Can There Be Freedom Without Responsibility?
Can a society be peaceful and harmonious if it places little or no limit on liberty?
In The Atlantic in April, Derek Thompson took a deep dive into the issue of the United States’ abysmal mortality rate. He points out that “the U.S. mortality rate is much higher, at almost every age than that of most of Europe, Japan, and Australia”. Thompson presents data for possible causes: most obvious such as more deaths from guns, vehicle accidents, and avoidable health issues brought on by a lack of healthy diets and exercise. But he also postulates a very different and uniquely American, cause- our inherent and often unreasonable stubborn adherence to a certain sense of freedom; As he explains:
Let’s start with the idea, however simplistic, that voters and politicians in the U.S. care so much about freedom in that old-fashioned ’Merica-lovin’ kind of way that we’re unwilling to promote public safety if those rules constrict individual choice. That’s how you get a country with infamously laissez-faire firearms laws, more guns than people, lax and poorly enforced driving laws, and a conservative movement that has repeatedly tried to block, overturn, or limit the expansion of universal health insurance on the grounds that it impedes consumer choice. Among the rich, this hyper-individualistic mindset can manifest as a smash-and-grab attitude toward life, with surprising consequences for the less fortunate. For example, childhood obesity is on the rise at the same time that youth-sports participation is in decline among low-income kids…
Thompson goes further, making a case in a countervailing argument to the libertarian mindset. In America, he writes, we “sometimes promote individual freedom, with luridly fatal consequences, and sometimes block policies and products, with subtly fatal consequences”. And so a paradox exists between an individual’s freedom of choice and their responsibility to recognize the limits of that freedom.
I pointed to the irony of this paradox in a piece about American libertarianism in 2014, in particular among the cultural libertarians:
[In this group] we find people spouting platitudes about liberty and freedom and waving the Gadsden flag at rallies. They express a desire to pursue happiness freely, unrestricted by an oppressive government. It is consequently curious that some of these same people see no contradiction in opposing other people’s right to exercise their free choices (emphasis added).
Perhaps America is suffering from a malignant case of ignorance of its social contract, the implicit foundation of our civil society. We are increasingly out of touch with the balance that must exist between the many rights and many freedoms we enjoy in an organized state and the necessary limits required to ensure that society is as peaceful and harmonious as possible. Imagine a 6-lane freeway without white stripes painted on the pavement to guide drivers in an orderly fashion; what do you believe would happen? Would driving in traffic resemble an amusement park bumper-car ride?
The wealthy white men who drafted our Constitution were influenced by the writings of Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th Centuries such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They made the first attempt to create a government incorporating the Enlightenment principles of a social contract; think of it as the alpha version of constitutional democracy. Cobbled together through a process of debate and compromise, it provided an awkward framework that has endured because of its malleability, as 27 subsequent Amendments prove. It was also inevitable that points of tension between individual self-interest and the advantages of government would occur from time to time. Nevertheless, it is the government’s duty to do the greatest good for the greatest number, to protect the lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the governed, and to relentlessly act to preserve the individual rights of all the people.
Between those lofty thoughts expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution is the reality of human nature. In any population, there is no certainty of unanimous agreement. It remains for government and other institutions to resolve political and civil conflicts in a peaceful manner. These are the ideals and our task as a society is to not only maintain them but to adjust them to the changing mores and the material progress of society.
The loss of faith and trust in government
As with all contracts, this relationship between the government and the governed depends on each side having trust and faith in the other to honor their contractual responsibilities. To the extent we find ourselves falling short in this endeavor is the fault of both sides. There are too many reasons to discuss them in sufficient depth in this space, but a few salient points will outline the problem.
The lack of civic involvement by many of the citizens. A study by Pew Research shows “U.S. voting-age population turnout is still behind many other countries despite its recent rise”. Elections not only allow us to choose our leaders, the people to whom we grant power and authority but to express our satisfaction or displeasure of the job they’re doing. James Madison, a principal author of the Constitution, believed “ that it is ultimately up to we the people to reform ourselves and demand better from our elected leaders. We cannot count on the government to save us from ourselves”.
In its brief history, the United States Government has overseen the remarkable growth of the nation from a fledgling Republic to the world’s most powerful and prosperous nation. This did not happen, however, without overcoming serious faults, many self-inflicted: The original endorsement of a slave economy, the genocide of native populations, and denying women the right to vote for over half the nation’s existence, to name a few. During my lifetime, events such as the war in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal, the savings and loan failure in the 1980s, the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 2008 financial collapse are examples that contributed to growing skepticism about government actions. Accountability and reform have come at a much slower pace, allowing distrust in government to fester.
The media is charged with providing the people with a transparent view of the workings of government. The concept of a “free press” unrestrained by the government is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Whether discussing the traditional printed press or various forms of broadcast and digital media, it is clear that much of this sector is regarded as a business opportunity by its owners rather than the public’s watchdog. So the search for truth has been replaced by the search for clicks and views, and by an emphasis on titillation and sensationalism, the things that sell rather than inform. And to compound the “news as entertainment” motif, media is segmented into silos to precisely target specific demographics, e.g. Fox News for conservatives, MSNBC for progressives, and various online message boards serving groups as divergent as white nationalists and climate activists. The search for objective reality is a victim of this media ecosystem. As Chris Licht, the CEO of CNN likes to say, “we can debate whether we like rain or don’t like rain, as long as we acknowledge when it’s raining outside.”
The War of the Narratives: Is our democracy eroding?
The apathy of the people, the missteps of the government and the judiciary, and the failings of the media are obvious contributors to the erosion of trust in the institutions of the state. But equally significant is the intentional assault on our democracy by forces both internal and external that disseminate disinformation. The goal may be, for example, to gain a political advantage by engendering fear or suspicion among voters. Kellyanne Conway, an advisor to President Trump, told us there were “alternate facts”. Trump’s Presidency ushered in a golden age for fabulists in politics like Congressman George Santos (if that’s even his real name). Trump specialized in conjuring up fearful demons- caravans of immigrants swarming over the border or Antifa coming to a neighborhood near you. The goal is to confuse, obfuscate, and ultimately diminish the rule of law and the norms of a democratic society. In my home state, which our Governor likes to call “the Free State of Florida”, he has methodically pushed a program of restricting freedom and rights. And there is an eerie resemblance of these approaches to Russia’s persistent attacks on Western democracies that include interference in other countries’ elections.
Why are we unable to counter disinformation with the truth? Why does disinformation stick in the minds of an audience even when confronted with facts to the contrary? The reason is that raw information (facts, data, evidence, statistics) does not influence people. We human beings do not crave information; we crave meaning. Meaning is what narratives provide. Narratives tell us what the information means and specifically they tell us what the information means to us. When disinformation is well received by an audience it is because the disinformation was conveyed in a manner that gave the audience a way to understand events that they prefer to the truth. -Ajot Maan and Paul Cobaugh, Introduction to Narrative Warfare
We are in the midst of a narrative war being waged by those who seek to undermine our republic for their own ends. If you consider the political arena to be a marketplace where you select what to buy, then you want to be certain you getting an authentic product and not a cheaply-made knockoff. What you want is the real deal, the narrative that the US is a nation founded on ideas. As the advertisements put it, “accept no substitutes”.
This is up to us. It is our responsibility if we want to preserve a free and open society that continues to progress. And it requires ongoing engagement by us, the people. We can start by sharing ideas on advancing a truthful narrative.