The Land of the Free . . . For Some

The results of the same sex marriage ban in Maine are somewhat disheartening to those attempting to end one of the last forms of government sanctioned segregation in America: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05marriage.html. The result, the 31st victory for the anti-gay marriage gang in a state in the U.S., highlights the paradox that is American politics. Our idea of freedom has always been set against the limits on freedoms of others. This started with slavery and the lack of legal or economic equality women had in the newly born nation. Years later, after all the civil rights battles, most Americans now believe (at some level) that all should have equal protection under the law and an equal opportunity to succeed. All that is, except gays and lesbians. Really the discourse on freedom in America appears to be: you are free to do what you want unless my morality or religion says you shouldn't have the freedom to do that or it offends me.

The hypocrisy in this position relates to a number of inconsistencies in the views of the general public today. The government, many believe, is implicitly corrupt and handing them too much power over the economy will lead to our collective downfall. While many of the same people hold increasingly negative views of corporations, they still feel “free” markets and reduced taxation and regulation make America a better place. The same people who fight vehemently against abortion (in the most radical cases, killing the doctors who perform the procedure) believe equally as vehemently in the death penalty. While the paradox here can be resolved by their differentiating between innocent victims (unborn fetuses) and convicted criminals, the larger issue of whether we should trust the government with the ultimate power – to end a life, seems to be ignored by those on the right. This is also the case with a number of other issues, like the power we give to the president, accountability for some and not others, military action oversees, tough mandatory crime laws and the like.

Most troubling, however, may be the very notion of freedom. Individuals should be free to do what they want, as long as they don’t do what I don’t want them too. Corporations should be free to do what they want, unless I recognize that their actions are hurting me. Taxes should be low, but I want the same services I’ve always had (and more when I need them). The idea of freedom has always been complex, but in America it is a symbol without a clear associated content. Too many uber-patriotic folks on the right seem to think freedom only exists in the economic realm, while too much social and political freedom undermine the real America. This paradox remains at the heart of conservative discourse today (and at times on the left as well, as for example decrying censorship and then trying to block visitors to campuses that disagree with their perspective). It appears to relate to the complex relationship between American democracy and religion, where religion is beyond the scope of democratic negotiation – but should inflect our national morality.

So we continue to talk about the Land of the Free, while we limit the freedom of too many Americans. How can America honestly believe that homosexuality is a bigger threat to democracy than the unethical, and often illegal, behavior of big corporations? Only through a determined, inexorable myopia can these contradictory beliefs exist in the same head. It was like watching Fox last night, where the loss of a conservative Republican congressional candidate in upstate New York (where Republicans have held power for over 100 years) can be spun into a victory because “the other candidate would have lost by even more.” It is only in the eternal loop of circular reasoning and victimhood that the right can continue to dominate the political landscape after suffering a devastating defeat a mere year ago. Of course, now we will ignore the reality of the two races they won this year and pretend that Obama is in big trouble because he couldn’t wash away the corruption and unpopularity of Corzine or single-handedly save a lackluster run for governor by Democrat Deeds.

At least CNN (www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/election.races/index.html) made a few points worthy of repeating: 1) Since 1989, the gubernatorial races have always gone to the party that lost the presidency and 2) A majority of voters in both states said their choice was not based on the performance of Obama. Fox and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, on the other hand, ignored the polls and stated “Voters say no to Obama policies” -- www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/gop-democrats-different-views-republican-victories. Who cares about the truth – we live but for the freedom to spin . . .