Freedom huh?

These old white geezers hate socialism unless you try to take away Social Security, Medicare and agricultural subsidies. Then they scream bloody murder!

"Vote Against Fear."

Although getting rid of the power people is probably an admirable goal, can someone enlighten me as to what Rand did to make himself eligible for a Senate seat, other than being the son of a power person?

The Republicans always want to get the government off our backs - unless of course you are a woman. Then they want the government making your medical decisions for you.

It's been a problem for a while -- for at least a hundred fifty years or so.

The Republicans went so far as to rename their party the "Union Party" in the election of 1864, thus suggesting "The Democracy" (as Democrats then described themselves) was the opposite. It worked, with the help of a few Union military victories which gave hope to the nation.

It is interesting to me that while it's o.k. for dems to call themselves "Democrats" it's not o.k. for those opposed to them to call their party the Democrat party. Like blacks can use certain terms about themselves, but no-one else may.

"Right to Life" folks and "Freedom of Choice" folks like phrases that put their views in a positive light, to the disgruntlement of those on the opposite side.

"Civil rights" is another one, o.k. if one side uses the phrase, but anathema if the other side does, with subtly different meanings on each side.

And just look at the phrases used to describe those (the majority) who support the Arizona law by those who (though surreptitiously) oppose all efforts to enforce federal law.

The point is, when one side finds a phrase that resonates with the people, part of their pleasure is to see the other side squirm.

But those with discernment understand that this is a normal part of the marketplace of opinions and accept the subtle shades of meaning involved.

Those who fear lack of discernment on the part of the public are the true discounters of "the people." The rest of us chuckle as the wars rage on.

Republicans have generally been very good at taking their positions and boiling them down to a few key catch phrases or words. They also try to use language that is loaded with multiple meanings (like "freedom") and attempting to invest it with their preferred meaning as the sole definition.

I agree that Democrats can't win if they argue over the meaning of Republican words. They have to re-frame. When you argue about the meaning of "freedom", you lose. When you demonstrate with concrete examples of what the Republican view of "freedom" means, then it's not about "freedom", but something else. When Democrats show how they have a different vision of governing, they have the chance to stake out their own ground.

For example, what other entity in society can counterbalance the power of big corporations? What if no government entity could force BP to clean up its oil rig disaster? Or force a mining company to provide safe conditions so that its workers' lives aren't threatened? Is that the world you want to live in? There are dozens of other examples and they are the best evidence to refute the word game. And there is a need to force Republicans to get specific when they get vague.

The best antidote to "Honk if you love freedom" is "Honk if you're connected to reality". The American Right has dropped off a cliff into sheer lunacy.

How about:

Honk If You Care

"I have wondered whether some genius in Lefty Message Central is working on a killer response."

The short answer is 'no'. The longer message is that Republicans are far more effective at messaging, just as they have far more party discipline when it comes to votes.

This correlates somewhat with the earlier post this week about the poll showing that Dems & Independants are more likely to value compromise, wheras Repubs place more value on strict adherence to ideology.

@Mr. Swift

It's nice to have these theoretical arguments about the effects of government welfare on self-determination and collectivism vs individualism, etc. They do strike a chord with many people, myself included. Unfortunately, they are somewhat detrimental when discussing real policy issues because they blatantly ingore the historical context of our current social problems.

The fact is that the industrial revolution and un-hampered corporate growth purposefully concentrated large groups of people in urban areas and allowed for massive population growth. This is a reality we will have to deal with for the forseeable future. The other fact is that this once abundant economic climate can no longer provide for the critical mass of citizens it created. There are only enough living wage jobs for about 60% of the current workforce. Can we still talk about self-determination? Unfortunately, we need government to intervene and provide meaningful ways for people to work and participate (whether this is a subsidized work position or merely money to bring to your local grocery store). Otherwise, we face a large increase in social problems such as drug abuse, poverty and crime which severely affect the safety of everyone living in the community.

This is the reality we live in. We have to deal with it together. We can either pay more for jails and hospitals or pay less for treatment programs and social welfare. Most studies point to the latter making the most sense both in economic input and outcomes. Let's shift the discussion from idealology to practicality.

In the meantime, let's keep our hearts at least focused where it matters. Freedom for ourselves to live healthy, safe and productive lives. Thanks for keeping this alive at least, lets just make sure we don't let it dilute honest policy debate.

John I. is correct. This has been going on since the beginning of the republic.

And Steve is also correct that in later decades the Republicans have been downright brilliant in boiling down a visceral sentiment to a catch phrase or two that adheres like BP oil. Democrats are much more diverse, and thus find it much more difficult to cover a lot of conceptual territory with just a few words. This is not fair, it is simplistic, but that is the way it is. It's politics, and that is the way the game is played.

By the way, a simple message is always easier when you are in the minority.

"Liberals are willing to make the trade, I think, to give up some of their money, so that all will be able to make the best use of their freedom through quality education, health care and opportunity for all."

That's a crock, Bill, and you know it.

Liberals are free as the breeze to give up as much of their money, for whatever purpose they choose, as they want; pass the hat at the next DFL caucus....but of course, that's not what liberals are interested in at all.

There are loads of studies undertaken, year after year (I've posted links several times) that have shown that when it comes to voluntary charitable giving, leftists are nowhere to be seen.

The truth is, that liberals are willing to force *others* give up their money so that *they* can use it to buy power and a sense of moral superiority. The reality of the "reality based community" is distinctly anti-freedom.

I have met exactly three staunch Democrats in my life that I know would literally give someone the shirts off *their* backs. My admiration for those people knows no bounds, and their selfless acts of kindness to others left me utterly incapable of refusing them anything. (In fact, after explaining that it would make my stomach turn, I went ahead and re-wired Wellstone!'s bus at the request of one of them.)

But those three are evidently rare as unobtainium in the scary smart, reality based community.

Mr. Iacano: After WWII, General Marshall helped Europe rebuild itself. His plan included tax-supported health care, education and other social safety net components lest, he warned, there be rioting in the streets if government did not help ordinary people meet their basic needs before their economies were fully re-established.

Europe became an economic powerhouse whose business community, not burdened with the purchase of health insurance for employees, were able to compete more competitively in world markets. Tax-supported higher ed led to an ever greater supply of highly educated workers and educators (as it did in California where the result was Silicon Valley).

Rather than costing more and being less efficient as you claim, universal single-payer health care leaves no one without care while costing those countries that use it about half what we spend as a society per person. It would save us $400 billion per year, or $4 trillion saved in its first 10 years versus $5 trillion MORE spent under the recently enacted federal health care reform plan. To suggest otherwise is to believe the fiction that government cannot do anything as well as the private sector.

In one of the two college ethics courses I took as a young man we had to differentiate between negative and positive freedoms. One was a freedom from something, the other was the freedom to. Sometimes it can get a little complicated. An easier way to boil it down was to think of education (generally whatever form it took ) as a positive freedom. Another way to look at it is too google images of four freedoms by America's famous illustrator.
The greeks and romans had their images too. In fact the eagle was regarded as a despised symbol of oppression by the early christians. One of the heretical/insubordinate tasks done by zealots was to scale the temple walls and tear down the graven images of eagles (it usually resulted in death).

Great! Government by slogan. Government by cliche. He/she who gets the best slogan/cliche wins. Bah! What have we come to?

When journalists and others talk of "freedom" and “liberty” they’re engaging in a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

The rhetorical trick is:

a) to pretend that certain rights exist "asymmetrically" (by ignoring corresponding obligations);

b) to give certain allocations emotive labels such "Freedom" or "Liberty"; and

c) to carefully choose examples which are likely to meet with the approval of the target audience - so that at first sight they appears to be self-evidently "correct".

Thanks, Eric. My own short answer to the rhetorical question in the headline is, “Probably not.” That’s because the issue is quite a bit more complex than a bumper sticker allows for.

@ Mr. Swift:

Yes, one of the very few areas wherein I’m inclined to agree with “conservatives” – in theory – is that “freedom” should include the “freedom” to fail. I’d be more enthusiastic about this concept in practice if it applied equally to all people and organizations. It manifestly does not, even when “conservatives” are running the show. Mostly, it applies capriciously and unevenly to those on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.

Comparing the drug addict and the GULAG prisoner is an insult to both, an example of apples to oranges sophistry, and people of reasonable bent would likely agree that both are miserable.

It’s not just conservatives that are literate. Some of us liberals have read Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Burke, and others, too. Yes, government, run by fallible humans, demands a watchful eye. Starting with the proposition that government itself is “the problem,” however, ensures that government will never work as intended. “Starving the beast” until it can be “drowned in a bathtub” merely ensures that government lacks the resources to satisfactorily perform the tasks that even you assign to it. Moreover, making government “the enemy” pretty much guarantees that very few people of talent and ethics will want to serve the public, since they’re being regarded as criminals from the beginning, and incompetent ones, at that. Thus, “bad government” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Freedom” versus “tyranny” is an argument over a straw man. In real life, including politics, very seldom are the choices that simple and clear-cut. Any government at all will limit your freedom to test your new automatic weapon by firing it through the apartment ceiling into the dwelling of the neighbors above. Similarly, even the most ardent liberal doesn’t want the government to determine his/her social and family relationships. Almost never is an issue something resolved by a simplistic “either-or.” Rather, it’s over the degree of restraint versus the degree of freedom. Reasonable people can disagree about that, but disagreement doesn’t make one either a patriot or a tyrant, or a tool of socialists or of fascists.

If, indeed, “...Freedom includes the right to decide for one’s self which community one would be a member of, or not to be in one at all,” allow me to suggest that old “conservative” slogan from my college days decades ago, one that illustrates how reducing a political philosophy to a bumper sticker can sometimes loop back to bite one in the behind: “America – love it or leave it.” If you're as dissatisfied with our society as you pretend to be, why haven't you, as someone else suggested, moved to a third world country? Far fewer government regulations there, much less “community” to deal with, and women are often chattel.

@ Mr. Iacono:

Re: health care... I agree that there’s no “free lunch” in terms of health care, but I urge you to get a copy of T.R. Reid’s “The Healing of America.” Virtually the entire industrialized world provides universal health care for ALL its citizens, does so at much lower cost (figuring health care as a percentage of GDP), and usually with better outcomes in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, and general fitness. Some use tightly-regulated private insurance, some use government insurance. The pathetic bill that just passed Congress is a nice example of how NOT to provide health care for all Americans. Without a public option, it’s simply a subsidy for UnitedHealth and other providers, which are private companies already making so much money that, in UnitedHealth’s case, the CEO is paid $102 million for a single year of attending meetings and signing letters. In many of these industrial societies, doctors graduate from medical school with NO debt – their education is paid for by (avert your eyes, Mr. Swift) taxpayers – and they are, like the folks at the DMV, government employees who work for a (reasonably high) salary. They trade somewhat lower income for debt-free practice, and it seems to be OK with them.

There’s lots more. Read Reid’s book.

@31 'the right to choose'...
Unless you want to choose your school. Or a type of light bulb. Or a type of toilet. Or to own a gun. Or to have foods with fat or salt. Or make basic parenting decisions like spanking. And on and on.
Liberals have also recently tried or succeeded to restrict free speech when it comes to speaking ill of politicians near an election. On college campuses they've restricted speech to only certain correct themes. On this very blog a commenter wanted anti gay marriage arguments banned from commercials. None of these speak well of an impulse for freedom.
Basically you are free to live the life that your betters have decided on.

Freedom? I find it fascinating (and thoroughly disturbing) to contemplate the disconnect between those who see it as an essentially economic concept and those who see it more as a matter of belief and the expression of belief. I find myself among the latter.

Our Constitution gives little express consideration to the former, but a good deal to the latter. Off hand, the only express economic consideration is the guarantee of just compensation for government taking of individual property. Beyond that, we have Congress being empowered to tax and to regulate commerce. (It was a given in the 18th century that government had the power to tax and to spend as it saw fit. The new wrinkle introduced in the U.S. was that we are the government. More irony there, I suppose, for those who attack 'government'.)

Cognitive freedom, if I can use that term, is by far the more important in my view: the right to think and speak my own thoughts, to act in accordance with those thoughts to the greatest degree consistent with the rights of others.

Both major parties pay lip service to cognitive freedom while supporting restraints on those freedoms. Each finds reasons to do so, whether it be to deny same sex couples the right to live and love like the rest of us, or to punish workplace speech that parrots what millions of us choose to see and hear on radio and television every day or to enhance sentencing on the basis of the defendant's beliefs (i.e., 'hate crimes'.).

Take my money and do with it what we, through our imperfect political process, have agreed should be done. Leave my thoughts and my actions to me, regardless of what the majority opinion is on any given subject.

Mr Defor- that's an odd list you have. Last I checked, when I signed my 5 year old up for kindergarten, I had my pick of the public schools, so much so that I couldn't even visit all of the booths. A recent check of my utility closet also reveals a plethora of different light-bulbs. I frankly haven't explored the awfulness of toilet choices out there, but it is not high on my list of problems in the world. Owning a gun, well, I guess people are making noise that if you are on a terror-watch list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun, but beyond that (which affects < .01% of the US), I haven't seen any evidence of a big move afoot to ban guns- but it could be a ploy, so people should keep stocking up; helps the economy. Hmm, no foods with fats or salts. One quick look at the cafeteria below my office window shows that plenty of people are finding no difficulty in locating either. Spanking; well, last time I heard anything about that was when the RNC staffer got in trouble for the bondage-themed club in LA.

If these are truly your worries about freedom, you need to let go. Lets face it: we are about as free a society as there is, but that clearly won't stop those who like to rally their base with slogans, rather than logic.

Peder:

I'm familiar enough with these issues, I'm just puzzled how any reasonable person can argue that most of them represent any sort of assault on their freedoms.

Schools: You have the freedom to send your kid's wherever you want. One can argue about how public schools should be funded, by users, by taxing property owners, etc, but to imply that by not paying school taxes, one would have enough to pay for private school is just not honest. Private tuition is multiple times people's contribution to public schools.

Toilets and light bulbs: Again, I'll mostly pass on toilets, not having recently perused them, but I will not that I've sat on multiple models lately, all seem to do the job. Are you craving some model that is outlawed?

But on light bulbs, go visit your local hardware store. You will find incandesent, halogen, compact flourescent, flourescent, grow lights; again, which buld have you craved that you couldn't find? How are you less free?

Oh, and what do you mean by "more common people must have their choices restricted"-- Is there a store where the liberal elite get their contraband lightbulbs and toilets?

Guns: Well, the democrats have had the presidency and congress for approaching 2 years, and nary a gun law has been passed. I count myself as quite liberal, and I don't object to you having a handgun, provided you go through some background checks and aren't a criminal. This is usually anathema to the NRA folks, so we'll just agree to disagree there.

Finally, to argue that NYC is banning fat is akin to saying that we banned paint in the US a few decades ago. No, we didn't. We banned lead paint, deciding that the freedom to have kids grow up without the mental retardation issues of lead-ingestion trumped the freedom to use any wall-covering we pleased. So, a bit of honesty please. To claim that cities are banning fat, when it's really one particular type (easily replaced), just ruins any credibility. But it's easier to just run around saying "the government is trying to ban fat! How stupid!" than it is to say "some cities are regulating which types of fat can be used, since there is growing evidence that a certain type is considerably worse for multiple health outcomes"

Back to the original point of this columnm, which is that your side is very good at boiling complex things down to a simple slogan, and counting on the ignorance of the public to not call you on it.

Dimitri, Republicans had control of congress and the Presidency for four years and there was no serious attempt to ban all abortions. So I guess pro-choice groups can fold up shop and go home now, right? Obviously the issues that they care about have been solved forever.
And you're right that I overstated the NYC actions. They haven't banned fat and salt outright, just placed large restrictions on them. Large enough that national chains have had to change recipes. It's big of you to claim that it's unimportant. And as far as science goes, it also shows that people will still find ways to eat too much and sub-optimal items. And who are we to decide what they should eat?

Hope and Change, Richard? Nah, I wouldn't call you a cynic.

I like: "Honk, if you can actually sum up your worldview on a bumper sticker."

...or on a gentler note, traveling sans bumper stickers:

Editor Les Blough of the "Axis Of Logic" website sends the reader two video clips on Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken" (under the Poetry section) that set a positive tone whatever one's chosen highway...

Possible bumper sticker:

A complete duplication of the Republican "Honk if you love freedom" bumper sticker with the "freedom" crossed out and the word "Poverty" written above it.

Perhaps a tag line underneath: "The Republican Party - working hard to increase poverty since 1981"