Monthly Archives: July 2017

For decades now certainly since Ronald Reagan, if not before conventional wisdomhas held that conservatives and Republicans care more about freedom, while liberals and Democrats care more about equality.A slightly more sophisticated version holds that the distinction is between negative liberty (freedom from) and positive liberty (freedom to), a distinction usually attributed toIsaiah Berlins1958 essay Two Concepts of Liberty,though itsactually found in Eric Fromms 1941 book Escape From Freedom, as highlighted by Conor Lynchhere at Salon back in February a point well return to below.

Butfindings ina newNPR/PBS Marist pollneatly refutebothversions of the claim.The pollasked ifwe have gone too far in expanding or restricting freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to protest the government and the right to vote. On all four questions which hinge on questions of government restriction and thus negative liberty conservatives and Republicanswere more likely to say freedoms had been expanded too far, compared toliberalsandDemocrats. And on all issues except religious freedom, conservatives andRepublicanswere significantlymorelikely to say rights had been expanded too far, rather than restricted too much.

Lets start with the three most clear-cut questions:

The pattern here is unmistakable. While the numbers are almost all pluralities, with large numbers taking middle positions,Republicans and conservatives are consistentlymuchmore likely to think that rights have been expanded toofar, while Democrats are much liberals are more likely to think they have been restricted too harshly. On these three key issues, conservatives display much greater antipathy to freedom than Democrats/liberals do. Whats more, itsnegativefreedom a supposed conservative value that they object to. They want more restrictions placed on people. They want to place more power in the hands of the state to control the press, to stifle citizens criticism and to limit voting.

There should be nothing surprising in any of this. Conservatives everywhere around the globetend to share these same tendencies. But with such basic freedoms enshrined in our First Amendment, American conservatives have long been forced to express themselves in morecircuitous, devious, or deceptive ways. Until the passage of the 14thAmendment, for example, state governments were not limited by such guarantees of freedom, and state-sanctioned churches were once commonplace. And of course, states had complete control of who would be allowed to vote a right contested repeatedly throughout our history.

The NPR/PBS poll results on freedom of religionactually illustrate the broader pattern of how American conservatives work around the basic liberal thrust of the Constitution.As mainstream acceptance of same-sex marriage began to seem inevitable, the religious right poured enormous energy into a bold attempt to redefine the battlefield in a never-ending culture war. This was analyzed in depth in in a January 2016 report,When Exemption is the Rule: The Religious Freedom Strategy of the Christian Right,by Frederick Clarkson, whichI wrote about herewhen it came out. The strategy today of cloaking discrimination in the garb of religious liberty has been tried before, as Clarkson noted:

As recently as the 1980s, Christian Right activists defended racial segregation by claiming that restrictions on their ability to discriminate violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom.

Instead of African Americans being discriminated against by Bob Jones [University], the university argued it was the party being discriminated against in being prevented from executing its First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The fact that the religious right has been much more successful this time around(most notably in theHobby Lobbycase)has everything to do with political power having reshaped the courts, and nothing to do with the actual meaning of religious liberty. As I notedin my previous article, the worst violations of religious liberty actually came from the anti-gay religious right itself from a 2012 constitutional amendment in North Carolina, which criminalized the performance of gay marriage. The law was successfully challenged by the United Church of Christ in 2014.

In fact, the preface to Clarksons report was written by theUCCs general minister and president, the Rev. John C.Dorhauer. The North Carolina law made it clear that genuine religious liberty was thelastthing the religious right was interested in. Still, its a powerful propaganda tool, as reflected in the NPR/PBS poll, in which religion was the only issue where the Republican/conservative response at least gave the appearance of favoring freedom although not as strongly as the Democratic/liberal response.

Democrats thought religious freedom had been restricted rather than expanded too far, by 27 percent to 9 percent, while Republicans thought the same by 34 to 17 percent. So Republicans were more likely to endorse bothviews, but were almost twice as likely as Democrats to say that religious freedom had been expanded too far.

Taken all together, the four NPR/PBS freedomquestions and the responses tell us everything we need to know about how Republicans and conservatives really feel about freedom. The only area inwhich their anti-freedom bias is muffled is precisely the area in which that freedom has been vigorously redefined around the right toinfringeonthe rights ofothers.

