The Left Should Reclaim 'Freedom'
There are few things in politics more annoying than the right's utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word "freedom" that when its leaders stand up for the rights of banks to be unregulated or capital gains to be untaxed, that it is actually and obviously standing up for human liberty, the noblest cause of them all.
Equally annoying is the silence of Democratic Party leaders on the subject. They spend their careers hearing this fatuous argument from the other side, but challenging conservatism's claim to freedom seems to be beyond their powers. Or beneath their dignity. Or something.
Today they're paying for that high-mindedness. While Democrats fussed with the details of health care reforms, conservatives spent months telling the nation that the real issue is freedom, that what's on the line is American liberty itself.
Any increase in the size or duties of government, the right tells us, necessarily subtracts from our freedom. Government is, by its very nature, a destroyer of liberties; the Obama administration, specifically, is promising to interfere with the economy and the health care system so profoundly that Washington will soon have us all in chains.
"What we're going to end up with is higher taxes, bigger government and less freedom for the American people," House Republican Leader John Boehner said on Fox News in July. "We're going to have a real fight for how much freedom we're going to have left in America."
People working the freedom vein were numerous at the large protest that took place in Washington on Saturday. Sponsors included the Institute for Liberty, Let Freedom Ring, Young Americans for Liberty, the Campaign for Liberty, the Center for Individual Freedom, and BureauCrash a.k.a. "the Freedom Activist Network." FreedomWorks, the grass-roots pressure group, prepared a video for the occasion which encouraged people to believe that the administration's many policy "czars" revealed its kinship to the Russian autocracy of old.
That our ancestors could ever have understood freedom as something greater than the absence of the state would probably strike protesters as inconceivable. But they did. You can see it in that famous Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving painting from 1943: "Freedom from Want," an illustration of one of Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms." Strange though it might sound, this is a form of freedom that pretty much requires government to get involved in the economy in order to "secure to every nation," as Roosevelt put it, "a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants." The idea is still enshrined today in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I doubt that a U.N. endorsement is a seal of approval that today's right will find reassuring, however. It's far more likely that they would see it as a confirmation of the satanic wickedness of the "Four Freedoms" and the Roosevelt presidency generally.
Conservatives of the 1930s, led by an upper-crust outfit called the American Liberty League, certainly felt that way. "That Roosevelt was a dictator there was no doubt; but Liberty Leaguers were not quite sure what kind," wrote the historian George Wolfskill in "The Revolt of the Conservatives," a 1962 study of that organization. "Some thought he was a fascist, others believed him a socialist or Communist, while others, to be absolutely sure, said he was both."
Today, of course, we know that the right's tyranny-fears were nonsense. Most of Roosevelt's innovations have been the law of the land for 70 years now, and yet we are still a free society free enough, that is, to allow tens of thousands of protesters to gather on the National Mall and to broadcast their slogans and speeches to the world via C-SPAN.
Even such pits of statism as Britain and Canada remain free societies, generally speaking, despite having gone skipping blithely down the universal-health-care road to serfdom decades ago.
For the sort of people who gathered on the Mall last weekend, however, I doubt that such observations would matter in the least. Their conception of freedom soars on by a force all its own, carried aloft on the wings of pure abstract reasoning: Government intervention equals tyranny. Liberalism is forever a form of despotism-in-waiting.
The reality of misgovernment, meanwhile, is not something you can grasp simply by donning a tricorn hat and musing on the majesty of Lady Liberty. It requires, among other things, close attention to the following irony: That many of the most destructive and even corrupt policies of the past few decades were engineered by exactly the sort of people who claim to be motivated by freedom and liberty. Our friends on the Mall no doubt imagine themselves as guiltless accusers, but if they really want to understand how our country got to this sorry state, they need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Read other Opinion Journal articles:
Max Baucus: The Senate Is Ready to Act on Health Care
John Fund: Acorn Runs Off the Rails
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
That is exactly correct!
And furthermore, the Dems should adopt the GOP/Rove's successful tactic of using their opponent's own rhetoric against them.
I think the Democrats don't fight over the word freedom because they actually understand what it means. They know that truly respecting another's freedom means that the idea and concept belong to everyone, and it can't be claimed more by one party or the other. In other words, they use the concept in their behavior and don't have to wear it as a banner. Not taking issue with what another has to say is a practice of the idea of live and let live, which what freedom in practice is. On the other hand, believing that what you have to say is more valid or correct, or the only way, is a violation of the freedoms of another. Where your liberty ends another's begins.
Not striking out is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of self-constraint and discipline and respect. A little humility goes a long way.
It's also a sign of licking your chops and enjoying your bounty while the opposition ambushes you.
This is more of sign to the enemy that you have fallen asleep at your post.
