Freedom to or freedom from
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal has me riled up. In “The Bright side of Biden v Trump” by Ira Stoll, the author tries to make the point that since both candidates talk incessantly about freedom, that this potential rematch is somehow good for the country. The implication is that because they are talking about freedom, they are somehow acceptable candidates. It’s a lame argument at best for several reasons.
First, politicians from both sides talk about whatever their pollsters and strategists think will get them more votes. In order to do this, they exploit our worst fears, since fear is the most powerful human emotion. It makes perfect sense then that Biden and Trump would vehemently contend that our freedoms are at risk should the wrong side win the election.
Second, not every policy or legislative proposal is an attack on freedom, nor does every counter proposal ensure the preservation of freedom. To imply otherwise is just plain dishonest. Worse over, politicians on both sides care primarily about one thing, which is to remain in power. In order to do so they will talk incessantly about issues that they believe will resonate with voters. Often, they lack conviction or even thorough knowledge of the issues with which they are espousing. It’s all an act. Am I too cynical? Maybe. Are there some politicians who are sincere, even trustworthy? Sure. But Joe Biden and Donald Trump are neither. So, a repeat election is in no way a good thing for our country. A lesser of two evils is far from a positive situation for our country when it comes to electing the most powerful person on the planet.
I’m not even sure it makes sense to ask whether our freedoms are more vulnerable from a Biden second term or from a Trump return to the White House. Until integrity returns to the political debate how can we possibly evaluate the potential consequences of campaign rhetoric?
Third, neither candidate ever mentions responsibilities or civic obligations in their rants about freedom and individual rights. Mentioning the former doesn’t poll well, so strategists advise candidates to skip that part. The author doesn’t mention any of this. I can’t see how this omission is good for the country. On the contrary, we cannot preserve freedom for ourselves without being mindful of our responsibilities and civic obligations to others. This has to be part of the conversation. By omitting them, current politicians make this situation worse not better. Moreover, until we include responsibilities and civic obligations in every conversation about preserving freedom and individual rights, we are going to continue to be divided.
Will that dynamic change some day? Will an extraordinary political leader one day emerge on the national scene who will effectively unite the country in a positive way? That has long been my hope, but it remains a hope unfulfilled.
Finally, the author contends that Americans are expressing a renewed interest in freedom. But is it freedom to or freedom from? I think that is a critical question the author chose not to address. In my view, the more serious issue here is freedom from not freedom to. It was a lesson painfully learned during the pandemic. In a nutshell, an increase in government control leads to a decrease in individual freedom. While some government regulation and control are necessary in a society as diverse and large as ours, it is a delicate balance to maintain the right amount and not too much. On the forever-swinging pendulum between too little government and too much government, my sense is we have swung too far toward the administrative state. The surge in freedom that the author detects is likely the first signs of the pendulum starting to swing back toward less government intervention. If that is true, then yes, that is a good thing for our country. A very good thing, indeed.
Stay tuned to my next newsletter.
Michael Kayes
*These views are my personal opinions and are not the viewpoints of any company or organization.