The latin origin of the word prejudice is the combination of “prae” (meaning “in advance”) and the word “judicium” (meaning “judgment”).  So the latin translation of prejudice is “praejudicium”.  Prejudice means pre-judgment.  Racial prejudice is a hot topic in America today.  There is a widespread and well publicized belief that law enforcement officials in America are prone to prejudgment of black citizens.  The recent events in Ferguson, Missouri included a claim that a young black man was singled out unfairly and was essentially murdered by a peace officer because of the color of his skin.  Ironically, the white peace officer who shot this black citizen was pre-judged by many, before an investigation was completed, of being guilty of this crime based upon the color of his skin.  Racism is essentially the act of prejudgment, classification and treatment of an individual based upon race.  Prejudice is usually, if not always, a two-way street.  You are different from me so I make assumptions about you when I make decisions and I am different from you so you make assumptions about me when you make decisions.

Arguably, prejudgment is an important defensive survival strategy that is ingrained in the human psyche.  In order to protect ourselves we make judgments about others so that we can decide how to approach other citizens or whether or not to approach others at all.  We develop trust for those we are familiar with and believe we know regardless of their physical characteristics.  If we are honest with ourselves we must admit that we all pre-judge people every day based upon their physical appearance and actions.

But prejudgment or classification and treatment of other citizens based upon distinguishing characteristics other than race is commonplace in America, as well.  If a woman was walking to her car  in the airport parking lot late at night and she found that a shaved headed man covered with tattoos and with a ring in his nose was walking in her direction from behind, would she make a judgment that she was likely in danger or at risk; and would that judgment be different if the man was in a suit and clean-shaven with no jewelry or tattoos?  Christians pre-judge Jews and Muslims and Jews pre judge Christians,etc. What about our judgment and treatment of a person when we learn their political party membership or political views?

The word politic is from the latin word “politicus” (meaning “concerning civil administration”).  The greek word “polis” means “city”.  The word “political” means about or concerned with politics.  In America there are two dominant political parties that each set forth a platform of prescribed policies for civil administration.  Political prejudice in America is, as a practical matter, the prejudgment, classification and treatment of a citizen based upon their political views and/or party membership.

If we are a self-proclaimed “liberal Democrat” and we learn another is a self-proclaimed “conservative Republican” do we draw immediate conclusions about that person (rich, greedy, selfish, uneducated, brainwashed, exploitive, inflexible, blindly patriotic, war mongers who do not respect life,  born again Christian, uncaring, unhappy.)  If we are a self-proclaimed “conservative” and we learn another is a “liberal” do we draw immediate conclusions about that person (lazy, believe in punishing success and rewarding failure, want to tax the rich to give handouts instead of offering a hand up, have low expectations for our citizens, see poor as less capable and want to make them subjects, do not consider the potentially devastating unintended consequences of well-intended policies, stupid, lazy, unpatriotic, envious, resentful, unhappy, do not love America, do not respect the constitution, do not value a life, no moral standards, socialists.)  I am certain someone is offended when reading those lists.  The lists of pre-judgment assumptions that can be made of one about the other could go on and on.

Would we be surprised  to learn that a self –proclaimed “conservative Republican” was middle class, well-educated, intelligent, caring, compassionate, philanthropic, in support of gay marriage and with no apparent selfish short-term economic incentive to vote for conservative Republican policy?  Would the woman in the airport parking lot be surprised and relieved to learn that the man with the shaved head, tattoos and nose ring walking behind a woman in an airport parking lot late at night was an activist musician returning from a peace rally?  Would we be surprised if a Democrat was a rich fiscal conservative in favor of a flat tax or of abolishing income taxes and in favor of smaller government but was a social liberal believing that morality should not be legislated?

I am a member of the Republican party.  I received an estimated 10 to 12 e-mails per day from Republican organizations that are for the sole purpose of fundraising.  Both my cell phone and work phone ring constantly from calls soliciting my financial support of Republican candidates and support of the party.  The main theme of the communications is that we need to defeat the opponent.  I am full of confident views about the best policies for leading our country but I have yet to be asked by Republican candidates or their agents for my concerns.  I finally received a call where the agent said that they were calling to hear from the voters but it was clear to me after setting forth a list of concerns about the Republican party platform, that the caller was not going to be recording or communicating my concerns to anyone; the call was exclusively intended to secure financial support.  The development of political platform and policy is not done from the bottom up.  Identification of issues and policy is, clearly, developed from the top down and this is true for both the Republicans and Democrats.  The party leadership sets the platform and the policy positions on all issues are bundled so that it is one stop shopping for the voters.  This top down approach by party leadership, I believe, causes voters to feel they have to go all-in with one party or the other because the platform is dictated to them and they are not heard about possible differences they have on some of the issues.  With the top down approach by each political party in setting policy positions, there is no chance to identify with some of the policies of each.  It is all or nothing.  You have to choose!

