IdeaLog

Freedom, Opportunity and Security for All

Posted on September 3, 2024

The overall purpose of our Voicing Our Values series of books and materials is to show you—a policymaker, activist, advocate, campaigner or candidate—how to persuade others. Our focus on political values is practical—it works.

But that does not mean that progressives should choose their values randomly. Let us take a few steps back and see how a values-based worldview operates, and why it is persuasive.

(To understand this discussion in context, see our new message framing booklet, Voicing Our Values: 2024 Edition, click here.)

Consider the American dream. Our almost mythical ideal is not about a society where government secures the greatest good for the greatest number. Our dream is personal. It’s about a poor child delivering newspapers and one day ending up as the publisher. It’s about an unskilled worker attending night school and becoming a successful manager. It’s about individuals and families practicing their religion without interference, getting ahead through hard work, and being able to retire in security and comfort.

The American dream is the vision of a nation where every individual is given a fair chance to build a successful life. This common vision is both about money—individuals and their families getting ahead, and about self-determination—individuals and their families deciding what to think and how to live. Our dream celebrates the individual.

American individualism goes way back. Benjamin Franklin—the quintessential self-made man—reflected the thinking of his era, “The U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.” Thomas Jefferson initially made individualism an explicit part of the Declaration of Independence. His first draft stated that “all men are created equal and independent.” And throughout the history of our nation, despite great hardships, immigrants traveled here (those who came voluntarily), settlers moved across the plains, and farmers migrated to cities, all to find a better life for themselves and their families. America has been shaped by this common quest of individual Americans.

Individualism is our nation’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It drives innovation and progress, but it also consigns millions of Americans to lives spent in poverty. The system doesn’t work for many because of our national culture of competition.

Competition is the very bedrock of our governmental, economic, and social systems. Elections and court cases are competitions. School and college are competitions. Our economy is a gigantic, complex competition. Even our ideas of style—attractive clothes, jewelry, furniture, houses—are based on how they compare with others. Obviously, where there is competition there are both winners and losers.

The point is, we can’t force a communalistic philosophy on an individualistic nation. Progressives wish that American culture was more oriented toward altruism and community. But it isn’t. A realistic progressive philosophy is one that accepts our national culture of individualism and competition and—nevertheless—seeks to make the American dream accessible to all. How can we envision such a philosophy?

Balance is justice

Imagine a balance scale—the old-fashioned kind with two pans, one suspended from each end of a bar. It’s the kind of scale that symbolizes equal justice under law. In a progressive world, the role of government is to help balance the scale when powerful individuals or organizations compete against weaker ones. Government should function as a counterweight on the scale of justice. The greater the disparity of power between competing interests, the greater weight the government must provide to the weaker side.

It is not government’s job to ensure that everyone wins every competition—that would be a logical impossibility. Instead, government must ensure that, whenever possible, competition is both fair and humane. In other words, justice is the purpose of government, and in an individualistic society, balance is the means of achieving justice.

A system in balance rewards hard work, efficiency and innovation—which benefit all of society, and discourages crime, corruption and schemes to game the system—which rob all of society. As a practical matter, despite all efforts, our system will never be in balance. Justice is a journey not a destination. But we can switch this mighty country onto the right track and open up the throttle to increase its speed.

You may be thinking: Isn’t balance an awfully broad principle? How do we apply it?

Here is how. We break down public policy into three situations, where: (1) government has no proper role, (2) government acts as a referee, and (3) government acts as a protector.

Freedom

Where government has no proper role, because public action would violate individual rights, progressive policy should be based on freedom. By freedom, we mean the absence of legal interference with our fundamental rights—freedom of speech, religion and association; the right to privacy; the rights of the accused; the right of all citizens to vote; and the right to equal protection under the law. Compared to an individual, government wields tremendous power, so a progressive policy adds great weight—in the form of strong legal rights—to the individual’s side of the scale. For example, freedom of speech is absolutely sacrosanct unless it immediately and directly puts others in danger—“falsely shouting fire in a theater” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it.

