Perceptive readers will notice that my column tag is in honor of philosopher Karl Popper’s magnum opus, The Open Society and Its Enemies. In it, Popper presents a blistering defence of liberal democracy against totalitarianism and the forces that seek to advance it. Popper assails the “historicism” of would-be prophets such as Karl Marx, who thought “History” moved inevitably towards certain outcomes.
The work is a breath of fresh air at a time when decidedly violent and undemocratic elements threaten to undermine hard-won advances and breakthroughs in modern society. In the United States, cruel neo-Nazis and other white supremacists roam free to threaten blacks, Jews, and other minorities with malicious intent. Here, forceful elements contemplate the abolition of due process and the rule of law as a way to “save” the country from the specter of drugs. Popper’s work serves as an important reminder of the dangers of messianistic thinking, and a warning of the consequences to come.
But most relevant to today’s situation is but a tiny footnote in Popper’s massive tome:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
Should people hostile to the open society then be allowed to participate fully in it? No, the open society must guard against malignant and hateful entities that seek only its destruction. Right. But Popper says that this should not be the first response of any rational community:
“I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument…We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
Perhaps today’s governments should learn a lesson or two from Popper. The fight for freedom is never done, and there will always be those at the fringes of every free society looking for any opportunity to seize power. There is no guarantee that the rights and freedoms afforded to every citizen in the Republic will remain sacrosanct if the liberal democratic system that forms the basis of our society comes under assault. Thus, leaders must resist the twin evils of populist demagoguery and unbridled fanaticism that derail rational thought and reasoned debate.
As citizens, we also have a duty to fight abhorrent beliefs with the facts. We should not shy away when the intolerant come out from the shadows to preach hatred. There is a very real temptation to just unfollow, block, and ignore people who spout absolute rubbish—resist it. Nothing good can come about from shuttering oneself off from “the other side.” For the sake of our liberties, we must become active participants in its preservation. If anything, the open society demands it.