I would categorize myself as fiscal conservative.  I believe that government is well past being too large and I believe that “caring for its people” by confiscation and re-allocation of income and property is not the proper role of government.  It may be the best for our long-term survival that community members, of their free choice,   allocate their property toward the care of others in their community but it is not, in my opinion, the proper role of government to enforce such allocation especially when they are empowered by votes from those who would benefit from this confiscation and re-allocation.  I believe the liberal Democrats in Washington throw resources (other people’s money) at issues aimed at keeping their (false and unsustainable) promises and that the unintended consequences of this practice creates even greater problems (which they artfully blame on the Republicans!)  I believe that the invisible hand of the free market, despite its imperfections, is the best guide for resource allocation.  You may disagree with me but will we fail to reach some common ground and to challenge each other’s thinking just because we have chosen one party over another?

At this point in reading this article and learning about my views, it is my experience that, many liberals will likely begin to classify me “a certain way” and would likely stop listening.  Yet, I would classify myself as a social liberal as I believe, like many liberals,  that we should not legislate morality and that citizens should be free to choose social behaviors as long as they do not tread on other citizens.  I believe social issues should be governed by grass-roots community organizations and family units in our society and that the government should be out of peoples bedrooms as well as out of the board rooms.  I support recognition of same-sex unions (call it marriage or call it domestic partnership, I do not care) and, while I am not a fan of abortion, I support an individual woman’s right to choose in early term.  I vote Republican because I believe that economic freedom is the most important priority and a necessity to sustain a free society.  Interestingly,  if I began talking about my views on social freedoms before my views on economic freedom, many conservatives would have likely assumed I was a liberal democrat and would classify me a certain way and stop listening.

Many Republicans and Democrats can find common ground but we have evidently become more polarized in an “all or nothing” support of our party of choice.  The Pew Research Center conducted the largest political survey in it’s history – a poll of more than 10,000 adults between January and March of 2014.  The survey revealed 7 key findings:

1. The share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades.
2. Partisan antipathy has risen: The share of Republicans who have very unfavorable opinions of the Democratic Party has jumped from 17% to 43% in the last 20 years. Similarly the share of Democrats with very negative opinions of the Republican party has more than doubled from 16% to 38%. But the majority of both Democrats and Republicans say the policies of the other party represent a threat to the nation’s well-being.
3. About six in ten (63%) of consistent view conservatives and 49% of consistent view liberals say most of their close friends share their political views.
4. 75% of the consistent conservatives say they would opt to live where houses are larger and further apart, but schools, stores and restaurants are several miles away, while 77% of consistent liberals prefer smaller houses closer to amenities.
5. Only 39% of Americans take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions, down from 49% from surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.
6. Voter rates are higher on the right than the left but voter rates are higher on the left than the middle. Political donation rates are roughly double the national average for the consistent view liberals (31%) and for the consistent view conservatives (26%) compared to all liberals and all conservatives, respectively.
7. Six in ten liberals say the optimal deal between President Obama and the GOP should be closer to what the President wants while 57% of conservatives say an agreement should be more on the GOP terms.

The Pew Research Center survey results suggest that there is growing polarization and animosity along across party lines and that we are more polarized in our views.

I think it is a sort of duty for all of us to try to avoid prejudice or pre-judgment of others, even when it comes to our political beliefs and affiliations.  If we congregate only with those that think like us and avoid the challenge of discussion, we will lose a chance to grow and evolve as a society.  Jonathan Haidt has written the book:  The Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided in Religion and Politics, and I believe the findings are important for us all to understand.  There are reasonable foundations in the decision processes of both liberals and conservatives.  While I understand it is human nature to prejudge others to make efficient decisions about allocation of our time or regarding safe passage through life, if we are too insulated (as in a plastic bubble) we will fail to experience different perspectives and will become myopic and will lack the ability to adapt and to will not be able to sustain the way of life we love for future generations.

We gather in groups to form a majority and to strengthen our filter of political correctness and when one stretches to listen to the other side, we consider casting them from the fold with disdain and disgust at their willingness to consider a view contrary to the rigid platform the collectively hold so dear.  Tocqueville saw the tyrannous effect that public opinion and the power of the majority force to gain a tyrannous hold on the minds of its subjects:

In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-f‚, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth. 

Tocqueville Warning Regarding Republican Democracy and the Tyranny of the Majority.