Reclaiming ‘Freedom’
Bernie Horn
July 11, 2006
Bernie Horn is policy director at the Center for Policy Alternatives, a nonpartisan organization working to strengthen the capacity of state legislators to lead and achieve progressive change.
Freedom is the cornerstone of America’s value system. One poll found that Americans believe—by a margin of 73 to 15—that “freedom†is more important than “equality.†And yet, progressives shy away from the word freedom, allowing the right wing to abuse the term as a justification for preemptive war, extrajudicial imprisonment, warrantless searches, corporate giveaways and environmental devastation.
Freedom—an idea that is crucial to any coherent description of progressive philosophy—is in danger of becoming a meaningless platitude. It’s time to stage a rescue.
That’s why I looked forward to Whose Freedom? the latest book by linguistics professor George Lakoff. By now, most progressive activists are familiar with Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant!, which persuasively explained the insidious impact of right-wing message framing. I am sorry to report that if you’ve read the first chapter of Don’t Think of an Elephant! you won’t learn anything useful from the new book.
If anything, Whose Freedom? will leave progressives confused. Lakoff defines freedom as if it describes every progressive cause, including:
…expanding civil rights, voting rights, property rights, tolerance, education, science, public health, workers’ rights, protected parkland, and the infrastructure for progressive freedom—the banking system, court system, transportation system, scientific research system, social services system, and all the other aspects of the common good that we use our common wealth for.
Whoa! I was hoping the book would give sound advice that could help progressives win the next election. Wading through 266 pages of text in search of practical message framing suggestions, I found none. Lakoff’s general advice is to use freedom to describe nearly everything. The only specific advice about message framing in the entire book is to respond to the right wing’s “activist judges†with the term “freedom judges.â€
I respectfully disagree. We cannot criticize the right wing for abusing the word freedom if we misuse it ourselves. We cannot ridicule “freedom fries,†if we invent the term “freedom judges.†Instead of further muddying the linguistic waters, let’s adopt a messaging framework that progressive candidates can understand and use.
In American public policy, progressives should use “freedom†to describe the absence of government restraint on fundamental individual rights such as free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from warrantless searches and seizures and the right to personal privacy. If we use freedom to describe economic or security concerns, we fall into the right wing’s messaging trap.
The Bush administration has consistently proclaimed to Americans that both the war in Iraq and the “war on terrorism†are in defense of our freedom. Lakoff swallows it, saying “a terrorist attack†is an abridgement of our freedom. Reject that frame! Our freedom is not in jeopardy—neither the Iraqis nor al-Qaida are attempting to invade America and control our government. U.S. military and police actions might be said to protect our security, but not our freedom. Right wingers don’t want to speak of “security†because it leaves them vulnerable to the argument that the Iraq invasion, and many “anti-terror†measures, have made America less secure. So, when we want government to protect us, let’s describe our policies using the values of security, safety or health, not freedom.
Furthermore, conservatives have always equated freedom with capitalism. Even Lakoff embraces the term “free markets.†Reject that frame! Our nation’s market economy is not “free†from government control—nor do progressives think it should be—the market is dominated by federal and state laws and regulations. The terms free market, free enterprise and free trade all support right-wing policies. So, when we need government to act as a referee to level the economic playing field, let’s describe our policies using the values of opportunity, equity and fairness, not freedom. To wit, we favor fair markets—free markets don’t exist.
Most astonishing, I think, is the way the religious right uses the word freedom to mean the very opposite. When they tell school boards to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design†in schools, when they erect monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouses, when they work to ban all abortions, when they refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception, when they seek to require prayer in public schools, the religious right asserts it’s an exercise in religious freedom. Please, reject that frame!
Use freedom as your bulwark when arguing that government has no proper role. Point out that freedom is one of our most cherished values. Persuade Americans that Clarence Darrow was right when he said: “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.†Religious extremists may never understand this kind of political freedom, but persuadable voters will.
The message framing practiced by the right is designed to attach populist values to their elitist policies. It’s a cynical kind of salesmanship. And the only way to fight back is for progressives to talk about our values, framing our proposals in language that resonates with persuadable voters. Let us restore freedom to its proper place of honor in the progressive lexicon, alongside other powerful political values like opportunity, security and responsibility.
After reading the article please share your thoughts in the comment section below.