I'd love to hear what our various Presidential candidates have to say about the meaning of freedom, and how they would advance it. So I posted a YouTube video for inclusion in the 10questions forum, which you can have a look at here, by going to the bottom of the page and clicking on the picture of Jerry Falwell, next to the title Define "Freedom" posted by flywheel56. And if you want to vote for it (and I sincerely hope you will), click on the thumbs up sign.
I'd also like to know how people here define freedom, which we can explore in the comments below.
I've got my own shorthand definition... "Refusing to live by excuses. Demanding responsibility for my choices." It's a perspective drawn from my reading of Sartre and de Beauvoir. I've also written about it this way:
American-style freedom – ensuring that the rightful interests of all citizens are treated with due process and full dignity – is a noble national purpose.
The need to articulate a clear definition of freedom has been a central theme in diaries I've written here and here.
Our current President claims that advancing freedom is the driving motive of his foreign policy doctrine. He's even promised to devote himself to running a "fantastic freedom institute" after his term is over. Yet I haven't heard him delve into the meaning of the word, and I seriously doubt he and I would settle on a common definition. Similarly, I can't see how the "liberty" that Jerry Falwell was advancing at Liberty University could be the same notion of liberty that I want to promote in the world.
A typical liberal notion of freedom, of course, is the ability to do whatever you want as long as no one is harmed. That's not what those guys are about.
That sense of disjunction explains why I offered an earlier version of my video for the CNN/YouTube debate, and why I'm promoting it again now. I believe that leaders of the reactionary right have been tacitly reframing the meaning of "freedom" by anchoring the word in a particular set of dogmatic religious associations. They need to be called on it.
Though I don't generally adhere to George Lakoff's theories on how linguistic metaphors underpin political speech, I do see utility in his description of how conservatives have been attempting to reframe "freedom" to justify strict obedience to authority (whether the strong hand of the father or the guiding hand of unfettered markets).
But I go further than Lakoff. Consider this.
In the 2000 presidential debates, candidate Bush declared that Jesus was his favorite philosopher. Most philosophers are deeply concerned with the nature of truth. What is Jesus alleged to have said about that? "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." And what, supposedly, is the substance of that truth? That those who follow Jesus are guaranteed eternal life in heaven. In other words, for theocon Republicans, freedom is an expressly Christian notion: escaping God's eternal punishment in hell.
Anecdotally, I've asked several Christian street-level proselytizers what they mean by freedom, and that's the kind of answer they give. Before long I hope to engage at least one prominent religious figure on that question.
But more importantly, I'd like to see our prospective leaders to go on the record and make their views clear. I'd like for America to stand for freedom again, and that has to begin with a clear statement of what the word means and what our commitment to it implies.
Once again, please vote for my video at this link by going to the bottom of the page, clicking on the picture of Falwell, and (presuming you agree this is a question worth answering) giving it a thumbs up.