Freedom: It's a Good Thing
I wanted to take issue with Greg Anrig's notion that it's a mistake to spend too much energy "co-opting language that the right owns" about choice and empowerment. What's at issue, I think, is less an effort to co-opt those concepts than to challenge the right-wing conception of them. Some of the failures of liberalism can, I think, be attributed precisely to a failure to do so in recent decades. The point to be made is the extent to which the conservatives version of "freedom" is merely the equal freedom of rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridge at night.
In another sense, more relevant in many contexts, you can't be especially free if you don't have any resources. People without cars, living paycheck-to-paycheck, without bank accounts or credit cards, weren't free to evacuate New Orleans before the hurricane hit in any meaningful sense. The kind of language Greg prefers to use about "economic security" is also, to my way of looking at things, importantly about freedom. Universal health care would, yes, provide people with security. But also with freedom -- freedom to switch jobs, or go back to school, or take time off to raise your kids, or to start a new business, or to try self-employment, or merely to choose your own doctor. The secure retirement guaranteed by Social Security is also the freedom to invest the money you save somewhat aggressively; not just welfare for those too debilitated to work into their 70s but also the promise that all Americans, rich and poor alike, will enjoy some retirement years free of the daily grind of the office or the shop floor. Etc.
On one level, I guess, Greg and I aren't really disagreeing about anything. I don't have some "pro-freedom" version of liberalism that's strikingly different from anything you'll find on the Century Foundation website. Politically, though, the "all security, all the time" way of thinking about liberalism sounds to me like that annoying mom who'll never let your friend come out and play because it's too dangerous. I like to think of it as more like how if you wear a helmet you can play tackle football or with those safety ropes you can go rock-climbing. That sounds better and more appealing to me. Of course, at the same time I'm in the young male suicidal risk-taking demographic, so that's what you'd expect me to think, and arguably this isn't a demographic worth fighting for politically since we have a tendency not to vote.
Greg makes the classic mistake of wanting to run on what makes him happy: "The actual differences, which we at long last should be able to get the public to understand after five years of failed rule by conservative ideologues, are about values and goals like economic security, health care for everyone, and trust in government rather than focus-groupese like choice, vouchers, tradeable permits, empowerment, etc."
If the Democrats put "trust in government" up against "choice" and "empowerment" they're going to get their clocks cleaned. That's fine with me, mind you.
November 10, 2005 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politically, though, the "all security, all the time" way of thinking about liberalism sounds to me like that annoying mom who'll never let your friend come out and play because it's too dangerous.
Yup, it's always sounded like paternalism to me. In general, I think you're quite right on this, but with a few additions/caveats.
First, progressives can't just talk about freedom as rationale for a liberal economic agenda. Nor can we just talk about freedom in terms of hot button social issues like gay rights or abortion. To be believable, we can't just talk about freedom when it supports policies we already like. Right or wrong, too many of our fellow citizens already see liberals as politically correct, "unsafe at any speed," nanny mommies who want to tell them how to live. We need a broader rationale about why freedom and the opportunity for self-determination are essential to our society that cuts across and thematically runs through our positions on a lot of issues. This means talking about freedom in some ways that aren't going to be appealing for traditional liberal interest groups. One example is freep-trade. Another is school choice. If we really want to make the intellectual case that we need to give people resources for freedom, then we need to do it even when it may piss off our traditional constituencies.
Second, we need to be clear that freedom, that rights, come with reponsibilities. We need to show people we're not talking about taxing them to make handouts to ne-er do-wells just because we're quisky hearted. We also need to differentiate from Republicans who have completely abdicated their responsibility to govern. We need to clearly articulate what society needs to expect from citizens as the price of freedom.
November 10, 2005 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican definition of government usually just means freedom from government. However, in any society, some groups are going to exercise power. Right now, I would argue that corporations are coming to exercise a lot of power, limiting the freedoms of workers, for example. At least on workplace issues, government functions as a necessary guarantor of freedom.
The idea that economic security as providing the freedom to take risks strikes me as a losing theme. People don't want to pay so that others can make risky investments, which is how that will come across. But I think we could re-orient our message so that we claim government - which unlike other possible power centers is controlled by the people - is the mechanism through which everybody gains the freedom to live his or her life free of the power of exploitative institutions, racists, theocrats and so on. Even the much-maligned "right to privacy," is, as I understand it, the mechanism by which the courts seek to limited the power of majoritarian tyranny to intervene with the freedom of individuals.
November 10, 2005 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Matt.
The Republican Party has built its brand around several simple statements of value, and one of the most successful is the following platitude: "Less government, more freedom."
Most urban voters instinctively understand the fallacy that lies at the heart of this claim, since their freedom of movement depends so throughly on transportation infrastructure and police protection. Suburban voters increasingly understand that less government means more traffic congestion and inferior schools that limit their children's opportunities. Yet the American mythos of rugged individualism still has a powerful grip on popular attitudes about government, particularly in rural areas and in the South and West.
I think that the financial pressures on the middle class in the current economy are really starting to infringe upon on our freedom. The costs of entering the middle class (good education, decent health care, safe housing) are skyrocketing. The lack of portable health insurance constrains our opportunities in life. It discourages creative enterprises and makes it difficult for someone who is not already wealthy to go back to school or start a business. Most Americans would probably agree that these conditions constrain their freedom. Yet few politicians describe these issues in those terms.
Freedom is not the absence of government. Nor is it the ability to live beyond your means with easily accessible credit and interest-only mortgages until the bill comes due.
FDR's fundamental freedoms still ring true:
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of conscience.
Freedom from poverty.
Freedom from fear.
If we can update that message, we'll be on the right track.
November 10, 2005 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That first line should be "The Republican definition of freedom"
November 10, 2005 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't really disagree, as you suggest, Matt. The progressive goal of improving economic security for families needs to be directly connected to enabling them to have more opportunities and, yes, freedom. Mark Schmitt had a nice post about this pre-TPMcafe here, which I totally agree with.
My concern re Glastris' piece was the focus more on means -- i.e. choice in the form of housing vouchers, etc. -- rather than ends like universal health care coverage. To me, that stuff just clutters the picture for people. (One could say choice is an end in itself, of course, but it's not one to get very excited about). You and I have disagreed in the past about what sort of universal health care approach we would prefer. Yours, single payer, would entail less choice than mine, which would involve vouchers. But we did agree that until progressives regain power, we shouldn't get all tangled up fighting each other over which approach is best. The emphasis, for now, should be talking about the goal of universal coverage. And that's basically the same point I was trying to make re Paul's piece.
November 10, 2005 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, watching families go bankrupt covering the medical bills of loved ones out of pocket would be "fine with you," wouldn't it. As long as it ain't you.
November 10, 2005 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo. I'm reminded again why everyone should read Lawrence Lessig's "The New Chicago School". Government isn't the only thing that regulates behavior.
November 10, 2005 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink