Americans understand, at an instinctual level, that our differences are what make us strong. That is why we enshrined the First Amendment, an open declaration that only through competing visions and points of view can a society grow in a positive and forward direction.
The world (and history) are full of examples of what happens when there is only one acceptable point of view, when unity is forced upon us by a totalitarian vision (whether Communist or Fascist), when cultures prioritize unity and peace above all else (e.g. Thailand): at best, like Thailand, they are static. At worst, like the Woke Mindvirus, they are institutionalized tyranny.
It turns out that this principle is true for any system under the sun. The earth adapts because it has countless competing elements, each seeking self-maximization, each the recipient of feedback signals. This is called “homeostatis”, a sort of dynamic equilibrium, which by its very nature is a paradox: the system may be in equilibrium, but it is also always changing. Global Warming, for example, is constrained through a homeostatic feedback system: when the oceans approach 30C, thunderstorms are created that cool it down (on open display in the tropics every afternoon, as well as clearly obvious in the data shown in the panel).
The overall concept is well explored and explained by Chana Cox in her book on defining “The Good.” She points out that multiple competing elements – NOT central control – make the most robust and effective systems for the human body, for biological and planetary systems, as well as economies, societies, and even designed mechanical systems. (Thermostats, for example, display the least hysteresis when they have high numbers of inputs and outputs.)
The more inputs and competing systems there are, the healthier and more robust the resulting organism – for any kind of organism you care to name, from economic to social to ideological markets. This is a key reason why societies that tolerate differences are so much more dynamic and capable that those that insist on unity. (There may even be an analog here for competing Protestant strains vs top-down Catholicism.)
Which helped me understand something about Jews. Because while Jews are seen from the outside as being a kind of monolithic force, from the inside, nothing could be further from the truth. Judaism is a hot mess of competing groups and ideologies that often cannot mask the contempt they have for other Jews who think differently. Just look at the vitriol, disdain and rejection within Israeli politics for those who hold different views.
With few notable exceptions (myself included), every Jewish group separates and defines themselves as apart and distinct from every other Jewish group. Broadly, secular Jews demonize religious Jews, and it does not get better when you zoom in: different sects within each of these broad groups often do not seek (and thus cannot find) common ground with those whose beliefs are quite similar, indeed!
The issue is that most Jews know they are smarter than most other Jews – which cannot logically be correct, of course. But it remains a feature: if we know that we are smarter, then we don’t hold our opinions back.
So I am coming to realize that as much as I deeply desire that my own people find ways to tolerate and even empathize with those who are quite different from themselves, there remains a certain value to the countless competing strains of what constitutes Judaism today: it makes our people, like any complex organism, far more robust and adaptable than we otherwise would be.
I would go so far as to suggest that Jewish divisiveness leads to our superpower: continued existence in a hostile world. “Two Jews, Three Opinions,” is not just a punchline. Even though we are often strangers in a strange land, Jewish brash and pigheaded assurance that each of us somehow has a monopoly on the truth means that Jews persist, endure, and often thrive. Paradoxically, being wrong about being right may actually benefit our entire society!
America can be Judaism writ large. Competing voices, competing religions, competing visions, all constrained by First Amendment liberties that ensure that no one voice can truly suppress others, are America’s secret weapon, too. Everything that is good and wonderful about America comes about as a result of having so many competing elements, each aspiring to be heard.
In the Torah, the societies that rejected individualism or external inputs were destroyed by G-d. The Tower of Babel was a single society – G-d did not stand for it. And Sodom was an institutionalized bastion of xenophobia, rejecting all outsiders along with whatever unique contribution they could bring: Sodom was incapable of growth, and thus offered G-d (and the world) no opportunity for positive growth. Censoring thoughts and words ultimately ends whatever justification G-d may have for our existence in the first place. Which suggests that free speech is actually important to G-d as well! It creates and nurtures the homeostasis of the body politic, relying on countless inputs and competing actors.
But this dynamic equilibrium depends on a key limit: the system is at risk of destruction at the point at which any one voice is able to drown out, ban, or censor dissenting views. Twitter/X is essential to the health of American dialog and thus our continued existence as a free country, because under Musk, X refuses to censor. We must always keep freedom of speech as a higher good than any other opinion we might hold, or we will destroy America and, through extension, the entire world.