Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference

by John D. Inazu

In recent years, the United States has been more polarized and divided than ever. This fissure is evident across the nation in conflict over LGBTQ rights; in challenges to religious liberty; in clashes over abortion; in tensions between law enforcement and minority communities. With all of this physical and emotional violence enacted by our legal system and such seemingly irresolvable differences in beliefs, values, and identities across the country, we are forced to ask—how can the people of this nation ever live in peace together?

In Confident Pluralism, John D. Inazu analyzes the current state of the country, orients the contemporary United States within its broader history, and explores the ways that Americans can—and must—live together peaceably in the future despite these deeply engrained differences. Pluralism is one of the founding creeds of the United States—yet America’s society and legal system continues to face deep, unsolved structural problems in dealing with differing cultural anxieties, and minority viewpoints.  Inazu not only argues that it is possible to cohabitate peacefully in this country, but he also lays out realistic guidelines for our society and legal system to achieve the new American dream through civic practices that value toleration over protest, humility over defensiveness, and persuasion over coercion.

An essential clarion call during one of the most troubled times in US history, Confident Pluralism offers a refreshing argument for how the legal system can protect peoples’ personal beliefs and inherent right to differ and shows how we can build towards a healthier future of tolerance, patience, and empathy.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Cultural, Sociology, Philosophy, Christian, Religion

176 pages, Hardcover

First published May 16, 2016

About the author

John Inazu is the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis.

His weekly Substack, Some Assembly Required, can be found at https://johninazu.substack.com

Reviews

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 4 out of 5]

A few years ago, the recent Catholic convert Sohrab Ahmari came out against "David French-ism" and a debate has ensued in the aftermath about the future of American conservativsm. Ahmari and his camp seek to wield political apparatuses to instill a proper, moral order, a world free of drag queen story hours in libraries, whereas French represents a more moderate, modest conservatism that seeks a place in the pluralistic public arena. I have been pulled to-and-fro by both sides (in one of my library courses last year, another student announced in class introductions that he was a drag queen!), yet as a Canadian, I have always acknowledged that my country lacks a robust Christian Right; if anything, Canadian conservatism today by necessity must be a diverse alliance, perhaps along religious lines (orthodox Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs might agree on more than secular liberals). Thus, French's approach seems most tenable to me.

John Inazu's 2016 book has already garnered considerable attention and it strikes me as an optimistic distillation of French's approach. In the first half, Inazu discusses various elements of sustaining public discourse on complex social issues; voluntary groups bring together members united in a particular affiliation (Hindus, Presbyterians, environmental activists, labour activists, libertarians, transgender support networks, etc...). Inazu uses examples to illustrate his point, such as highlighting how boycotts are typically unsuccessful; he particularly draws on previous court case decisions.

In the second half, Inazu becomes less technical and more aspirational, providing suggestions for how we can cultivate public forums guided by tolerance, humility, and patience. He showcases how surprising bedfellows, such as the fundamentalist pastor Jerry Falwell Sr. and the pornographer Larry Flynt approached something of a friendship through in-person interactions despite engaging in vicious fighting over the years. Ideological opponents can come together to find common ground that both sides can fight FOR; radical feminists such as Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin found allies in their battles against pornography with social conservatives and pro-life and pro-choice activists can find ways to encourage adoption of "unwanted" babies. Some of the recommendations Inazu offers are obvious, such as being respectful and avoiding name-calling, but I still appreciate him doing the constructive work of articulating a path forward to sustain civil discourse in a pluralistic society.

[Ivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is bound to tick off those on the political right and left, viewed by both sides as a compromise or pursuit of a pipe dream. While I quibble with a few things (Inazu's apparent view that abortion can be an agree-to-disagree in a pluralistic society), overall I think Inazu provides a path forward in an increasingly polarized country.

[Genni]

Confident Pluralism makes a legal and civic case for classical liberalism. It is a position that is difficult to adopt consistently, and few people under the “liberal” banner manage it, but Inazu does it pretty well. This is especially highlighted when he speaks of his Japanese descent. He frames his support of liberalism within a discussion of his family’s treatment in internment camps. It is a powerful anecdote to his case.

It is a popular work, so he doesn’t delve into the moral reasoning behind why we should adopt liberalism beyond avoiding an “American nightmare”. He assumes the American ideal, shows the legal defects of current cases before the Supreme Court, then moves on to how to live out these ideals in civic life. It includes inspiring stories of Americans from very different political and moral perspectives working together towards common goals.

Since this was published in 2016, I do wonder if Inazu still maintains some of his arguments from Chapter 1 titled, “Our Modest Unity”. In it, he argues that we “share a tradition that recognizes the wisdom of limiting state power” and “of encouraging persuasion over coercion”. While that may be our tradition, it no longer seems to be what either major party in the States aspires to. In fact, they both seem to be openly against these principles. To quote a quote from Before the Shooting Begins, ”Can democratic practice today mediate differences as deep as ours in a manner that is in keeping with the ideals set forth in the founding documents of the American republic? Or will one side, through the tactics of power politics, simply impose its vision on all others?”

I think this is the major problem of the book. It assumes much about aspirations, is brief on compelling reasoning, and heavy on anecdotes. So while I consider myself to be a classical liberal, and agree with his conclusions, the argument made in this half is a bit weak, making it more a case of preaching to the choir.

But here’s to hoping otherwise.

Many people think that our deep differences are getting deeper. But at least one reason for this perceived change is that we have allowed more voices into the conversation-we have extended the political community to encompass the people and beliefs that we actually find our midst. Our country may have had more “coherence” of a kind in an earlier era, but a good deal of that coherence was only made possible by suppressing or excluding dissenting or unheard voices. That is not, in fact, confident pluralism. It is confidence (by some) without pluralism (for all).

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inazu, John D. Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.

John Inazu identifies two key elements that a confident pluralism must embrace if it is going to be successful in a complicated society today: inclusion and dissent. By inclusion he doesn’t mean the trite “Coexist” bumper sticker. Rather, we are “continually reshaping the boundaries of our political community” (Inazu 15-16). Further, we allow marginal groups to dissent from established norms.

All of this sounds good and indeed some form of it functioned (more or less successfully) throughout American history. The problem is obvious but really examining it is hard to put into words. It isn’t simply that some “don’t wanna play by the rules.” Rather, our system is supposed to not let them play by the rules. That’s a recipe for an unstable society, but that’s really not the problem, either. The obvious problem today–and one that won’t be resolved amicably–is who wins when religious liberty and “muh feelings” collide? I don’t think Inazu really answers that question.

On the surface I agree with what he is saying. We all have dignity and we should value “the Other” even in the difference. But why should we do that? As a confessional Christian I say because of natural rights or image of God or something. But that is grounding pluralism on a divine basis, which seems to defeat the whole point.

Inazu dodges the natural rights question, though he seems to acknowledge it in a throwaway quote from Alasdair MacIntyre: “”[T]hese concepts [equality, justice, morality, and dignity] abstracted from a particular tradition have no limiting principle–they can be deployed to any political end” (30).

That’s not to say that Inazu’s project is built on a foundation of sand. He offers a number of cogent insights that can slow down (but not stop) the encroaching power state. Contra John Rawls, Inazu advocates mediating institutions and structures (enshrined in the first amendment). While acknowledging that the Constitution is only paper, with Madison he notes that it still confers a degree of gravitas.

And while the power elite do spend most of their time attacking Christians, Inazu notes other faith groups’ struggles. Take the problem of “nesting,” when a group in one legal category overlaps with another legal category. Take the Nation of Islam’s Twitter account. The Nation of Islam forbids interracial dating and urges strict standards from women. Twitter, on the other hand, prohibits those prohibitions. So whose First Amendment right takes precedent? Twitter, being a business, seems to have the upper hand. Yet, when groups like Twitter and Facebook receive tax breaks, then they aren’t purely a private enterprise, either.

Maybe we can’t give a complete answer to solve the problem of liberty vs. my feelings. As Niehbur notes, we might only just be able to give proximate solutions to ultimate problems.

The second part of the book focuses on “civic practices” which strengthen a “confident pluralism.” I largely agree with him. In fact, much of it sounds like Augustine. True tolerance means I don’t water down my beliefs. At most I not use demonizing language. Fair enough. And he is mostly fair to all sides, but I don’t think he has fully come face to face with the Deep State’s agenda. He quotes law professor Susan Stabile: “failure to obseve one’s religion is not persecution” (102). That’s obviously correct, but it isn’t liberal Episcopalians who are being brought to trial for their views on traditional morality. Umm, Oregon.

The book is very well-written. I found myself engaged in it without realizing it. Leaving aside whether this can work in the long run (I doubt it), it is a fair model for detente for the here and now.

[Carrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Inazu's ideas on how we might live more civilly with each other are thought-provoking, and many (like the common ground imperative) are commendable. However, his discussion of exactly how much discrimination should be tolerated under confident pluralism and whether or not ending discriminatory practices is even a desirable goal is sometimes uncomfortably fuzzy. This would have been a stronger book if he had honestly explored the implications of his argument for anti-discrimination law and for the options of marginalized groups to effectively protest dissatisfactory treatment. Can we agreee to disagree on problems like racism and homophobia? Should we? What if the practices allowed by confident pluralism are not enough to address systemic inequalities? Must these inequalities then merely be accepted as the price we pay for a pluralistic, civil society? If so, I cannot fully support Inazu's vision of confident pluralism, which does not sufficiently acknowledge these existing inequalities and how the arrangement he proposes could limit our ability to meaningfully address them. If not, he should have answered these questions more thoroughly in his book, or at least suggested that these were questions that needed to be explored further.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for every true American

The web, especially social media has given so many more people a voice. This has been great in terms of promoting diversity of thought. It has been terrible as it has seemingly divided us as we come into more contact with positions we abhor. How do we navigate? America, like no other country I know has traditionally been in favor of pluralism and diversity of thought, but our innate human tribalistic tendencies are to suppress dissent of our position. Inazu does a great job of walking through how we might learn to coexist. He proposes and clearly argues for a framework on which perhaps we can preserve the union by focusing on our common ground and perhaps creating a super tribe through our commitment to promoting pluralism and confidently so, the alternative is a nightmare.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Recognizing the deep fissures in American society and the necessity of maintaining some kind of civil union in the face of the scary alternatives, this book explores the constitutional commitments and civic practices that make that possible.

One thing almost no one would disagree about today is that the United States faces deep divisions over a variety of issues, conflicting beliefs, and groups in competition and sometimes conflict. The question is whether we will find ways, not to eliminate our differences, but to "compose" our differences, to find ways to live together, to reach understandings, and to respect each other, and allow the robust expression of our diverse ideas and lifestyles. As John Inazu admits, this may be messy, but the alternative is downright scary.

Inazu, as a professor of law and political science, brings together the work of these disciplines in framing both the legal, indeed Constitutional commitments, and civic practices that make confident pluralism possible. He begins by arguing that there are several key freedoms rooted in the first amendment that need strengthening:

The Voluntary Groups Requirement:

"Government officials should not interfere with the membership, leadership, or internal practices of a voluntary group absent a clearly articulated and precisely defined compelling interest" (p. 48).

The Public Forum Requirement:

"Government should honor its commitment to ensure public forums for the voicing of dissent and discontent. Expressive restrictions in these forums should only be justified by compelling government interests. Private public forums that effectively supplant these government-sponsored forums should in some cases be held to similar standards" (p. 64-65).

The Public Funding Requirement:

"When the government offers generally available resources (financial and otherwise) to facilitate a diversity of viewpoints and ideas, it should not limit those resources based on its own orthodoxy" (p. 79).

I consider these important proposals, having worked with religious groups on a public university campus who had imposed on them leadership selection practices that would prevent them from choosing leaders according to the beliefs and mission of the group and that threatened the withdrawal of funding and access enjoyed by other groups if they did not comply. It can be very scary when the a small group comes up against the institutional power of a large university, but the greater loss, it seems to me is the chilling effect these measures have on the expression of religious beliefs that may not conform to the "orthodoxy" of the university and the lack of opportunity for other students to encounter and engage such beliefs. Whatever pluralism that survives such measures is neither robust nor confident. I would attest to the kind of strengthening of first amendment protections which Inazu proposes.

Inazu then goes on to discuss the civic practices that sustain a confident pluralism and that result in what he sees as the desired outcome of such practices -- warm, respectful relationships across our differences. He begins by proposing three civic aspirations:

1. Tolerance: a willingness to accept, if not approve, genuine differences.
2. Humility: a willingness to accept our own limits and to be open to what we might learn.
3. Patience: learning to persist and endure in understanding when this is not easy and when mutual understanding does not come quickly.

He then considers two problems that any of us who have tried to discuss controversial notions on social media have faced: the hurtful insult (you are stupid, naive, a bigot, etc.) and the conversation stopper (that's just close-minded, extremist, homophobic, racist, etc.). While freedom of speech certainly protects such statements, it shuts down any kind of civil discourse, what Inazu calls "living speech."

He then considers the ethics of collective action: protests, boycotts, and strikes (pretty relevant, huh?). Are the boycotts of Abercrombie and Fitch, Hobby Lobby, Mozilla (for its selection of a CEO who had donated to anti-LGBT rights causes) appropriate? On balance, as messy as it can be, he would say yes provided we pursue tolerance, humility, and patience.

