The GOP Is No Longer The Party of Individual Freedom or Liberty
Freedom – the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Liberty – the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.
Over and over of late, those of us on the left have asked our rightward brethren a simple question – how is the thing you are advocating for, that politicians you elected are legislating on, a thing which preserves individual freedom and liberty? How are you so willing to restrict the freedom and liberty of transgendered Americans, or gay Americans, or Americans of color while you advocate for “freedom,” “small government,” and “liberty?” Why do you want government to legislate your morality into existence, denying ours? How did you decide that women should not have body autonomy over their reproduction, after armed protests seeking to preserve body autonomy for masking and vaccinations? What harm do transgendered persons, gay men, lesbian women, and the non-binary cause you? Why are you so afraid of 0.4% of our population? Why do you want to inflict the minority views of a few angry parents on entire school districts regarding reading materials and classroom curricula while labeling an even smaller number of parents as child abusers for supporting the health of their trans kids?
Our conservative members not only refuse to square the circle, they dissemble, deflect and dodge. If our grammar isn’t perfect, or if our claims of genocide don’t fit their beliefs, or our legislative examples haven’t yet resulted on mass death, then they won’t engage.
And yet the question lingers – how can you claim a political ideology rooted in individual freedom, individual liberty and small government, while you cheer the expansion of government to actively deny liberty and freedom to individuals?
No doubt someone will respond to remind me that conservatives understand liberals, and liberals don’t understand conservatives, and if only we did this post wouldn’t be necessary. They will point to Haidt – whose tired research has yet to be reproduced or expanded – and rail that if only Liberals and leftists could grasp Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity as positive values, we’d all be alright.
Sadly there’s a problem here. The modern GOP in its rush to cement political power against a growing tide of people turning away from its actual policies, betrays even those values. You can not – with anything resembling a straight face – claim to hold life sacred while actively denying transgendered persons the medical and psychological care that keeps them alive, to say nothing of denying women control of their own bodies. You can not claim to engender loyalty, much less to deserve loyalty, when you willingly follow a narcissistic fascist into the depths of political battle, wherein he regularly betrays not only his own followers, but the rules and orderliness conservatives so praise. You most certainly no longer believe in freedom when you seek to wipe historical references to the wrongs done by our country from the school shelves.
So to my conservative friends – here’s one last chance to square the circle. But be forewarned – as America’s voters continue to reject what you are offering as policy do not give in to the temptation that restricting the vote, or attempting to defeat feminism or the civil rights movement will restore the values you seek. Because the hierarchy you want – where white men control the levers of politics and commerce – is fading fast, and there aren’t enough of you to restore it by force of will.
If you truly value freedom and liberty then multi-cultural liberal democracy is still the best way to achieve it.
We’ve talked about this countless times. I guess it’s good that you can anticipate some of my answers, but it’s frustrating that you can’t pair them up to the points I’ve responded to. Instead you just bake the usual cake and smear my answers across the top like frosting. Such as – we all make grammatical errors, but when a sentence doesn’t make sense, I can’t be expected to rebut it. It’s not unreasonable to ask you to restate things sometimes.
A few of the topics that this article touches on aren’t being given a fair presentation. For example, the article refers to “denying women control of their own bodies”. Presumably, that’s a reference to anti-abortion laws. But the pro-life position is that there’s also another distinct body involved, the unborn child. The article likewise accuses the author’s opponents of wanting to “wipe historical references to the wrongs done by our country from the school shelves”. But we’ve discussed numerous examples recently, and cases of that particular thing usually – always, if I recall correctly – turn out to be a misstatement of the actual policies.
But I think this article’s central question deserves a reply. Are conservatives still on the side of individual freedom? I’d say yes, but as always there are limiting principles. Except for extreme libertarians, the average conservative would hold that freedom is a means to an end, the good of society. If we see a parent beating a child, we don’t hold that parent’s freedom above the child’s welfare. If we see a man trying to sneak into a girl’s dressing room, we’d stop him.
Most of the recent discussion has been about where we draw the line between freedom and the protection of children. Every parent can and does mess up their children to some extent. There’s no way of legislating that away, but what we can do is intervene in the worst extremes, and legislate against messing up our children as public policy. It’s appropriate for a democracy to debate where certain lines are to be drawn. It’s a topic that creates tension with the impulse toward freedom, but having the discussion isn’t an abandonment of the bias toward freedom.Report
How does labeling parents as child abusers because they seek medical and psychological standard of care for their transgendered teens enhance the parents or child’s freedom?
How does banning abortion enhance the freedom of the woman in question?
How does forcing transpersons to use a certain bathroom enhance their freedom?Report
Your case then, depends on what society determines is in the best interests of the child.
Yet, if society decides that drag shows are acceptable and harmless, that abortion is acceptable, that transition care is beneficial, conservatives throw a temper tantrum and threaten violence.