There are a few other freedoms that I would like for the Republic party to push for...the freedom to buy, sell, read, or put into my body anything so long as it does not harm another living soul. The right for all Americans gay or straight to serve their country in the military. The right for all Americans to marry their adult partner. The right to change the channel when I find something objectionable or controversial to either me or my family. The right to carry on dialogue without being shouted down by beligerent comments. Apparently they are pervasive at coopting the word, but less skillful in understanding the idea.
Well said.
Fanned!
My first fan! I'm pretty new at this. Cheers to you!
Too late - it will forevermore be associated with " Fries "...
--
Hear, hear! Another word to reclaim is "moral."
Yes, but I think that's subjective. Everyone has their own set of morals. What's ok for one may not be to someone else.
Yet another is "patriotic".
Obamacare forces the young to buy insurance or pay a fine ($800) Freedom?
How is healthcare a right if citizens are forced to pay for it?
New Dealers give us Social Security. Money is extracted by the State, without my consent, with the implication that I cannot save for my own retirement. Spawn of the New Deal, by the New Dealer Johnson-Me
FDR sets prices for goods that individuals sell during the depression, and jails those who don't sell at the State price. Freedom?
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
So I guess you think we became a totalitarian dictatorship when you were required to buy auto insurance?
Actually I do. Why? Because the prices of autos went up so quickly that loans are now the norm to buy a vehicle. It was not always like this. So as vehicle prices skyrocketed to line pockets, the insurance companies profits tanked because it cost more in an accident. So to keep their pockets lined, they mandated auto insurance instead of looking at the ridiculous costs of vehicles and creating more public transportation. With more people taking transit and the demand dropping, so would prices. That never happened. And health insurance will go the same way. And so I DO think it's authoritarian to mandate a private product. If I don't want it, I shouldn't have to buy it.
There is no Obamacare.
There is TheBaucusBill, though.
"Obamacare forces the young to buy insurance or pay a fine ($800) Freedom?
How is healthcare a right if citizens are forced to pay for it"
Wasn't the personal mandate a Republic provision of the Baucus/gang of six proposal?
There is no Obamacare.
You have NO IDEA what will happen to you in years to come. Someday you may be extremely thankful for S.S. and/or Medicare, in spite of all your efforts to save for your own retirement. The "freedom" of the markets just caused plenty to lose most if not all of their savings for retirement. It could happen to you too someday.
What Mr. Frank should tackle is the logical extension of the leftist political model, which is a society free from want, and class stratification.
Where no man is above another, since private property doesn't exist, and the people control the means of production. Truly, that's freedom-the freedom from social striving and from bettering the lives of your family through the accumulation of wealth.
The only thing you have to accept is the absolute control of the State to control how property is doled out, who gets to work where, and the distribution of food coupons.
Also, the State's control over media, free speech, and political expression.
All of our rights come from the ability to own private property, which implies the accumulation of wealth.
Leftists deplore property rights (which is the FREEDOM to own property) because it leads to "income inequality" you see.
Tell me, Mr. Frank-if in your heart you want to reclaim the word Freedom (and the fact that you quote the dictatorial FDR is telling) you need to explore how citizens become free when your every political desire is for more State control of wealth.
Sounds like you're talking about communism. Stretching a bit, no?
Just as a thought exercise, take a moment. Visit cpusa.org, and tell me how your ideals differ from todays communist party.
Cpusa endorses Obamacare, EFCA, Cap and trade, etc..
Why is that?
Either we believe we have property rights, which says that individuals owe enough to the government to GUARANTEE OUR RIGHTS, build roads, provide for military, etc
or we don't. If we don't, then we socialize oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies, all of which prominent members of Congress have advocated.
The grey area between your ideas and mine is what we are fighting about for centuries. I am merely pointing out the extension of your beliefs has proven that millions of people die, and a complete lack of freedom results.
states always control wealth/resources. it is just a question of what individuals are given the power to invoke the force of the state. if you believe the state should stay out why not eliminate the states enforcement of property rights against other persons? let Steve Forbes control his property on his own and not by invoking government. if government did not assist in controlling unlimited property, the wealthy would be unable to and resources would naturally distribute more evenly. if the state does nothing but enforce property rights the only rights are those of the wealthy and the only government is by the wealthy.
The idea of property rights in the United States is a somewhat spurious notion. Recall that according to John Lock the unalienable rights of the individual were to have life, liberty and PROPERTY. This was changed in the Decleration of Independence to instead provide for the "pursuit of happiness". Legally we do not operate under the notion of private property. The United States uses a "fee-simple" system of private property in which the federal government owns all property under sovereign control of the United States. Citizens are allowed to "buy" property in name only. Fees are assessed by local, state, and federal governments (in the form of property taxes) which must be paid in perpetuity for the continued use of said land. Regardless of whether you feel you own an individual piece of the Earth or not, your land and posessions can be legally confiscated at any time if you fail to pay for your continued "ownership"
Mr. Frank is absolutely correct, however it will be hard to reclaim a word like Freedom, when this administration still has not fully restored habeus corpus, and is extending the Patriot Act.