Conventional wisdom aside, this poll shouldnt be the least bit surprising. Since the 1970s, theGeneral Social Surveyhas asked questions about whether unpopular views should be heard for instance, those of atheists, communists, socialists, homosexuals, racists and advocates of military rule. Questions are posed in three different forms about allowing someone to speak, allowing a book to remain in the library or allowing someone to teach in a college or university. As one might expect, liberals have consistentlybeen more tolerant than conservatives of all the usual suspects but theyve also been more tolerant of racists and militarists, too. Conservatives, in contrast, areconsistentlymore willing to restrict others rights.

The truth is, conservatives love totalkabout liberty, but theyve always had peculiar ways of defining it.Religious liberty is just one example of a broader strategy.AsI wrote back in 2012:

Both Ron Paul and his son, Rand, oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it outlaws private acts of discrimination. This is an infringement of liberty, they argue. And theyre right: just like laws against murder, it infringes the liberty of bullies. And thats precisely what justice is: the triumph of right over might.

I went on to note that in June 2004, Rep. Ron Paul was the sole voice in Congress to oppose a commemoration ofthe 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On the House floor, he said:

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

Two years later,as I notedhere,Rand Paul tried to rewrite his own history before an audience at the historically black Howard University in Washington. Ive never been against the Civil Rights Act. Ever, he said. I have been concerned about the ramifications of the Civil Rights Act beyond race but Ive never come out in opposition. Rachel Maddow then refreshed his memory with a tape of his 2010 appearance on her show,reminding us of what hed actually said.

But its not just thePaulsandlibertarians. Freedom is such acentralAmerican value, its not surprising that conservatives, like everyone else, would seek to lay claim to it. On the level of elite discourse, they have received sporadic hints of support from political scientists. From the 1950s onward, various researchers have proposed different ways of structuring political beliefs, using more than just one dimension.Hans Eysencks1956 book Sense and Nonsense in Psychologywas one early example, positing one dimension called Radicalismand another called Tender-Mindedess (T-factor).One of Eysencks more technical critics, Milton Rokeach, went on to develop his own two-factor theory based on equality and freedom, in the 1973 book The Nature of Human Values.But his viewsand findingsdidnt match what American conservatives wish to claim.

Rokeach and histeamused content analysis ontexts using frequency counts covering more than a dozen values. They drew on various socialists, plusAdolf Hitler(representing fascism), BarryGoldwater (representing capitalism) and Lenin (representing communism), with the following results:

Socialists: Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 2nd

Hitler/fascism: Freedom ranked 16th, Equality ranked 17th

Goldwater/capitalism Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 16th

Lenin/communism Freedom ranked 17th, Equality ranked 1st

Of course, American liberals are watered-down socialists at best, leaving no difference at all between them and Goldwater in terms of freedom, only in terms of equality. Whats more, during the decade afterRokeachsbook appeared, Goldwater responded to the rise of the religious right with a distinct chill. In todays environment, 30 years after that, the former Arizona senator would no longer represent a typical conservative .

What has kept the conservative claim to care about freedom alive is less on the level of political philosophy, and more on the level of political trench warfare and the propaganda that supports it.In 2012, I wrote about the ways that Planned Parenthood and the NRA representedtwo contrasting models of freedom, which play key roles in Americas decades-long culture wars. The NRA constantly uses the language of freedom, far more prolifically than Planned Parenthood does.

Yet a careful examination of the underlying history and facts shows a much stronger case for Planned Parenthoods model, reflected for example in the quantities of lies used both to promote the NRA and to attack Planned Parenthood.Virtually no one wants to take guns away from ordinary law-abiding Americans, for example, even though the NRA frequently makes such claims, while opposing common-sense measures thatits own membership strongly supports. At the same time, Planned Parenthoods enemies want to shut it down completely. Its not just abortions they oppose, but everything Planned Parenthood does toempowerwomen to have control over their own bodies. What could be more fundamental to the idea of liberty than that?

As I wrote at the time, Its not just that conservatives are opposed towomens freedom, they genuinely cant even conceive of it. Women are non-persons. They have nothing to do with discussions of freedom unless, of course, they want to buy a gun.

In short,thislatestNPR/PBS poll resultsimply underscoreswhat we already know: Liberals and Democrats actually care about freedom substantially more than conservatives and Republicans do.When it comes down to the most basic forms of freedom Americans have long recognized,conservatives may talk a good game, butthat talk is largely BS.

But is there something more than BS going on here?As I mentioned at the beginning, the notion of positivevs. negative freedom is usually traced back toIsaiah Berlin, but Fromms earlier work sheds a different light on things. As Conor Lynch wrote in February:

Fromm posits that industrialization and the rise of liberalismresulted in the complete emergence of the individual (i.e., individuation), along with newfound freedom, butalso upended primary ties that hadonce provided men and women with security and a feeling of belonging and of being rooted somewhere.

Lynchgoes on to quoteFromm:

If the economic, social and political conditions on which the whole process of human individuation depends, do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden. It becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his freedom.

And that, in the end, is where the hunger for lies and propaganda comes from, which is why simply refuting it is never enough. One must find ways to alleviate the craving for it as well.

This is also whypositive liberty for the individual is never enough, even for those who dont suffer directly the way that Fromm describes. As traditional foundations for security erode, new ones must be created in their place, through the collective exercise of positive liberty. Following a strong authoritarian leader, and imbuing him with perceived infallibility, is one way toreplace those lost foundations.But society as a whole can create other, betteroptions: new frameworksofshared meaning that draw on the past critically, bringing new concerns into focus along with the old.

This is precisely what social movements like Black Lives Matter have done, at their best. Their political work necessarily derives from a much longer time-frame of historical consciousness and forward-looking aspiration. It is profoundly difficult to translate the significance of such efforts into snapshot public opinion polls. Their most important work is not altering how people respond to polling questions. Its altering how people question the world as they encounter it, discoveringnewquestions that need asking to form the shape of freedomin a worldnot previously imagined.

Link:

Conservatives claim to love freedom but the historical record, and the evidence, suggest otherwise - Salon

President Trumps speech in Warsaw was a remarkable paean to freedom. In words proud and strong he celebrated the human spirit. He quoted Polish martyr, Bishop Michael Kozal: More horrifying than a defeat of arms is a collapse of the human spirit.

In that same city 38 years before him Pope John Paul II, the most potent moral force of the 20thCentury, celebrated a mass for the Polish people. One million people gathered to pray. One million strong they shouted, We want God.

Just as freedom cannot survive without faith, communism cannot survive when faith exists. One year later, in their pews and on their knees, the Poles prayed silently to to their communist oppressors. In a single voice they said, You may take our state. You may take our freedom. You may not take our God.

From those humble pews they rose and took to the streets in the shipyard of Gdansk and Solidarity was born.

My wife, Lynne, and I were in Paris on that August day in 1980. We were scheduled to fly to London, but all flights had been cancelled due to the disruption in Gdansk. The trains were packed and the best we could do was catch a train to Oostende, Belgium and then a ferry to Folkestone, England.

It was well after midnight. People on the boat were leaning against walls and sitting on the floors. The excitement was tempered by anxiety. Something big was happening in Europe. No one knew quite what it portended, but there was electricity in the air.

In Folkestone we rented a car to begin a weeklong drive through England. A few nights later, in a very small and very old hotel in Hereford, we dressed for dinner. (Yes. We did that then.)There was only one customer in the dining room. A short rotund little man sat at the end of the bar chatting with the bartender. I had just been watching cricket on television while dressing and had no clue as to the rules of the game. He was a huge cricket fan and patiently explained the rules to Lynne and me.

He may have been stretching the story out a bit because I was buying his drinks. After he had consumed three drinks I was more confused than when he started and changed the subject to what was happening in Poland. He got very pensive. It is, he said ponderously, the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. I thought that a bit much, but nine years and three months later the Soviet Union was no more.

The Poles are leading again today. They hold their values dear and believe theyre worth protecting at their borders. President Trump addressed those borders: For two centuries, Poland suffered constant and brutal attacks.But while Poland could be invaded and occupied, and its borders even erased from the map, it could never be erased from history or from your hearts.In those dark days, you have lost your land but you never lost your pride.

The borders are back and Poland refuses to yield to the pressure of the Eurozone to obfuscate them. They refuse to allow the invasion of foreigners. In the past 3 years there have been 28 events of terror from Belgium to France, England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and the United States. There have been none in Poland.

It is the natural course of events for humans to choose to bring fairness and equality to the forests by cutting down the taller trees so that they will have no advantage to the sun over the rest. Similarly, the nations of the Eurozone would have Poland lower itself by opening its borders to share equally in the carnage from terrorism. Will Poland succumb? Will they have the will to maintain their borders and their values?

The president made it clear in Warsaw that our challenge is not of weaponry or strategy or might. It is a challenge of the will.

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

In Warsaw President Trump urged Poland to lead the way for free nations across the globe once again. Let us welcome strangers to our shores, but let us welcome only those who want to share our values as well as our largesse.

If you would like to be added to John Linders distribution list please send your email address to:[emailprotected] or follow on Twitter: @linderje

Excerpt from:

A Paean To Freedom In Poland - The Daily Caller