Paxton 2007). This illustrates that the more individuals are willing to be politically active and engage in protests or use their ability to speak they are more tolerant of disliked groups that engage in this. It is important to note that certain personality traits contradict this argument. If individuals are more dogmatic, political activism may not be an indication of tolerance and can lead to intolerance (Gibson 1987).

Religiosity

In terms of religion affecting tolerance, there is variation. The literature does illustrate that individuals that go to church more often are less tolerant than religious individuals that go to church (Beatty and Walter 1984; Froese, Bader, and Smith 2008). The variation arises when looking at the differences between protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Protestants tend to be the most politically intolerant, Catholics are seen to be a little more tolerant, and Jews are the most tolerant out of the three (Beatty and Walter 1984; Filsinger 1976). Further research of Evangelical Christians, specifically, found them to have low tolerance levels (Wilcox and Jelen 1990). Eisenstein, however, argues that religion is indirectly related to political intolerance and that the values that are received through religion may then cause political tolerance to vary (Eisenstein 2006). The development of values through religion, however, should not undermine the casual relationship between religion and political intolerance, even if it is indirectly related.

Perceptions of Threat

The literature widely accepts that greater perceptions of threat is casually related to political intolerance (Gibson 2006; Sullivan and Transue 1999; Gibson 1987; Hinckley 2006; Davis 1995; Avery, et al. 1992; Hutchinson and Gibler 2007). Perception that an individual’s way of life will be threatened seems to correlate with political intolerance rather than an individual threat (Sullivan and Transue 1999; Gibson 2006). Other findings have found that the threat of territorial disputes has a stronger relationship with political intolerance than other external threats (Hutchinson and Gibler 2007). The real puzzle that arises with regard to the relationship between higher perceptions of threat and political intolerance is no one has found out what causes individuals to feel more threatened (Gibson 2006). In addition, women are seen to perceive threat at a higher rate than males (Golebiowska 1999).

Interpersonal Trust

Interpersonal trust, or the ability to have confidence that other individuals will act how they say they will, relates to higher levels of political tolerance (Gibson 1987; Marquart-Pyatt and Paxton 2007). This variable has also been measured under the broader category of physiological insecurity, where lower interpersonal trust is an indicator of psychological insecurity and thus, political intolerance (Golebiowska 1999).

Summary of Literature Review

Based on the current literature regarding political tolerance, the area that I will further investigate is perceptions of threat as it correlates with gender differences.The casual relationship between political tolerance and the personality traits of dogmatism and self-esteem are both widely agreed upon within the political tolerance scholarship. Individuals that are more dogmatic tend to be more politically intolerant, while individuals with higher self-esteems tend to be more politically tolerant. In terms of the casual relationship between religion, education, democratic ideals, and democratic activism, there is little question of how those are related to political tolerance. In terms of perceptions of threat, higher perceptions of threat are significantly related to political intolerance, but the current literature regarding perceptions of threat is lacking in terms of what causes individuals to perceive greater levels of threat than other individuals. In addition, the literature is contested in the areas of whether females or males are more politically intolerant. Most notably the research on male and female adolescents illustrates that males are more politically intolerant, while other studies have illustrated how females are more politically intolerant. Investigating this unanswered question will provide better insight into what makes individuals politically intolerant and the findings will seek to elude how individuals can break away from having a politically intolerant attitude. The literature has not investigated the difference between adolescent political intolerance and how that relates to greater perceptions of threat and gender. My research design will delve into the question of my women and men have different levels of perceptions of threat and thus, political tolerance, and why age may be a factor.

Research Design

In order to add to the current literature on political tolerance, my study will evaluate the difference in adolescents ages 14 to 17 and adults age 30 to 50 in order to see how threat perceptions and political tolerance differ. I will ultimately try to uncover what causes individuals the perceive threat differently. I will sample individuals from various high schools all around the country in order to have a representative sample of individuals within the United States. Then, adults between the ages of 30 and 50 will be sampled from around the country as well. The concepts that will be tested include, perceptions of threat, interpersonal trust, dogmatism, self esteem, education (this will be measured by level of education), internalization of democratic ideals, democratic activism, and religiosity. The controls within my study include gender and individuals ages 14 to 17 and age 30 to 50 to uncover why political tolerance varies between males and females at different ages. I will also control for cognitive sophistication within the study due to the literature illustrating how cognitive sophistication is an indication of political tolerance.

The individuals sampled were chosen from diverse areas across the country in an attempt to make the sample more representative. The survey questions relating to the concepts are listed below:

Political Tolerance: These questions are measured on a scale from 0 to 10. 0 corresponds to will not allow and 10 corresponds to will allow.
How likely are you to allow your least liked group to speak?
How likely are you to allow you least liked group to run for office?
How likely are you to allow your least liked group to hold a position of power?
Perceptions of threat:
How often have you felt threatened in the past week? This can include a perceived threat of physical harm or perceived threat to your way of life or identity.
Dogmatism: This question is measured on a scale of 0 to 5. 0 illustrates not open to disagreement. 5 illustrates that you are open to disagreement.
How open are you to disagreement of your own opinions?
Self-Esteem: This question will be measured on a scale of 0 to 5. 0 illustrates no confidence in your own self-worth and/or abilities. 5 represents highly confident in your own self-worth and/or abilities.
How confident are you of your own self-worth and/or abilities?
Education
This is measured by the number of years of schooling.
The control of cognitive sophistication will be measured by knowledge of vocabulary.
Internalization of Democratic Ideals
Do you support limited government?
Do you support individual liberties?
Do you support the rule of the law?
Do you support competitive elections?
Religiosity
Do you recognize yourself as religious?
How often do you attend church? Respondents have the choice of answering hardly never, sometimes, or very often.
Democratic Activism
Do you engage in protests?
Are you actively engaged in an opposition movement or a political cause?
Gender
Are you a female or a male?
Interpersonal Trust: This is measured on a scale of 0 to 10. 0 represents an individual that does not trust other individuals. 10 represents an individual that is very trusting of other individuals.
How trusting are you of other individuals?

After my sample answered these questions, the data was compiled and I ran a multiple regression with political tolerance as the dependent variable while using the various controls listed above. In addition to the first regression, I ran a second regression with the same independent variables but used perceptions of threat as the dependent variable in order to see if any of the variables studied relate to perceptions of threat. This allowed for me to see why perceptions of threat and political tolerance varies among females and males of different ages. The findings and implications will be discussed in the following section.

Findings and Implications

I will first discuss the less significant and more obvious findings from my study. Like the literature illustrates, education level and cognitive sophistication correlated with higher levels of political tolerance among both genders and age groups. This was more significant in terms of the adult males and females, but this can be explained by older males and females having more education on average than adolescents between the ages of 14 to 17. Higher education can then translate into individuals being more socialized to certain norms that allow for least liked groups to either run for office, hold a position of power, or speak. In terms for controlling for cognitive sophistication, this made the relationship between level of education and higher levels of political tolerance less significant. This indicates that cognitive sophistication is more of an indicator of political tolerance. This could be due to the fact that individuals will greater intelligence are more likely to understand the limits democracy has in place in terms of excessive use of power, so the ability to speak, even if it is a hated group, is understood as essential to the process of democracy. It is important to note that cognitive sophistication was measured by knowledge of vocabulary. This may disproportionately effect people of lower classes who may be cognitively sophisticated in other aspects. With regard to religion, self-esteem, and dogmatism, the study illustrates the same results that have been previously discussed within the literature. Individuals who attend church more are less politically tolerant, this is the same across females and men of the two age groups. Democratic activism and internalization of democratic values also revealed a similar correlation to that of the literature. Although democratic activism was significant among the adult age group not the adolescents. This illustrates that adolescents are less likely to actively engage in politics. As expected, perceptions of threat were negatively correlated with political tolerance and interpersonal trust was related to higher levels of political tolerance. Adolescent females were more politically tolerant than males, while the opposite is true for adults.

The notable finding of this study lies within the significant relationship between interpersonal trust and perceptions of threat. This relationship, however, varied across the two age groups studied and gender. Adolescent males ranked higher than their female counterparts in terms of perceived threat and lower in terms of interpersonal trust. To contrast, adult males experienced lower levels of perceived threat and higher levels of interpersonal trust. In terms of women, females between the ages of 14 and 17experienced lower levels of perceived threat and higher levels of interpersonal trust. Adult females between the ages of 30 and 50 experienced higher levels of perceived threat and then lower levels of interpersonal trust. This finding is significant to the understanding of what causes individuals to perceive threat differently and thus, more politically intolerant.