As you know, Bush laid it on pretty heavily in the inaugural speech. Freedom® this, freedom® that, until everyone is transfixed.
On MyDD lately, there have been a number of discussions about what "freedom" means, in particular the Democratic / liberal ideal in contrast to the Bush version. There are a lot of ideas out there, which tend to involve civil liberties combined with freedom from severe economic disruption. Unfortunately, these ideas are still pretty much confined to the blog universe, while W is getting mileage off his version right now. So forget reframing. It's time for an all-out framejacking. We need to take "freedom" away from the Republicans.
More below...
My first thought: we ought to start with something the American public recognizes, and
respects overall. FDR's proposed "economic Bill of Rights" covers a lot of ground for Democrats, but it's not something that a lot of people are familiar with, and Republican-leaning voters may flinch at FDR almost reflexively.
So, for starters, the Democratic Party should lay claim to the entire original Bill of Rights, clearly and without room for dispute. The Bill of Rights is an extremely strong symbol on many levels. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights largely fits the Democratic idea of freedom, which emphasizes freedom of thought, conscience, and opportunity over the freedom to do whatever you damn well please with your money and your workers.
If we can do this, then we have one hell of a club to pound Republicans with. Every time some Bush-league talking head blathers about "freedom", we can do a right-by-right takedown like this one, but firing on all ten cylinders instead. In any debate, we point out that it is we, the Democrats and their supporters, that actually deliver freedom.
We're most of the way there. Civil libertarian Democrats are rock solid on eight of the ten Amendments. In particular, they are strong on the underappreciated Ninth Amendment, which basically says the Constitution is not exhaustive, and people have more rights than it actually lists.
So the first step is just standing our ground on those. And I mean really standing -- no more Patriot Acts or anything else that affects those eight amendments, regardless of political expediency.
The next step involves handling the two remaining trouble spots -- the Second and the Tenth Amendments. The Second Amendment generates more heat, but I think it's the easier of the two. I think that liberals should at least tolerate firearms ownership, as a basic, legal fact of life. Even if some liberals regard guns as viscerally unpleasant as a KKK rally? Well, almost all of us would tolerate the rally on First Amendment grounds so long as we're not required to attend. In any event, the one step we really need to "claim" the Second Amendment is one that's becoming more mainstream -- taking the Howard Dean position of leaving firearms law largely up to the states.
To complete the framejacking, though, we need to tackle the Tenth Amendment. That's tougher. For one thing, conservatives love to claim liberal hypocrisy here, since they believe Democrats create lots of federal laws or programs that are supposed to be the prerogative of states or individuals instead. Furthermore, liberals have run from the Tenth a bit, for a few reasons:
- People advocating "states' rights" have historically advocated some truly horrible "rights": slavery, legalized racial segregation, state sponsorship of specific religions, and so on.
- Civil libertarians tend to think rights apply to individuals, not governments, and so according "rights" by the level of government (state vs. federal vs. ...) is somewhat artificial.
- Regardless of who holds rights, civil libertarians also tend to believe fundamental rights should be recognized wholesale -- i.e., at the national level if possible -- rather than piecemeal.
So what's a Democrat to do? For starters, a big problem with "states' rights" has been people using the Tenth Amendment to
destroy freedom and opportunity. So maybe we can turn that around and insist that "states rights" only be used to make people freer (in a Democratic / liberal sense). Combine it with the Fourteenth Amendment and make the Bill of Rights stick solidly to state law. Make a
special effort to fight any regressive laws that have a "states' rights" aspect to them.
But something tells me this isn't quite enough. There seems to be more to the conservative complaint about the Tenth Amendment than just allowing states to set their own rules (to an extent). How much federal power (even including departments) must we either give up or transfer to the states to make this really work?
I don't want any holes in our defense of the Bill of Rights. Anyone else want to jump in and help take this frame for a ride?