Last weekend saw the commemoration of an incredibly auspicious occasion: the 250th anniversary of the birth of America. A quarter of a millennium ago, the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia, marking the beginning of the grandest experiment in individual liberty and human freedom that has ever been conceived. The celebrations across this great country were spectacular, fully in line with what the founders themselves would have wanted. How do I know that raucous fireworks, parties, sporting events, games, barbecues, gatherings, and other assorted forms of revelry were what our forefathers desired? Well, because they told us themselves; future president John Adams laid this out in a letter to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776, saying: “It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” The American people have taken this advice to heart ever since, and this special year was no exception, seeing some of the largest firework displays, military flyovers, tall ship parades, and patriotic public celebrations in our nation’s history. The mood was predominantly one of joy and love for this great nation, from sea to shining sea. But not everyone was so gung-ho to honor America on her birthday. Several prominent figures on the political left, particularly those associated with the progressive movement and the entryist Democratic Socialists of America faction, focused their messaging on lamentations for the current state of America and the evils it has wrought throughout the world. A representative example comes from the newly-minted far-left Democratic nominee for Congress¹ in New York’s seventh district, Claire Valdez. Her tweet to commemorate the 250th anniversary of America’s birth read:
There is a lot to work with in that short post, from the inclusion of the Palestinian omnicause in a post about America’s Independence Day to the classic conspiratorial leftist attacks on anyone with a modicum of wealth. But what stood out most to me was a sentiment that was far more widely echoed online, even by those who were indeed more pro-America than Valdez (a low bar, to be sure): that “freedom is only possible when we have the conditions for the good life.” This idea that liberty is impossible until a person is made materially comfortable is completely wrong and displays a root misunderstanding of what human freedom truly means. This misconception is not novel, going back at least to the same primordial intellectual stew that birthed the American and French revolutionary movements, and thus modern Western politics writ large. It is foundational to Marx’s communism and all of the various fruits of that poison tree. And it has been deeply ingrained in the American liberal tradition since the 1941 State of the Union address delivered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, popularly known as the ‘Four Freedoms’ speech. In that address, he said:
This is truly soaring rhetoric that speaks to how many people view freedom today. But the speech took place in a very particular historical context – the midst of the Second World War (albeit before US entry) – and can really only be understood in that context. As time went on, however, the speech was decontextualized and the top line phrases – freedom from want and freedom from fear – were recast as universal basic human rights, if not, as Claire Valdez wrote, the essential basis for all human liberty.
But this is entirely backwards. Freedom is not only accessible after comfort has been achieved or, in this case, provided by government. True, lasting comfort is only accessible via the exercise of freedom. Freedom, properly understood, is about unshackling the individual from the bonds erected by mankind through overbearing government and other agency-limiting institutions. It is about empowering the person to make choices for himself, think for himself, defend himself, and build a life for himself and his family, however he may choose to do so. It is about limiting the ability for agglomerations of power, especially governments, to impede on those liberties and reduce the independent agent to a servile or constrained status. What it is not about is providing a guaranteed, secure, minimum personal outcome for all. Freedom, as I have written, is messy. It is risky. It does not lead to good outcomes every single time. But it does ensure that each individual has the chance to make his own way on his own two feet, regardless of whether it ends in triumph or disaster. Looking at America’s founding documents, the earliest and most lasting expostulations of the concept of individual liberty in our national context, shows this quite clearly. Take the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for instance. The freedoms they recognize and cement as an integral part of our legal and political order fall into two categories: ‘freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’. The first category, ‘freedom to’, includes all of those innate, God-given individual rights that exist simply because we do. The freedom of conscience, the ability to worship the God of your choice (or none at all), the liberties of speech and action, the protection of the capacities for self-defense and the use of tools (arms) in that quest, and the ability to exercise control over tangible and intangible objects – property ownership – all fall under that rubric. The second set, ‘freedom from’, may sound just like the FDR approach, but it is very different. The Constitution does promote ‘freedom from’, but not freedom from the human condition (want, fear). It promotes freedom from excess government, enhancing the individual ‘freedom to’ that comprises the first category. The right to jury trials, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the prevention of unreasonable search and seizure, and the reservation of key rights and powers to the people are some examples of these sorts of safeguards. In America, freedom is all about the individual being promoted as an independent agent – with all the positives and negatives inherent therein. It is not necessary for people to be materially comfortable to exercise those freedoms; they are equally present in us all, regardless of personal situation. That is where the left goes wrong. We do not need to be made economically equal to have equal rights and the ability to exercise liberty. Our intrinsic liberties and our status as individuals with agency are what make us equal, from the janitor cleaning bathrooms in a corporate high-rise to the CEO sitting in the corner office. Nothing can take away that basic equality – nothing, that is, except overzealous government that uses its own power to enforce outcomes. The Declaration of Independence, the document that formed the basis for this past weekend’s America 250 celebrations, exemplifies this American attitude toward freedom and both presages and repudiates the modern left’s false definition. In its most famous passage, the Declaration reads:
This is the proper understanding of freedom in a nutshell. Governments are not created to grant rights, but to secure the rights that already exist by virtue of our Creation. Those rights are unalienable and irrevocable, arrogating to all human beings, no matter their station. That is what makes us equal, not our material conditions or our personal comfort level. But the most important part of this epochal paragraph, at least for our purposes, is one of the most recognizable turns of phrase to ever be committed to paper: “the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice that the Declaration does not read merely “happiness,” but “the pursuit of happiness.” The operative word in that phrase is not “happiness.” It is “pursuit.” Pursuit is not a guarantee. It is not an end state. It is a process, one that continues, perhaps forever. American government was not being inaugurated to provide some universal definition of happiness or ensure equivalent material well-being; it was being created to allow individuals to determine what would cause their own happiness and removing the artificial roadblocks – not the natural ones – to chasing and, hopefully, reaching it. Because it is not happiness that makes us free. It is the ability to pursue it. Contra the modern left, that is what freedom truly means.
1
This is a massively Democrat-leaning district, so Valdez will absolutely be in Congress come January 2027. Rational Policy is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Rational Policy that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment