The Notion of Quintessential American Freedom
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what the word “freedom” means. The word is simple enough: I’m sure I learned it at some point in early elementary school; it was an accessible crescendo in Braveheart; as a matter of civics, the concept of “freedom” is at the nexus of the structural antagonism between sovereign state and sovereign people. In short, freedom is important to America. And yet, I keep hearing the word dragged out and beaten in the media. If I had to work out its meaning based on its use, I’d have to conclude that it means the opposite of “Obama-style socialism”. But it’s always troublesome to try and define a word in the negative, so how do we condense this cloud of idealism?
It occurs to me, the determinist, that there’s not actually any such thing as freedom, as we like to conceive of the word. (Not that most people would be aware of this – most people aren’t determinists). So, if there isn’t real freedom – of the variety that free will could have a hand in manipulating – is there such thing as circumstantial freedom? Well, not really. The freedom to “guns!!” isn’t a freedom to do whatever you want with a gun. You have to shoot them in designated areas and times or for designated reasons. In violation of this, you risk consequences (and are therefore often governed by the fear of those consequences). Fear is every bit the same restraint on freedom that a boulder is, for most would no sooner choose to be incarcerated than run full speed into the boulder or throw themselves from it. We have limited resources, which further constrain our choices. (I personally can’t choose to own a Hummer, whether or not I think that Americans should have the freedom to drive them). And, though I doubt anyone could appreciate this, we have limited scope, based not only on epistemological factors, but also on our experience, which is the prism through which we interpret our perception. So, we aren’t free to choose from all “possibilities”, only from the ones for which we have been cultivated. I can choose to take calculus class in high school, but I can’t choose for it to be easy (because I don’t already have the experience of “knowing calculus”). I can choose to live just enough for the city, or to “have been educated enough” to earn more money and live comfortably. These aren’t real choices, they just show different hypothetical paths when viewed in retrospect.
When I hear people talking about freedom (in the context of American politics), I understand that they aren’t actually looking for freedom; they’re simply reacting to the desire for control. According to the Huffington Post (see, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/palin-supporters-struggle_n_367800.html), most Palin supporters can’t conjure a concise mission statement, let alone a cohesive argument explaining the comment. (Even I have some problems with cap and trade, but the flaws aren’t self evident). The clarity is no better coming from the top, where the RNC has mandated the “10 Commandments” of Republicanism. Available online at: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/23/2134917.aspx.
- (1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
- (2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
- (3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
- (4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
- (5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
- (6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
- (7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
- (8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
- (9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
- (10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Many of these seem like reactions to a perceived lack of freedom. It’s a thought experiment, at best, to argue whether an America committed to upholding these principals would be “freer” than one that didn’t (although, I personally think it would be a more constrained one, and, of course, I reject the principle word in the question on semantic grounds). There’s also the problem of trying to juggle the role of leadership in a rapidly changing society with monolithic rules peculiarly reminiscent of the immutable Ten Commandments. (Does that make them duolithic?). I mean, I absolutely expect this from the political ideology that thinks that there’s a right way to interpret the Constitution. (And, on that subject, I can’t help but plug this gem: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of).
This “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates”, in its most idealistic terms, is wholly inadministrable. (Well, except for the one about retaining DOMA; that actually seems pretty binary, even though it’s a dick move). So, my guess is that if the RNC actually insists on policing its own members with such rigidity, it’s going to fracture the party. But won’t this highlight the hypocrisy all the more if they precipitate their own downfall by taking away the freedom of their own members to do anything other than adopt their version of what freedom looks like?
This is my point. Conservatives aren’t interested in freedom. They’re interested in control. They want to control their own lives because they are so suffocated by their lack of understanding of what is going on around them that the opportunity to yell a bumpersticker at the top of their lungs is a breath of fresh air. Sometimes these slogans putatively champion personal freedom (like the right to bear arms). Sometimes they manage freedom circuitously (like preventing homosex’yuls from destroying their freedom to preserve the America of their revisionist nostalgia).
I suppose my purpose in writing this is to argue that the reactive tactic of yelling statistics and evoking the gods of reason and logic in support of a counterpoint is failing. I think we live at a time in history where there is no future for humanity without social progress. We can’t change the way we use energy, create waste, destroy nature and define enemies unless we change the way we think first. If you’ll pardon the arrogant metaphor, progressives would be better off guiding sheep than butting heads with rams. I offer this perspective to prompt others to think about ways to change minds through changing discussions instead of getting mired in the trench warfare of conservative rhetoric. In the words of Richard Rorty, “[it is] a talent for speaking differently, rather than for arguing well, [that] is the chief instrument of cultural change”.
