Two Concepts of Freedom

Standing alongside God and the American Dream as the key memes of American society since its formation is freedom. We are the "land of the free," the place where freedom reigns, the birthplace of free speech and the first democracy to take the notion of individual freedom seriously (though France tried to go further a few years later). During Presidential elections, of course, the word freedom is parried about quite a bit. Which presidential candidate is going to cultivate and spread freedom to the most people? Which president will free of from past wrongs or future fears? Who is the real champion of freedom? Since the conservative revolution of Reagan, Republicans have been the party of freedom. But what do they mean?

Freedom to the GOP starts and stops with the economic system, and generally large corporations. The "free" market must be allowed to do its magic without the burden of government intervention. Small businesses must be free to develop and grow without the burden of taxes or regulations. Corporations must be free to pursue profit maximization without the burden of high taxes, regulation or unions (who lower the bottom line, while making workers lives better). Freedom here is the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams (and greed) and the freedom of social institutions to run roughshod over the rights of the people. Their freedom, thus, really contains both negative and positive freedom (as defined by Isaiah Berlin in his famous essay). Negative freedom is freedom from (in this case taxes, regulation and government oversight). Positive freedom is the freedom to -- and since the 1980s the GOP (and Dems) have allowed the erection of a lobbying machine that gives big corporations almost carte blanche to do as they please no matter what the cost to workers, consumers and the average American (who is generally both). What the GOP does not support is positive freedom for the average citizen (or certainly the poor). Instead they are left to fend for themselves in a world that is stacked against them. And on social and political questions, the GOPs version of freedom is quite strange -- people are free to limit the rights of others, to push their values upon them and to censor free speech in the name of profit or nationalism. People are not free to practice many religions, to critique party orthodoxy, to have sex the way and with whom they want or over their bodies. In other words, freedom is really for the corporation at the expense of the average human being.

What does freedom mean to Democrats? Well, in many ways it is the same. Since Clinton's third way politics, the Democrats have largely followed the GOP script, though with more success. Obama certainly challenged some of its tenets, and it is worth noting that Clinton did raise taxes, but whether it is Republican obstruction or simply that the Dems are as incumbent to corporate and Wall Street interests as Republicans, little has been done to cultivate true positive economic freedom (unless one considers losing one's house as freeing them from the burden of debt). On social issues, the Dems are certainly more apt to support positive negative freedom (ie, the right to act as you want without governmental regulation of your acts and body). Obama, however, gave a speech at the Democratic convention that provided a nice new definition of freedom:

"We, the people recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideas; and those who died in their defense."

And while one must recognize the cosmetically appealing convention was really just a long, scripted infomercial, these are words we should heed. Freedom can only be realized collectively, a result of the sacrifice of "freedom" we give to gain the efficiency, convenience and security of living with others. Yet once we make that initial sacrifice, our freedom becomes encumbered by others who not only can spread that freedom, but make our lives better. And so the irony remains that the party of freedom is the one that keeps taking our freedom away.