While a popular ideal in a number of countries, freedom is particularly animating among Americans. Our founding myth (often departing from historical realities of genocide and forced assimilation) highlights the courage of a small number of revolutionaries in defying a tyrant empire. From this period, we carry forward a fundamental distrust of government and such documents as the Declaration of Independence and revolutionary Patriot Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Our narrative then continues through the settling of a vast frontier (again ignoring both the indigenous peoples and Spanish-speaking populations who already lived in the area before Americans reached it) by self-sufficient pioneers, followed by the (de jure) emancipation of enslaved peoples at the end of the Civil War. The turbulent, complex 1960s have been remembered for their free spirit, and many of America’s lasting cultural heroes are those who have fought for freedom, in some form.
Historically, freedom often directly involved government, as Princeton University professor of history and public affairs Julian Zelizer noted in a public lecture this past October, offering the civil rights movement as an example. In his 1941 State of the Union Address, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of “four essential human freedoms”, including a freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear, to justify expanding aid to the Allies of World War II. Westward expansion was encouraged and facilitated by the federal government. And even earlier, Paine advocated welfare programs for the poor and a form of citizen’s income to be awarded upon turning 21 and every year after 50.
Since the 1970s, however, American conservatives have narrowly redefined freedom to mean only freedom from government, such as a corporation having free rein to pollute or to use religious beliefs as justification to withhold healthcare from employees. In distorting this concept, Republicans tilt the playing field upon which issues are debated, resulting in more power for large corporations and less for the common people. In the United States, where freedom is so central to national identity, claiming the status of the party of freedom in the collective imagination is of crucial import.
Democratic presidential candidate and South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has made freedom a priority in his campaign messaging. In one stump speech given in Greenville, South Carolina early in the race, Buttigieg laid out areas where Republican policies, including government inaction in some cases, have made people unfree. In many states, conservatives have layered onerous restrictions on obtaining safe abortions. Republicans have also opposed consumer protection regulations, which make consumers freer by empowering them to defend their interests against powerful corporations. In addition, Republican opposition to public health insurance makes would-be entrepreneurs less free to leave their jobs, since doing so would jeopardize their health care.
Other ideals, such as a sense of social responsibility for the common good, have been successful in justifying progressive policy in other nations and have some place here, however serious campaigns at progressive change would be foolish to not tap into what amounts to America’s strongest narrative. In his book Profit Over People, historian and social scientist Noam Chomsky comments on America’s comparatively weak sense of social responsibility, writing “The U.S.… has little residue of earlier European structures, one reason for the relative weakness of the social contract and of support systems, which often had their roots in pre-capitalist institutions.” This is further complicated by the nation’s large scale and its cultural and socioeconomic diversity, undermining attempts at constructing national solidarity and goodwill.
Reclaiming power for common people requires communicating both at the policy level and at a more fundamental one. And right now, Democrats are leaving a key fight uncontested.
Be First to Comment