And that brings him to the last chapter. Throughout the second section, he speaks of two people, Jerry and Larry. It turns out they represent two people, Jerry Falwell, the preacher, and Larry Flynt, the pornographer. At one time they had been both personal and ideological enemies, with Flynt printing a vicious parody of Falwell and Falwell countering by suing him. I will leave you to discover how it happened, but the two became friends toward the end of Falwell's life, traveling around the country debating, disagreeing, but exchanging Christmas cards, family pictures and weight loss tips. They vehemently disagreed about many things but Flynt wrote, "the ultimate result was one I never expected and was just as shocking a turn to me as was winning the famous Supreme Court case: We became friends." Inazu argues that it is not agreement that we will necessarily achieve but the finding of common ground and the bridging of relational distance where "them" becomes "us".

I'm persuaded that Inazu's slim book needs to become a manual for all of us who care about finding a way to bridge the divides in our society before inflammatory words descend into civil war and anarchy or harden into tyranny and oppression. While I believe the political protections Inazu proposes are vital, the virtues of genuine tolerance of difference, humility about ourselves, and patience that takes the long view are most essential. Will we allow these virtues to sustain our pursuit of the common ground of our shared humanity, and our shared citizenship in this "democratic experiment?"

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much-needed wisdom and common sense. Highly recommended.

[Courtney Covert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book speaks helpfully to the current climate in politics, while also remaining timeless in its applicability to our pluralist nation.

[Donovan Richards · Rating 5 out of 5]

We’re All Talking Politics, Even If We Aren’t on the Same Page

2016. What a year. There’s a meme making circles on the internet highlighting how people felt at the beginning of the year compared to now. Often connected to a series of images, the early 2016 image depicts a bright, sunny, and hopeful demeanor. The concluding 2016 image illustrates a dark, dreary, and depressing scene. So many things have happened. So many celebrities have died. So many elections jolted society out of its equilibrium.

In my neck of the woods, the presidential election sent shockwaves, both positively and negatively, depending on the friend group. My Facebook page exhibits two warring tribes yelling at each other. On one end, the conservatives and some possible “alt-right” proponents relish the victory of a political outsider, someone unafraid to “tell it like it is” and to #MAGA (Make America Great Again). On the other end, there are people legitimately worried about what is to come. Will friends lose friends and family due to immigration status? Will friends get placed on the Muslim registry? Will others lose healthcare? These scenarios are scary.

In such a milieu, is it any wonder that nobody can proceed with suitable and productive discourse? One side of the fence belittles the other with claims of #liberaltears, while the other sees the current events as a rallying cry to entrench themselves against every possible political movement and action.

Seemingly, we stand at a cliff, where the divides that once separated us are fast moving to a point of no return.

For this reason, I decided it was time to read John Inazu’s compelling book, Confident Pluralism.

On Confidence and Pluralism

A legal scholar, Inazu proposes confident pluralism as a way to move forward as a society despite deep difference. Whether liberal or conservative, the societal trends point toward a zero-sum game. Either, you take all of a position, or your reject it. Inazu suggests the notion of confident pluralism as a solution to bridge the divide, a way to recognize that nobody will ever agree on everything, but there’s enough common ground between us that we can all move forward productively.

“The goal of confident pluralism is not to settle which views are right and which views are wrong. Rather, it proposes that the future of our democratic experiment requires finding a way to be steadfast in our personal convictions, while also making room for the cacophony that may ensue when others disagree with us. Confident pluralism allows us to function—and even flourish—despite the divisions arising out of our deeply held beliefs” (8).

Throughout the book, Inazu unpacks the intentions and values behind some of our bedrock constitutional rights, additionally pointing to the areas where current constitutional philosophy may lead to a further rupture in any pursuit of pluralism. While he gives many examples of this importance, the one most striking to me is how Inazu recognizes he must allow for the gathering and promotion of ideas directly opposed to his own wellbeing.

“I realize, of course, that the Bob Jones decision is in some circles akin to a sacred text, and that one is not supposed to question even the reasoning of certain canonical decisions. But the logic of Bob Jones is inconsistent with the public forum framing of the federal tax exemption. We cannot begin with the premise that the public forum is open to all groups and then start excluding those groups we don’t like” (76).

For those unaware, the power of this statement connects closely to Inazu’s existence from a multi-racial family. Bob Jones University held within its bylaws a clause disallowing interracial relationships. The success of confident pluralism can only occur when we allow for, and let the laws allow for thinking diametrically opposed to our own.

Tolerance, Humility, and Patience

And yet, there’s a way forward. Inazu suggests that the way to survive and thrive through confident pluralism is to promote and encourage tolerance, humility, and patience.

We must be tolerant because we must recognize that human beings have different experiences and different core convictions. We must have humility to understand and empathize with the other, recognizing that we, in fact, might be wrong. And finally, we must be patient if we are to expect progress toward the common good.