If you supported Bush's Patriot Act and now are worried because the other guy is in power- you are a hypocrite.
If you saw the Patriot Act for the attack on the Constitution and unprecedented grab for power that it is, yet remain silent while President Obama extends its provisions- YOU are a hypocrite.
AMEN!
Very good points Diggg.
I have to clarify, I may be a lefty, and I may support the values of the Dems more than the Repubs, but I am concerned that Obama is extending certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act. However my question is, is he, much like PATRIOT Act 2 when revisments were made to the original Bill, is he making changes that will extend the encroachments of Bush or is he reigning in the all encompassing and oft abused rules?
If he is merely extending, I like any liberal will have to question that. That does not mean I will align myself wih the rigth because I am not that way inclined, but like anyone, if I see anything of question, even with someone I do support, I will ask that question.
He is extending it as is. Here's what neither Bush nor Obama get... just maybe perhaps they haven't/won't abuse(d) this onerous Act, but who knows who might be in office in 5, 10 or 20 years. This is not just some academic argument about an obscure matter of Constitutional law. This is the most dangerous piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Act.
Does this mean I don't think we need health care reform, etc. Of course not. But I'll be damned if I stay silent so as not to make any political waves, and every American should feel the same way.
We should hold the people we vote for as accountable as we do the people we vote against, if not more so.
The Republicans "freedoms" that they espouse, and that so many "hate us for" seem to be the freedom to cheat, steal & lie.
“There are few things in politics more annoying than the right's utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word "freedom" “
Conferred, by a chosen leader, with the “freedom” to think as instructed. But not the freedom to question those instructions.
Doubt me?
Then question any, separately, at length. And without subjugation to a governing influence, hear them drift off into realms of personal fantasy.
It seems like the left easily gets put on defense by the right. Everything becomes a reaction to them. If I want to know what Fox News is saying, all I have to do is turn on MSNBC. They spend entire shows snickering and pointing out how silly somebody is on Fox. I personally find that distasteful and sophomoric. Tell me something positive of why I should want to be a democrat, or a liberal. If their entire existence is defined by throwing mud back at the right then I'm not interested. And I know that the right throws plenty of mud around....
I couldn't agree more. I want liberals to tell me what THEY believe, not what they DON'T believe which is everything that Fox says. I don't think many liberals know what the liberal 'core beliefs' are.
I agree in some respects, although I would also say, do the right?
Let me explain. The left have been defending themselves for years as our values and core beliefs have taken beating after beating from the right - for example - If didn't support Iraq (and sorry to burst anyones bubble but it was not just us lefties), therefore we were 'terrorist sympathisers' and 'anti-american'.
At the same time the right have had their own values trounced on - if they support certain values such as pro life, they all hedged into the extremist camp.
This is not the blame of the individual but due to the political 'debates' and rhetoric that take swipes at people's beliefs and use these are political gain and ammunition.
I read a great book recently by Eric Alterman called Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America. It's a fascintaing look at how the right have attacked liberalism and how at the same time liberals are not always able to defend or define their views.
I'll say this also, and I have said this many times to those I debate with, words on a screen are no always easy to interpret. You can say a liberal is this and a righty is that, but if these two people sat together and just talked with no accusations to their political leanings, I think both would be surprised that at their core, their own non politically defined values, their personal values, are probably not
Ain't it funny, years ago Richie Havens turned the word "freedom" into a prayer. And then, in the last eight years, George Bush transformed it into an obscenity. I guess the greatest freedom of all, the one the Republicans are clamouring for, is that to continue to be ripped off by insurance companies concerned not with health care but with profit. Good Lord, I'm glad I don't live in your country, I'd be long since dead by now, instead of free.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you stand for regulations, you stand against freedom. If you stand for freedom, you stand against regulation since freedom, by definition, is unregulated.
There are many, many kinds of freedom and regulation on certain industries can help to guarantee certain freedoms for a great deal of the populace. Like freedom from going bankrupt due to usurious bank policies, or freedom from going bankrupt because of illness due to usurious health insurance policies. You might find those freedoms resonate a lot more with people than the freedom for banks to do whatever they hell they please.
Jesus. Are you all out of sanity today? So basically, it should be acceptable for an insurance company to deny coverage for a six-figure surgery and hospital stay, thus plunging the patient/victim into bankruptcy, because if they were regulated against that, it wouldn't be FREEEEEEDO
We should reclaim these terms like Freedom and Liberty, there terms have been so much a part of the right-wing vocabulary that they lost their meaning. While these words have been used to advocate economic deregulation to the point of nearly no regulation, many of the same people who have used these words in recent years have been against many liberties and freedoms in the social perspective such as the right of marriage equality, reproductive choice, the right to oppose a war peacefully and the right not be intimidated among others. One of the strongest points that has already been said below is that freedom and liberty should not traded for the restrictions of untethered security.
Well, Thomas, there are so very many words that Republicans don't understand
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
