I probably won\u2019t come as a surprise to most folks who read \u201cOur America\u201d, that I participate in a \u201cpolitical\u201d online discussion board. Sometimes that board can get out of control. Occasionally there is a reasonable discussion, but mostly it\u2019s folks venting their views. When I write, I try to take a \u201cmoderate\u201d approach \u2013tempering idealism with practical politics. It\u2019s tough \u2013 sometimes I feel like I\u2019m the \u201cPresident of the Joe Manchin fan club\u201d \u2013 and I\u2019m not. But there does seem to be a lot of my fellow Democrats who are willing to \u2013 as Mom would say \u2013 \u201ccut off their nose to spite their face\u201d. Kicking Manchin out of the Democratic Party does not solve any problem, but it does mean that the Democrats lose all control in the Senate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So in the middle of last night I was in a discussion (hoping to fall back asleep). The issue: what conservatives think about their \u201cliberal\u201d friends. In case you missed it, I am a liberal, in the classic, 1960\u2019s Robert Kennedy\/Hubert Humphrey sense. I don\u2019t even like the term \u201cprogressive\u201d, it\u2019s an alternative definition accepted because Republicans somehow managed to demonize the word \u201cliberal\u201d. It\u2019s my term, it\u2019s my ideology, and I\u2019ll call myself what I want, and what I am: a liberal. So there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cconservative\u201d defined a \u201cliberal\u201d as someone who is uninterested in individual liberty.\u00a0\u00a0Conservatives, he said, believed in the rights of individuals.\u00a0\u00a0Individuals ought to be able to do what they want, without government interference.\u00a0\u00a0He essentially quoted Jefferson\u2019s inalienable rights \u2013 life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. (Yes \u2013 I know Jefferson said happiness, but Jefferson was paraphrasing John Locke \u2013 and Locke used the term property as a symbol of economic success.\u00a0\u00a0Jefferson meant economic happiness, kind of the same thing.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cLiberals\u201d, in his interpretation, believe it is the role of government to intervene and restrict those rights. And by doing so, they violate the very tenets of American governing philosophy: the ascendence of the individual over the group. Conservatives believe in the absolute importance of individual freedom, so much so, that when the government tries to \u201ctake from the individual\u201d to aid another individual or group, it\u2019s just wrong \u2013 to them it\u2019s Un-American.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a liberal, I agree with my conservative friend on the importance of individual freedom. Where he and I differ is a matter of balance. In his view, individuals need to have the \u201cfreedom\u201d to deny their services to others based not just on their ability to pay, but on their identity, or their race, or their gender, or their ethnicity. \u201cMy freedom is to not serve you in my restaurant, or bake you a wedding cake, or allow you to stay in my hotel. It is more important than your freedom to your sexual identity, or your ethnicity or race\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is the same argument used in the Jim Crow Era \u2013 the famous \u201cseparate but equal\u201d of the Plessy versus Ferguson Supreme Court case. That was about Black people riding in \u201cWhite\u201d railroad cars in Louisiana. The state had a law separating cars by race. But ultimately the railroad was a privately owned company \u2013 and the railroad owner had an inalienable right to happiness. The Court ruled that as long as that individual provided a \u201cseparate but equal\u201d car, then it was OK. Plessy codified Jim Crow segregation from the 1890\u2019s until 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled that separating by race was inherently unequal, taking away the individual freedom of those separated out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a liberal, that\u2019s my point. Individuals freedom is not as simple as \u201cI do what I want\u201d. It also has to deal with how one person\u2019s actions impacts another\u2019s freedom to do what they want. And that is not just an individual liberty balance, it\u2019s also an economic balance. If one has a greater economic power, then they are able to exercise their freedom \u201cmore\u201d than those who did not have the means. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Freedom shouldn\u2019t be based on the ability to pay. Freedom should be exactly as Thomas Jefferson wrote: an inalienable, granted by our Creator, right. So government has a bigger job than just saying \u2013 you have freedom, go for it. Government must balance the freedoms of all individuals, and guarantee the optimum freedom to all. That \u201coptimum\u201d may not be \u201cmaximum\u201d freedom, because \u201cmaximum\u201d for one may well infringe on the \u201cmaximum\u201d for another. And that\u2019s the balance that liberals look to the government to provide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And liberals would expand on Jefferson\u2019s \u201chappiness\u201d. If you can\u2019t feed yourself, or your children, you aren\u2019t happy. If you can\u2019t express your ideas and beliefs in the public space, you aren\u2019t happy. So it\u2019s more than just a balance of individual rights, it\u2019s an economic balance to provide a \u201cbase line\u201d of \u201chappiness\u201d for all. And that\u2019s where my conservative friends jump off of the train, segregated or not. They believe that our government goes \u201coff the tracks\u201d when it tries to balance economic opportunities for all. As a liberal, I believe that the government has a duty to make sure that the basics of life: food, shelter, health, and education are provided. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I don\u2019t think my conservative friend agrees with that. He used what he thinks is a \u201cderogatory\u201d word to describe my version of Jefferson\u2019s ideal: socialism. I don\u2019t agree with that description, I believe it is what every enlightened democracy should provide for all its people, a social-capitalism. Social-capitalism is Jeffersonian individualism tempered by recognition that not everyone can economically \u201ccompete\u201d equally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s the discussion that went on a 2:47 AM.\u00a0\u00a0Then it was time to get back to sleep \u2013 counting railroad cars instead of sheep – and have sweet social-capitalistic dreams \u2013 Good Night!!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"