Which the point here, as noted by Frum and others, that when democracy and the rule of law fail to align with conservative beliefs, conservatives opt to jettison democracy and the rule of law.Report
You can be the party of “X” without “X” being your absolute top priority.
If you’re the party of “not-X” then “X” is almost never your priority.
Collective rights and collective outcomes is the “not X” in this situation.Report
The GOP is not the party of collective rights either.Report
Exactly. Team Blue is.Report
Collective rights are always enhanced by and enhancing of individual freedoms. That’s kinda my point.Report
Collective rights are at odds with individual rights.
Affirmative Action in colleges means we take spots away from Asians because otherwise they’d be too successful.
A Union’s right to represent everyone means individuals don’t get to represent themselves, even if that would be in their best interests, or even if the union itself is abusive.
Your right to a fair trial is an individual right. If the outcome needs to be determined by your group identity, or used as a way to “send a message” to your group, then by definition you’re not getting a fair trial.Report
A union can only bargain for a shop’s employees after an election has been held asking said employees if they want the union to represent them. I believe a majority wins the day. Once in place, union leadership is open to all.
Is anyone advocating for predetermined outcomes in trials?Report
A union is not a government, and I see no reason why it’s too my benefit to be forced into a union against my will. Time after time, I have done extremely well by representing myself.
If the union doesn’t represent my interests, doesn’t have my consent, or even is outright abusive, why should I be bound to serving it’s interests at the expense of mine?
The Obama Administration did away with due process for sex crimes at a college level. At least one college and probably more had a 100% conviction rate.
Let’s see… another example of the whole collective vs individual rights is School Choice. It gives a lot more power to parents to hold public schools accountable by letting them flee to other schools if their interests aren’t being served. In general Team Red supports it and Blue is opposed.Report
As these are internal to college administrative proceedings, and not actual rape trials, they don’t deprive anyone of due process under the law. All it did was correct a pernicious data set wherein white males, accusesd of sexual assault on campus, were generally let off by the schools in question with wrist slaps and winking nudges to “be better.” Frankly, learning as a college kid that yes indeed, there are repercussions to your actions is probably a good outcome for the individual and the collective as well.Report
Well there you go, White Males got it easy before, they collectively deserve a 100% conviction rate regardless of whether or not they specifically did something wrong.
This showcases both collective rights vs individual rights and Blue’s stance very nicely.Report
Administrative sanctions for violating school policies places precisely no one in legal jeopardy. Campus sexual assault has always required further rape charges in the law.Report
Are you seriously claiming the individuals accused are being treated justly?Report
What I’m claiming is that a school’s administrative procedures to enforce adherence to a school’s disciplinary code are not the same thing as a rape trial. In the former, a student may loose the ability to continue being educated at that school, but he doesn’t loose his freedom, he doesn’t loose his material possessions, and he doesn’t loose the freedom to pursue and education elsewhere. In a rape trial all of those losses are on the table. Which is why the legal system preserves due process.
As to being treated justly – given the reporting of what young women are often put through – even today – in those administrative proceedings I think you need to reconsider your concept of justice.Report
The collective right to life is underpinned by the individual right to choose to NOT reproduce, both by using birthcontrol and by obtaining a safe legal abortion.
The collective right to participate in our economy – and derive material success form it – is underpinned by the individual right to be free from oppression in any form which restricts your economic success – including racism, sexism, and the various phobias and oppressions of the LGBTQ+ community.
The collective right to free speech comes with the individual right to hold accountable those who use speech as a weapon to degrade and destroy.
And on it goes . . . .Report
You’re pointing to individual rights and claiming they’re collective rights.
Group rights, also known as collective rights, are rights held by a group as a whole rather than individually by its members;
For Speech, I seriously doubt Fox News’ ability to speak satisfies your individual right to speak.
For reproduction, if there’s a collective right to reproduce and exist, say an Indian Tribe, then does that right trump a specific member’s right to control her fertility?
If yes, then you believe in Collective rights and if no then you don’t.
If Collective rights are a thing then they overcome/ignore individual rights when they conflict.Report
.
SCOTUS said otherwise in Citizens United.
No, it doesn’t trump her right.
Where you and i disagree is in seeing the individual rights as in conflict with the collective rights. In nearly all cases I don’t believe they are.Report
Can you please define and give some examples of collective rights?
I can think of a number. The Tribe’s right to exist (it’s come up in custody cases btw). Forced Unionization is another. Arguably opposition to School Choice comes from a desire to help the collective.
The Concept that White men shouldn’t get due process because of history is another. Affirmative Action is yet another (right to be successful at a ratio equal to their population ratio).
IMHO it’s extremely difficult to picture group rights existing without stepping on individual rights.
Claiming that it’s “worth it” would be a clear claim. Claiming there is no conflict seems weird.Report
Most of the things you allude to aren’t rights questions, except the Tribal one – and there, we have an active history of white men’s attempts to erase the tribes through forced relocations, forced child abductions and forced intermarriage. frankly, given that Tribes are sovereign nations, our concept of rights isn’t really applicable is it?
