Freedom, freedom
that's just some people talking
My intention today is to focus on some of the deepest and yet unspoken assumptions we have to consider their implications. You may well assume you know my views but I am as able to hold contradictory beliefs as is anyone else in this country so please read for the query rather than to assume you know what my position is. If I learned nothing else in 42 years of teaching, it was that drawing out our views for self-examination has its role for many of us.
Former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s remarks this week at a New Hampshire campaign event are eye opening in many ways. Her omission of slavery as the cause of the Civil War, a searing conflict which cost 600,000 lives from the Confederacy and Union between 1861 and 1865, seized most attention, as it should, but I also wonder about the broader philosophical position she introduced with what she did say.
Appearing on Foxnews to clarify her campaign remarks, Haley’s overall emphasis was on government’s role to provide freedom in discussing the Civil War. Haley said “…[W]e know that people were struggling with 'What's the role of government? What's the role of individual freedom?' And the lesson we should take away from the Civil War is, yes, never allow slavery to happen again. But what does that mean for government and the role of individual freedom?…We want every person to have the freedom of speech, religion, to live their life without anyone doing anything to hamper that," Haley said. "That's what this was about.”
Aside from what appears a determination to jam two unrelated thoughts together as any politicians will do to reach their desired audience, Haley’s concept of the role of government is worth pondering as I wonder how universal her thoughts on government’s role in society.
Her answer, it appears, is that freedom is an endstate all its own rather than a means to some other end. If Haley (or anyone else) achieved this freedom, what would be outcome? What would a country look like where government supported freedom above everything else, which is what I think her remarks implied.
The difference between outcomes and ways to achieve them is an important one. If freedom is the desired outcome, then it does not have caveats upon it. It is a true and unfettered, uniformly applied state of affairs. In theory that is fine but here is why I see freedom as a means to something else.
Isn’t the demand by a swath of the country to prevent (and criminalise in some cases) a woman from securing health care—or an abortion, if you prefer that terminology, violating the freedoms of the woman involved? Why is one position on freedom more important than another? I am not trivialising a huge topic but focusing on the freedom part.
Put another way, is the freedom that limitation andvocates are bestowing on all unborn a preferable outcome to a woman’s health? I ask a serious question rather than trying to inflame anger.
Isn’t the demand by a swath of the country to guarantee the right to own firearms, wide spread support for limits on ownership or at least uniform background checks, infringing on individual rights?
Why are these two so different?
I could go on to other freedoms but these two are so prominent in our daily discussions. If I understood Haley’s answers this week, freedom is the overall objective regardless of the question. Government’s role, she said, is to assure we achieve freedoms. I heard no constraints, no grasp that complete freedom infringes on others’ freedoms as well.
The question at hand is not just about freedom but what does government do as we think about it?
Is government, in your mind, supposed to protect people? Provide freedoms? Promote the general welfare? Provide for the common defense? Provide overall economic prosperity? Do these things all fit under freedom?
One person’s freedom is another’s constraint as I discussed yesterday. The Founders allied with and disputed each other in what I called ‘shifting coalitions’ as they addressed concerns that arose through governing. This overall dilemma is the same now but perhaps I am alone seeing it this way.
Have you a specific philosophical belief for what government’s mission should be? If so, what is it? Seriously, what do you envision a perfect government doing with the resources and powers we provide it?
This is not as strange a question as it might appear. In our country, this question is more fundamentally misunderstood than I think we realise. We all make lots of assumptions without clarifying our own or wanting to hear those of others. I am not opposed to others holding different views; I just want to make sure we have taken stock of what our views are.
I genuinely welcome your thoughts as this challenge is more fundamental to our society than we may want to accept. Each of us as citizens has an equal vote, thus our views individually stand equal. The power is when they are brought together into various factions or parties within government to become policy choices.
Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences. I appreciate any rebuttals, corrections, or support but I most want to generate greater thought and exchange of ideas. Those who support this column so generously with their contributions are making this possible.
It was a magnificent final Friday sunrise in December on Spa Creek. I wish you a splendid weekend as well.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Jessica Chasmar, “Nikki Haley clarifies that Civil War ‘was about slavery,’ and individual freedom ‘was the lesson’”, FoxNews.com, 28 December 2023, retrieved at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nikki-haley-clarifies-civil-war-slavery-individual-freedom-lesson