“The aspirations of confident pluralism suggest a shared responsibility between speakers and hearers. We will inevitably encounter the bully and his hurtful insults and conversation stoppers. We will also encounter other forms of harmful speech—words that trivialize or brutalize the people and beliefs that we cherish. What then? We can still choose to respond with tolerance, humility, and patience” (102).

Inazu illustrates tolerance, humility, and patience through the example of a pro-choice abortion clinic, and a pro-life group recognizing the despite their deep difference around the definition of life, that they held common ground around the need to bring support and wellness to the community to better clothe and encourage young families so they could be educated and in a better position to provide. This approach took time and the ability to see the person behind the belief system. But it is an example of how confident pluralism might look in practice.

We need confident pluralism now more than ever. Even within my family I see conservatives and liberals without much desire to engage in what we might be able to do together if we could confidently embrace our pluralism. Confident Pluralism is a must-read for anyone looking to forge a path forward in our society.

Originally published at http://www.wherepenmeetspaper.com

[Jonathan Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the greatly needed books of our time. It may be slim, but it's very potent. The author, John D. Inazu, is a law professor specializing in First Amendment freedom of association and the grandson of interned Japanese-Americans. Facing the heated divisions of modern American society, Inazu presents a case for "confident pluralism" - a mode of civil coexistence that embraces various groups in society as they are, allowing them to robustly press their claims about the common good. He points out ways in which both sides of the political spectrum have failed to honor these ideals.

In the first several chapters, Inazu charts the political arrangements that allow for confident pluralism to exist, and argues that American jurisprudence has often taken a hostile turn toward them. He argues that, in spite of deep differences, we share a "modest unity" - a concern for safeguarding our rights against hostile state orthodoxy (and here I think he's overly optimistic, sad to say), for inclusion, and for allowing dissent (again, overly optimistic).

He argues that Supreme Court jurisprudence on freedom of association (protecting only 'intimate' and 'expressive' association) has been damaging; instead, a "voluntary groups requirement" is needed for us to coexist well. He argues also for a "public forum requirement," an opportunity to meet together in some way to "advocate, protest, and witness in common spaces." (He gives one of the best expositions I've seen, especially as applied to our social media age.) And he argues for a "public funding requirement," such that generally available funding should not be constrained based on ideology. (He does, alas, too readily acquiesce to the assimilation of tax exemptions to the category of "subsidy," which I think is a mistake.)

Through all this, Inazu isn't afraid to tackle controversial examples, such as Bob Jones University v. United States, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, Ferguson, Occupy Wall Street, recent "non-discrimination" cases revolving around Christian-owned and -operated "public accommodations" forced to participate in same-sex ceremonies contrary to their conscience, and so forth.

In the latter half of the book, Inazu turns his attention to civic practices necessary, focusing first on tolerance, humility, and patience through the lens of Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt (ch. 5) before looking (in ch. 6) at how to model more civil speech by avoiding two bullying practices, "the hurtful insult" and "the conversation-stopper" (e.g., "bigot!", "Islamophobe!"). He goes on to consider good and bad practice in boycotts and protests (ch. 7), and finally how we might build some forms of cooperation or relationship across the gulfs of deepest difference without compromising our convictions (ch. 8). This whole section was gold, but the last chapter included some astonishing stories - e.g., productive friendship between a pro-life leader and the director of an abortion clinic.

All throughout, Inazu uses timely examples to illustrate his points, offering both challenge and hope for America as we find it today - and the result is a truly excellent book that any civic-minded person in any heterogenous society should be reading. I keep returning to it in my thoughts and thinking that, of all the books I've read, this would be near the top of the list "Books That Would Improve the Country Drastically If Every American Read Them."

[J · Rating 5 out of 5]

John D. Inazu writes a remarkably bipatisan book that starts with the basics of the Constitution; pointing out why all Americans share an appreciation of its tenants. It's a simple way to start, but effectively bridges the great divide we see in this country today. The book quickly gets more complicated from there, though in a concise and easy to understand way. In fact, due to its brevity, it is easy to recommend it to anyone. This is a must read when it comes to understanding and respecting the different points of view and cultures that make up America.

Inazu's book primarily uses real world examples and history to drive his points home. He will often use examples from opposing points of view on how they used the same tactics to accomplish their goals. An effective way to bring the two sides closer to each other.

He also examines issues such as inclusion and exclusion both being protected in the Constitution. He personally sees Confident Pluralism, or a love for a diverse America, to be a cornerstone of how our country can move forward together. He'll point out how majorative morals of the time effect how the Constitution is interpreted. For instance, equality and religious freedom can often find themselves at odds. Which is more important at the time largely depends on how the general public feels about the issue at the time. His analysis gets even more thought provoking when he starts pointing out how two issues that should be handled differently are often handled in a similar manner. Homosexual marriage rights and a public school who bans a student-run Christian organization because they won't accept atheists or members of other faiths into their group are two entirely different issues. This exclusivity isn't seen as a bad thing, but as something to be celebrated. There are public forums which allow different subgroups to share ideas between them. Inazu goes on to clarify different forms of public forums in American society and makes a strong appeal on government funding of these forums.