Unionization certainly isn’t forced – even in government. the employees in a unionized workplace are covered by the unions collective bargaining, but they aren’t forced to join the union, nor are the forced to stay.
And your continued references to the changes in college sexual assault procedures are either willfully misinformed or laughably ignorant. Those administrative proceeding don’t replace rape investigations or prosecutions – which is legal due process. All they do is assess the adherence of members of campus to codes of conduct explicit in the education contract.
I think your real challenge is you can’t picture individual rights and group responsibilities playing well together. That is an area of potentially fruitful discussion, but it’s not the issue at hand here.Report
You two need to agree on a definition of collective rights, and Dark Matter, since you used it first, it’s on you. Hint: you’re nowhere near each other on this.Report
Agreed. And I don’t suspect we ever will be.
Kind of like you and I actually.Report
No, I’m saying that you and Dark Matter are nowhere near each other in your definition of the term “collective rights”. People can agree on definitions without agreeing on policies; indeed, people can’t start a discussion without agreeing on definitions.Report
We start discussions all the time around here without agreeing on definitions. Sometimes we arrive at agreement as a result, sometimes we don’t.Report
We never start discussions without agreeing on definitions. We blather. That might explain why this article term-drops without addressing the ideas behind the terms. I thought you realized that this is a problem, but if you think this is how conversations are supposed to be, why bother having them?Report
Do you really believe I don’t understand the definitions of the terms I chose to write about? Really? Or do you simply disagree with my definitions because you have different, perhaps competing ones?
Um . . . no. We do so all the time. Jay and Chip. Jay and me. You and Chip. Chip and Dark. Everyone and Koz. Hell everyone and George Turner. Happens nearly daily.Report
I think you apply your definitions of words to other people’s statements, which is something that everyone does at first. I don’t think you take the next step of considering what they’re actually saying though, and if differences in meaning might be important. Considering this article is a summation of about two months of such conversations, it’s obvious that you don’t understand a word of what you wrote any differently than if those conversations never took place, which means that those weren’t really conversations. You and Dark Matter are demonstrating that phenomenon right now.Report
I looked up the definition of “collective rights” before I started posting on this thread. I also posted the definition, but lets do that again.
Group rights, also known as collective rights, are rights held by a group as a whole rather than individually by its members;
In other words, the right is held by the group. A group of women who all have the individual right to an abortion have that right as individuals and the group, or their membership there of, have nothing to do with it.Report
One does not generally need, or seek an abortion unless one is in that group – notable trans men who chose to be pregnant not withstanding.
That aside you and I aren’t disagreeing over a definition as Pinky might want us to believe. We are disagreeing on the functional relationship between individual and collective rights.Report
Maybe when Pinky goes into Hall Monitor mode and tries to set the rules, the best thing to do is hash things out with each other rather than with him.Report
An individual right is one where it doesn’t really matter what the collective wants you to do, the individual gets to decide.
A collective right is one where it doesn’t really matter what the individual wants to do, the collective gets to decide.
So with forced unionism, even if I’m opposed to letting the union “help” me, I have no choice. In right to work, the reverse is true, if I want to represent myself I can.
Trying to claim there’s no potential for conflict is trying to claim the individual will always agree with the collective.Report
It’s almost like you’re talking about two different things….Report
This is irrelevant. A group of women don’t collectively have the right to decide whether to have an abortion or not.
The right is not held by the group as a whole because the group as a whole doesn’t decide anything.
They don’t have a vote deciding whether to allow Susan to get an abortion.
Contrast that with unions. The union, as a whole, votes on whether to accept a contract or go on strike.Report
Tell that to the anti-choice right.Report
That’s correct. The anti-choice right is against abortion as an individual right.
The Left is for collective outcomes in education, employment, income, and criminality.
So when the group rights get in the way of individual rights, there are no individual rights. You showcase that yourself at various points in this thread.Report
Hardly. The individual right to control one’s reproduction – including through abortion – doesn’t vanish if abortion is outlawed. Rich women and politically connected women will still get to exercise the right. And in union shops a person still has the individual right to not join the union, including the right to seek other employment.
I also note with interest your shift from discussing collective rights to discussing collective outcomes. Those are not the same things, and they further widen the number of individual rights that are in play.Report
Let’s just google up the definition of “rights”.
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
So no, if you can be arrested or fired for doing it, then by definition it’s not a right.
The Left uses collective outcomes to measure how “fair” something is, i.e. a measurement of collective rights.
This requires stepping on individual rights. For example, because of Affirmative Action, the Left uses the color of someone’s skin to judge what metric we should use to determine whether they’re admitted to college.Report
You give them too much credit to even think they were the party of individual freedom or liberty.Report
As is often the case with these things, its the underlying hypocrisy I’m attacking. Conservatives would at least get my respect if they owned their actual positions. As it is, I mostly pity them for the acts of self-delusion they commit that somehow they are doing God’s work by seeking to conserve oppressive systems in the name of tradition.Report