192 Global Ethics for Leadership
influence by encouraging xenophobia, racism and other forms of intol-
erance. In fact, so many of the demagogues in politics today, rely so
heavily on discourse that is completely antithetical to tolerance, that
intolerance seems to be a primary political strategy used by irresponsible
politicians. It is far too easy to find intolerant politicians or leaders of
groups of many kinds, who build their careers by treating certain groups
as scapegoats, and blaming them for whatever problems the society may
have, while promising a return to an illusory time when presumably tol-
erance of the other was not necessary since everyone was somehow
alike.
Often at the furthest extremes of the ideological spectrum one finds
not only an absolute rejection of tolerance as a virtue, but an open em-
brace and promotion of intolerance as a virtue. This glorification of in-
tolerance goes so far as to lead some to seek to not only discriminate
against but actually eliminate all who are different in religion or ideolo-
gy or way of life or ethnicity and so on. Sadly, one need not imagine
what a society would look like with such leaders who preach no toler-
ance for others outside carefully delineated boundaries, for one need
only to look at several current examples, such as life in the so-called
Islamic State under ISIS. Less extreme leaders with different views but
who are adherents of a similar logic of intolerance and exclusion are
those who currently advocate building walls against all immigrants, bar-
ring Muslims from entry into their nations and so forth.
It is important to never forget the lesson the philosopher Immanuel
Levinas helped us to understand, which is a central moral lesson of the
holocaust: In any given society, religion or political philosophy, or way
of life, when confronted with the reality of the other, or others, if one or
one’s philosophy of life is intolerant of difference, one can try to absorb
them, try to make them like the self or the group, or convert them; or
alternatively, one can reject them, expel them, dehumanize them, annihi-
late them. If however one (or one’s group or society) is able to advocate