The second half of Confident Pluralism appeals to how we conduct ourselves in civic practices outside the realm of the Constitution. With the first amendment, there is no limit or control put on the kinds of offensive speech we can engage in. It begins with a single point, we have to live together. We can ignore those who feel differently than we do, but they still have a say in our society. We can label people as Islamaphobic, transphobic, bigots, gay, or any number of other slurs, but these are not arguments. They are conversation enders. Inazu lays out what will feel like a common sense approach of humility, openness, and patience, however, it has a more profound effect after the first half of the book and his close look at how many of our frustrations are based in similar Constitutional issues.

If you read one political science book in 2017, it should be Confident Pluralism.

[narwhal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Relevant & a breath of air. There are many ways for someone to appeal, there is the Greek pathos/ethos/logos, aka emotional/moral/logical appeal. I sometimes have the feeling that a lot of online discourse has fallen for emotional appeal. Longform mediums such as books are a relief to me and show the value of logos, even while including aspects of pathos and ethos.

The author spoke at my school and I appreciated his clear thesis and thought he brought an appeal to common grounds that was much needed, even though I didn't embrace it wholly when I first heard it. I finally read his book and I'm very glad that I did.

This book is basically about common ground and about what the American constitution at its bare minimum stands for. 'The argument for confident pluralism is an argument about the future of the American experiment.' The arguments are well thought out and the author is quick to add qualifiers and clarifications to show that this is not a perfect 'fix', but a protection of necessary values that help bridge difference and allow for diversity to thrive (against the overreach of majoritarian power and government orthodoxy). Inazu is not unaware of the risks or consequences that come with the values of tolerance.

'Our collective confidence in light of our actual differences depends on a kind of shared trust that can be bruised or even broken.' (131)

It provided many helpful frameworks to think about our civic society, ways that introduced nuance into a discourse that is often flattened, concepts such as :
-how big terms such as 'freedom' or 'equality' can really end up meaning nothing without clear definitions and context... and how arbitrary enforcements can arise from a lack of clear boundaries or definitions. (Orwell's 'politics and the english language' is quoted, 'the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed...')
-the importance of the right to assemble, even if not for an expressed purpose or end (the basis of communities I would say)
-constitutional rights that should be upheld by the government VS. moral and civic aspirations that we have a personal responsibility to pursue, but are not enforced by the government
-common ground VS. common good
-the definition of a civic 'aspiration' - 'We can decide to engage charitably without agreeing on the reasons for doing so ' (85)...
-how there is a difference between offensive speech and speech that stigmatizes a person for identity/belief

I also learned a lot about different legislature and court cases, and how important constitutional protections can be, and supreme court rulings can be in every day life and practice.

Most of all I appreciated how concise this book was, yet filled with the essential theses and cases. Although it took me a month to get through the first 3-4 chapters, I ripped through the rest of the book today. 😁✌️

I also appreciate the shout out to parks and rec.

[Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

The heart of the problem in the U.S., as Inazu puts it, is something he calls the ‘Dave Principle’: “Many people are dismissive or insulting of those with other viewpoints” (p84)--‘Dave’ being someone who angrily tweets about an essay Inazu wrote for for CNN. Inazu coins this neologism to account for political reality in the U.S.: in practically any public forum—on TV networks, on blogs, or in city parks—we hold that our opponents shouldn’t enjoy our rights. So, we heckle, malign, or threaten them into letting go of those rights. Although we claim to tolerate other points of view in a Pluralistic society, I would add that, in practice, Monism and Hegemony are squelching the freedoms that others should enjoy in our own country, let alone, the world.

Some may like his allusions to the hit series ‘Parks and Recreation’ as a paradigm of the pitfalls of public expression. Since I haven’t watched the series, they annoyed me a bit, but Inazu’s message still comes through clearly.

Inazu suggests there are three areas of the First Amendment that need to be tweaked to ensure genuine political engagement:

1) Freedom of Association: The First Amendment, while guaranteeing Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Speech, does not explicitly guarantee Freedom of Association. As a result, some groups find their rights curtailed when they find themselves in court, from the Top Hatters Motorcycle Club in California, who were turned away from the Gilroy Garlic Festival, to the Muslim Students’ Association of City College, NY, who were infiltrated by an NYPD informant.

2) Guarantee of a Public Forum: For speech to be ‘Free’, groups (‘Associations’) and individuals need access to public forums, from sidewalks to state capitols. Inazu stresses the principle that if you allow some groups to engage with the public, you have to allow opposing groups the same rights. From the point of view of public safety, it may be best to keep groups with opposing views apart, especially during heated demonstrations. But the point is, all groups deserve this right. Not because they’ve earned it, but because this is the essence of the Constitution.

3) Guarantees of access to funding for opposing viewpoints: Inazu doesn’t have much of anything to say about the controversial ‘Citizens United’ ruling, but I think his take is that, if you’re allowing ‘Money’ to ‘Stand for’ or ‘Influence’ political speech, then care must be taken to prevent encroaching Monism.

[Jeremiah · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a decent but problematic treatise on how to structure a pluralistic society from an early 21st-century American perspective moving forward. I skipped the introduction and felt like I missed something because he jumped right into his discussion without stating his purpose or even defining his term "confident pluralism" for the purposes of the discussion. In any case, he had some mildly interesting points, mentioning public vs. private forums, the use of tax breaks to show partiality (or impartiality) to the varying ideologies of different organizations, etc. He states that we need to adjust our governmental structure from the top down to better facilitate forums and dialogue so that people are encouraged to work together on building a world suitable for all rather than shunning anyone with different views, which would result in a tense and dangerous society (i.e. the current state of the country). Over the years, most discussion has shifted to private platforms which often manipulate discussions for their own purposes, usually either subject to the personal views of the owners or, in the case of media platforms, to maximize engagement. On a individual level he calls for tolerance, humility, patience, to build relationships and engage in dialogue with different kinds of people, at least enduring if not respecting their views and their right to those views. In my opinion, the work is too high-level and limited in scope be of much help from a policy-making perspective and lacks any philosophical backing to persuade the intolerant to change their minds other than by saying "we must," but I do agree with the emphasis on building relationships rather than assuming the worst, listening to and respecting the views of others, not stigmatizing those in other groups, etc.

[Jacqueline · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really appreciate this book's contribution in the current political climate. The first half was a helpful interpretation of aspects of the constitution that I haven't considered since High School (maybe Middle School?) The second half presents some tangible ways to participate well in a pluralistic society. He is careful to select his examples from different points on the political spectrum.

As a Christian, I found his principles to be largely a call to respond to differences within our society in a more Christ-like manner than we (the church) have been known to. His foundations of tolerance (as he defines it), humility, and patience remind me of Jesus engaging the world order of Rome and the hit-or-miss religious leaders of his time, fully confident of the truth of what he taught, yet willing to be wronged (even to the point of death) in order to pursue reconciliation. While the hope of confident pluralism doesn't come anywhere close to reconciliation, I hope that our allegiance to Christ could lead us to participate politically in a more humanizing manner without giving up on truth or crying foul when we are offended.

Inazu doesn't ignore the very real difficulties of coexisting across deep moral differences, and people of any political stripe will likely find difficulty in what he's proposing we do. While this book makes nothing easier, it does define a manner of engagement that is worthy of consideration.

[Fred · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is simply one of the most important books I have ever read. Written by a law professor at Washington University in St Louis, it is plea to every American to take the steps, large and small to embrace pluralism in America for the good of all Americans. This means advocating for the right of association for voluntary groups, allowing for public spaces and public forums both formal and informal. It means protecting the tax exempt status and the rights of group to form with views that we oppose and challenging government policies that often want to limit the voice of opposition. It means committing ourselves to tolerance, humility and patience, to rising above bullying and insults in public discourse and building relationships across differences. Inazu is not promising that these things are easy or that they will solve all our problems, but they are doable steps and practical commitments that can save the democratic experiment in America. I wish every person in America would read this short but profound work.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings on this book. I found it on a webpage with other books I've recently read on diversity and inclusion, so I really wanted to like it as much as the others. Sadly, this one didn't live up to the others, in my opinion.

The first half of the book compares alot of legal cases that use constitutional rights in differing ways to achieve differing means. The later half of the book tries to talk about how we can have meaningful conversations with others that have very different opinions.

I felt the first part was very law based, and the later part didn't do enough for my personal day-to-day situtaitons. The conclusion felt a little like "we need to better clarify the Constitution"....which feels next to impossible. I think this was the most disappointing part of the book, because it just ended with not alot of hope.

[Clint Lum · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had a difficult time giving this book a rating because I do very much agree with its intent and desires, but it is also riddled with ideological tension that was largely left unresolved. The massive elephant in the room is the question of what philosophical grounds/standards is a pluralistic society to appeal to? Granted, this is likely beyond the scope of the book, but I do not see how much more progress can be made in the ‘pluralism’ conversation without addressing that question.

On another note, I recently attended a talk by Dr. Inazu and he appears to me to be a wonderful man practicing what he preaches. He even stayed after to field a couple of my questions which he did not have to do. Take that for what it is worth...

[Nicholas McDonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jonathan Inazu's book "Confident Pluralism" isn't the book I expected. The first half is technical and legal, so I had to read slowly. But it's a short read (about 165 pages) and has loads of useful context on our current political situation. In the first half of the book, Inazu (law prof. at Washington University) demonstrates that our country no longer has a coherent legal basis for religious freedom. He also demonstrate how this betrays our founder's intentions. In the second half, he talks about what it looks like to be a "tolerant" person, and how our modern discourse uses conversation-stopping techniques that kill tolerance from both sides of the aisle. Hard to read but short, hard-won and to the point, I'd say this is worth your while.

[Richard Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Confident Pluralism, John Inazu provides a thoughtful approach to living alongside people with whom we have deep disagreements. He gives rational and reasonable arguments. While some might be outraged at the logical extension of some of his arguments, Inazu claims that that's the cost of living peacefully alongside those we disagree with. Even claiming that each of us have beliefs others may find repulsive. I give Confident Pluralism 4/5 stars because I am a cynic. I admire his work and hope to practice what he suggests. But there have been seismic shifts in culture since 2016 and will require an equally seismic shift to work alongside those with whom we disagree.

[Bradford Hoffman · Rating 4 out of 5]

“We must have the right to engage in some forms of collective action in a world of confident pluralism- for example, we must be free to protest on public streets and sidewalks. But there is a separate question of whether and how we should engage in this kind of activity.”

John Inazu argues that the society should embrace “Confident Pluralism.” This does not mean we accept everything, but that we should act with tolerance, humility, and patience towards others. Inazu’s book is short, simple, and helpful.

[Steven May · Rating 4 out of 5]

We remain a divided country and must explore how we can move forward and protect our democracy for future generations. Inazu message that common ground can only be found in moving toward relationships with people who see the world differently should move us in positive direction. I like the suggestion for defined areas where people can verbally dissent without fear of reprisal. Confrontation though online activity is to easy and has no real commitment from dissenters.

[Jacquelyne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written before the last election, this book is spot on our struggle to communicate with civility today. A reminder that we have a constitutional right to assemble and speak whether or not the public sentiment agrees with the message and this, of course, includes our public college campuses where in my opinion free speech is being suppressed. A thought provoking message which invites tolerance, humility and patience.

[Jhilliard · Rating 4 out of 5]

As we work through the tensions of our present world and our growing polarization, John Inazu provides some helpful background on where we are right now and some of the constitutional and legal issues that underlie the tensions. I found that it was helpful as more of an explanation of where we are with some prospective responses. The overall mental shift that is needed was the most helpful theme to guide us through learning to disagree with civility.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first four chapters, which discuss Constitutional commitments essential to "confident pluralism," might be a little dull or unfamiliar for those (like me) without legal experience, but they're interesting in fact and worth the effort. This book was in helpful contrast to some of the alternative, sometimes illiberal, political visions currently being offered.

[Rhiannon Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was more about American constitutional law than I was expecting, and although that part is interesting, only the second part has much direct applicability outside the American setting. There are some interesting ideas there, although I sometimes wanted him to deal in more depth with the practical mechanisms of creating the kind of 'confidently pluralist' society he describes.

[Dan Waugh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first section was informative, but entirely focused on the legal challenges/tensions we face as a pluralistic society. The second section was more focused on out attitudes, speech, and actions towards those we disagree with in society and is very, very good.

[Bridget · Rating 5 out of 5]

100% a must read in our current divisive, cancel culture, you can't say that society. The legal stuff in the beginning took careful reading, but it was well worth it. Everyone should read this book because strong opinions are not going away any time soon.

[Nick Goodenow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Confident Pluralism asks important questions about how to preserve rights of cultural and religious minorities in the United States. Inazu lays out the legal history and evolution various first amendment rights and how they are more available for some than others. And although his proposals for preserving of these rights seem effective, the book comes across as tone-deff to the radical preference that conservative evangelicals in America receive in comparison to other religions. His failure to recognize and address the extent of this imbalance comes across as partisan, as Inazu is very much a "both side-er" when it appears to me that one side of the religious-politic is receiving preference from the judiciary. This book was, however, written in early 2016, and one cannot expect Inazu to be scholar of law and theology, as well as a fortune teller.

If anything, Confident Pluralism highlights where we were, where we are, and where we are heading.