An Alternative Conceptualization of PoliticalTolerance: Illusory Increases 1950s-1970s* JOHN L. SULLIVAN University of Minnesota JAMES PIERESON University of Pennsylvania GEORGE E. MARCUS Williams College Thisarticleproposesan alternative conceptualization of political tolerance, a new measurement strategy consistent with that conceptualization, and some new findings based upon this measurement strategy.Briefly put, we argue that tolerancepresumesa political objection to a group or to an idea, and if suchan objectiondoes not arise,neither does the problem of tolerance. Working from this understanding, we argue that previousefforts to measuretolerance have failed because they have asked respondents about groupspreselected by the investigators. Those groups selected as points of referencein measuring tolerance have generallybeen of a leftist persuasion. Our measurement strategy allowedrespondents themselves to select a political groupto which they were stronglyopposed. They were thenaskeda series of questionstestingthe extent to whichthey were preparedto extend procedural claims to these self-selected targets.Usingthis approach, we found little changebetween the 1950s and the 1970s in levelsof tolerance in the United States,a resultthat contradicts muchrecentresearch on the problem. Many theorists have argued that although a democratic regime may be divided by fierce conflicts, it can remain stable if citizens remain attached to democratic or constitutional proce- dures and maintain a willingness to apply such procedures-the right to speak, to publish, to run for office-on an equal basis to all, even to those who challenge its way of life. In this instrumental sense, tolerance is understood as valuable because it helps to maintain a stable democratic regime. In addition, since a tolerant regime is generally thought to be a good regime, tolerance is sometimes understood as a good in itself, as an essential characteristic of the good society. The earliest empirical studies of tolerance conducted during the 1950s (Stouffer, 1955; Prothro and Grigg, 1960; McClosky, 1964) *We wish to expressour thanks to the University of Minnesota Graduate School and to the National Science Foundation, grant SOC 77-17623, for sup- porting this study. Considerable appreciationis ex- tended to the following for their most helpful com- ments on an earlier version of this article: David Booth, David Colby, William Flanigan, Daniel Minns, Leroy Rieselbach, W. PhillipsShively, JamesStimson, RobertWeissberg, and James Davis. We could not take all of their advicebecause often it was contradictory, but the final product would have been considerably weakened were it not for their help. found high levels of intolerance and a good deal of unwillingness to extend civil liberties to objectionable groups. Many have therefore tak- en heart in recent findings which purport to show that levels of tolerance in the American public have increased substantially since these earlier studies were conducted (Davis, 1976; Nunn et al., 1978). It would appear that the political ferment of the 1960s and the declining salience of the cold war and of the communist issue have contributed to a more tolerant climate for political debate and dissent. Accord- ing to this research, then, much progress has been made in the United States over the past two decades in building a more tolerant politi- cal regime. However, the apparent connection between the social and political trends of the 1960s and 1970s and the changing levels of tolerance reported in these studies may dissolve upon closer inspection. Though domestic communists declined in salience and visibility during this period relative to the 1950s, they were replaced as potential targets of tolerance by other groups challenging the political consensus. These groups, representing all shades of political opinion, were not generally received in a tolerant manner, either by members of the elite or by the public at large. The claim that a changed climate of opinion produced higher levels of tolerance is thus too facile, and it begs a number of questions about the sources of 781 This content downloaded from 137.165.4.15 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 07:53:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions