A CHALLENGE FOR TRUE LIBERTY

I have in several postings indicated that our liberty, as defined by federation theory, is based on a realistic, as opposed to abstract, notion of equality. One can simply argue that liberty simply means people being able to do what they want to do as long as they do not interfere with other people's rights to do likewise. Some would describe this notion as the right that to swing one's hands exists to the point where some other person's nose begins. And yet another way to look at this notion is to believe everyone goes about his/her business and leaves others to theirs. This view of liberty tends to be, in practice, an anti-communal perspective. While advocates of such notions would state that this sense of liberty does not preclude community, in practice it tends to bolster a society with high levels of isolation among its citizens. Proof? Look around. The famous book that documents this trend came out in the eighties. There has not been any sociological study of any note that undermines its original contention.¹ That is, we have become a people that, by our own historical standards, have taken to ourselves when it comes to the socially demanding aspects of life. The book is Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam, and while anyone can cite examples of social cooperation and socially based events, by and large, Americans lead lives that are self-centered and lacking in social interaction. A walk around any average downtown district after dark and you will find deserted streets. We are not known for the healthy cafe life that characterizes many nations.²

I have argued in this blog that enabling this whole sociological shift is a prevailing mental construct that has become dominant – i. e., a view of political realities more influential than any other – and which I have entitled the natural rights construct (also known as liberal political theory³). In terms of macro political thought, the natural rights construct bolsters positions that minimize the authority and influence of government, especially the federal government, to affect the conditions under which citizens go about their business. For example, this construct argues for a neutral government relative to alternative policy choices. Instead of pursuing activist agendas, government is believed to exist in order to promote and protect rights. I have pointed out that such positions, in general, choose the right over the good. I have also pointed out that the courts have provided the jurisprudence that has ushered in this general trend by denigrating efforts by government to promote the good. Particular issues that provide a condensed illustration of this development are the issues surrounding the Bill of Rights.

The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The first of these rights has been the basis of several cases that brings to bear the competition between the right and the good. In the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), Jehovah Witness members sued the school district because two of their children refused, on religious grounds, to salute the flag. By refusing to take part in the salute and in accordance with district policy, the children were expelled from school. Claiming that their religious freedom rights were violated by the expulsions, they wanted the courts to overturn the expulsions. In the Gobitis case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the district. In his opinion, Justice Felix Frankfurter claimed the district policy was in place to further the good by ritually encouraging communal identity of students as members of our national community. This, to the Justice, was determined to be a legitimate function of our public schools. While this might be the case, the Court did not preclude the possibility of a policy change if the change emanated from the district, through democratic procedures, issuing a new policy which accommodated the religious group. In a subsequent decision, the Court ruled the opposite. In West Virginia v. Barnette, again involving Jehovah Witness children, the Court ruled in favor of the religious group, but not based on religious freedom. This latter case based its decision on freedom of speech and claimed the district had no authority to coerce students to make a pledge or salute. To quote Michael Sandel: “With West Virginia v. Barnette, the procedural republic had arrived.”⁴

I believe that this latter case might have ushered in the judicial era of natural rights, but as a nation we would have until the end of World War II for the construct to take on a dominant role in how we view government and politics. But this case surely was instrumental in that development. Of course, such a view is not limited in its effect on issues involving religious and speech freedoms. The effect on economic thinking, predating the Barnette case, has been profound. Natural rights thinking supports laissez- faire assumptions – that the government should have as minimal a role in economic activity as possible. This is a notion that states: those engaged in economic activity should be left to their own devices and be able to pursue what each individual sees and judges to be his or her own best interests. While a market needs rules by which to operate, those rules should be minimal and neutral. This is the abstract argument for freedom or liberty in our economic affairs.

But here is where reality complicates matters. A few postings ago, I referred to Franklin Roosevelt's concern for the “Necessitous men.” In short, our experience with laissez- faire policies has noted the creation of a disconcerting distribution of wealth and income in which the few are inordinately rewarded and the many are left with little. This is so because as a privileged class forms, its members use their advantages to gain further privileges.

How does this work? Here's an example. A few postings ago, I reported on the increased number of manufacturing firms returning to the US. Of course, this is a welcome development. The problem is that many of those firms more and more rely on robotic machinery to do the manual tasks their respective industrial processes demand. For such firms, while returning to the US means more jobs for Americans, the fact is that there will not be the number of jobs one might initially assume. And for the jobs that are created, workers will need fairly sophisticated skills to perform them; hence, the increased importance of education. The trends not only portend a dismal future for poorly educated Americans, but also, according to an account, the workers of other countries, such as China and India, where a lot of these jobs have been taken, are in danger of facing a jobless future.⁵

In terms of this posting, what are the rights of these citizens? And if the private, business sector shows little to no concern over the fates of millions, then on what basis does laissez-faire policy hang its legitimacy – simplistic notions of liberty?

Let me give you more of FDR's quote: “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.”⁶ This is not necessarily a socialist argument. It is a federalist argument as well. In the model I have presented that outlines the tenets of federation theory, I gave this status for individuals the title, constitutional integrity. It means that we as a people have organized ourselves and formulated a polity in which we are all equal – not in results, as economic results, but in conditions. In reality, when the wealth and income distribution are so skewed in favor of a few, the individuals comprising the many do not enjoy equal conditions. Not only do the rich bask in a material wonderland, but their ability to have influence over the political system becomes so slanted that those lesser privileged members of the commonwealth are no longer free; at least they are not on an equal par with the rich. The level of their liberty to decide over their interests becomes highly compromised. And this is the irony of laissez-faire democracy.

The New Deal was launched with these concerns in mind. It ushered in a time when policy was issued, especially by the federal government, to address these imbalances. The economy grew to staggering heights. The era lasted until Ronald Reagan introduced the “government is the problem” era. Since then, more laissez-faire policies have taken hold and we see how such policies have not only challenged our sense of equality and, therefore, true liberty, but also put our economy on a course of one crisis after another. If we are doomed to a natural rights perspective of national politics, then at least let's remember what true liberty demands: enough economic equality to make true liberty a reality.

1While Putnam's book received negative criticism, he has been able to refute most of the counter claims leveled against the book's findings. For a review of this literature see Talbot, M. (2000). Who wants to be a Legionnaire? New York Times, June 25, nytimes.com/books/00/06/25/reviews/00625.25talbot.htlm .

2Of course the exceptions to this general observation are the downtown areas of cities such as New York which stand out for their exciting environments.

3I avoid using the term, “liberal political theory,” because of the possible confusion that results from how the word liberal is usually used in common commentary of our national political arena. The term, liberal, usually refers, in our national discourse, to leftest or progressive policy choices and is associated with the national political positions of the Democratic Party. As used in the term, liberal political theory, the word has an almost opposite meaning as it is meant to refer to policies that counter governmental action and avoid interfering with individual prerogatives.

4Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Citation on p. 54. The term procedural republic can be taken to be the polity that results from implementing the natural rights perspective broadly in its policies.

5For a revealing look at these trends view Radliffe, H. A., II and Gavrilovic, M. (producers). (2013). March of the machines: Are robots hurting job growth? 60 Minutes (CBS News). Episode aired January 13.

6Op cit., Sandel, p. 51.