Rhetorically speaking, freedom is important in America: politicians and political parties which most successfully portray themselves as defenders of freedom can also be most successful in the elections. Conservatives have done this very well recently; liberals may need to learn some lessons on the issue in order to do as well.

The Summer 2005 Wilson Quarterly discusses the article “Taking Liberty” by William A. Galston, in The Washington Monthly (April 2005):

“Government is [not] the only, or always the gravest, threat to freedom; clerical institutions and concentrations of unchecked economic power have often vied for that dubious honor,” argues Galston, interim dean of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy and a former deputy assistant to President Bill Clinton for domestic policy. The free market, left unrestrained, often works to undermine “the moral conditions of a free society.” And economic, social, and even familial dependence can damage character just as much as long-term dependence on government can.

“In the real world,” contends Galston, “which so many conservatives steadfastly refuse to face, there is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There are only specific freedoms.” Franklin Roosevelt famously identified four: freedom of speech and of worship, freedom from want and from fear. ... In foreign affairs, says Galston, President George W. Bush’s “faith in the transformative power of freedom . . . is not wholly misplaced.” But “contemporary conservatism, with its free-lunch mentality,” has a hard time admitting that freedom requires sacrifices, such as higher taxes in wartime.

Both liberals and conservative sometimes seem to make the same arguments, but with different actors. Liberals will argue that concentrations of private, economic power threaten liberty and a stronger government is necessary to counter that; conservatives will argue that concentrations of government power threaten liberty and a stronger free market is necessary to counter that.

Both positions have a great deal of merit because, after all, any concentrations of power can threaten liberty. Government power can be a more serious problem because the ability of the state to use force is greater than any corporation. Corporate power can be a more serious problem because private economic entities are, at least in theory, less responsive to the will of the people than the state.

Populists, whatever the political orientation, tend to recognize the dangers inherent in all concentrations of power and so fight against that more generally, rather than just against one manifestation of it. Unfortunately, concentrations of power are also necessary in large, complex societies such as ours. Concentrations of power may be dangerous, but like cars or guns they are also useful and necessary. Thus, the populist attacks on power can be counterproductive.

The solution, I think, is probably to fight against unchecked power, rather than just concentrations of power. This allows power to exist and work, but may also ensure that it doesn’t pose as much of a danger. One of the more important aspects of the American Constitution is how it tries to check various concentrations of government power against each other.

Conservatives have, in recent years, gotten a lot of political mileage by arguing against government power without actually doing anything about it (they talk about smaller government, but never make the government smaller or, much more importantly, take away the government’s authority over anything significant). Liberals and Democrats might emulate this in part by arguing against unchecked concentrations of economic power that has proven harmful — but, with any luck, they won’t emulate the Republicans’ failure to take action on the rhetoric.

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics
• Bioethics
• Ethics and Culture
• Privacy & Autonomy
• War and Morality