Freedom should be fairly easy to understand—it’s a defense of our basic constitutional rights and civil liberties. We include the right to vote because the very definition of democracy—rule by the people—requires the unrestricted right to vote. So, laws that keep American citizens from casting ballots should be eliminated on the grounds that they violate our most fundamental democratic freedom.

(For the purpose of describing a political philosophy, we intentionally adopt a limited definition of freedom, often called “negative freedom.” But for the purpose of messaging, you are welcome to use “freedom” more broadly as President Franklin Roosevelt did in describing his Four Freedoms.)

Pollster Celinda Lake explains that, right now, “freedom has been testing very, very strongly…. The strongest critique of MAGA Republicans is that they are taking away our freedom. That message [is also] very strong for mobilization. It mobilizes young voters, African Americans who associate freedom with voting rights and civil rights, and it really motivates women, and younger women, around the abortion issue, and medication abortion.”

There is no doubt that progressives believe in freedom. The problem is, until very recently, we have barely talked about it, probably because we thought the right wing claimed it. But they claimed it wrongfully.

For more than 20 years, conservatives have insisted that both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the “war on terror,” were in defense of our freedom. But it’s not true. Our freedom was never in jeopardy—the Iraqis, the Taliban, ISIS and al-Qaeda, none of them attempted to invade America and control our government. U.S. military and police actions might be said to protect our security, but not our freedom. So don’t use the word freedom when discussing military adventures—it just provides a false justification for war.

Similarly, conservatives have equated freedom with capitalism. But that’s not valid. Our nation’s market economy is not free from government control—actually, it is dominated by government. Markets are based on a dense web of laws enforced by multiple layers of federal, state and local agencies. Businesses are not free to sell diseased meat, make insider stock trades, pollute our air and water, or discriminate on the basis of race, gender or ethnicity. So don’t be fooled by the terms free market, free enterprise or free trade, because they all twist the idea of freedom to support right-wing policies.

Most astonishing is the way religious extremists have employed the word freedom to mean the very opposite. They argue that freedom gives them the right to use the power of government to impose their religious views on the rest of us. But when they use government power to ban abortion, discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, ban books, and overturn elections, that is precisely an attack on freedom. Freedom is the absence of government intervention where we, as Americans, have fundamental rights.

The right-wing overthrow of Roe v. Wade changed the political dynamic on freedom. Persuadable voters are well on their way to understanding that the MAGA movement diminishes freedom, and using this new understanding is excellent politics. Besides, we have a solemn responsibility to guard our rights to freedom. We must shout from the rooftops that freedom is one of our most cherished values. We must remind Americans that Clarence Darrow was right when he said, “You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can be free only if I am free.”

Opportunity

Where government acts as a referee between private, unequal interests, progressive policy should be based on opportunity. By opportunity, we mean a level playing field in social and economic affairs—fair dealings between the powerful and the less powerful, the elimination of discrimination, and a quality education for all. Competing interests usually hold unequal power, so progressive policy adds weight—guarantees of specific protections—to the weaker interest. For example, unskilled low-wage workers have no leverage to bargain for higher pay. That’s why it is up to the government to impose a reasonable minimum wage. Quite simply, when social and market forces do not naturally promote equal opportunity, government must step in.

Opportunity means, more than anything, a fair marketplace. Although progressives tend to stress the rights of consumers and employees against businesses, opportunity also means fairness between businesses—especially helping small enterprises against large ones—and fairness for stockholders against corporate officers. Individual ambition, innovation, and effort—harnessed by the market system—are supposed to benefit society as a whole. But that can happen only when the competition is fair.

Opportunity also means fair economic transactions with the government. Government should use the scale of justice when determining taxes—obviously a sliding scale where those who have the least pay the least. And when it is the government that is making payments—for contracts, subsidies, public education, and the like—the principle of opportunity dictates that all individuals and companies should have equal access, unless the balance of justice demands a measure of affirmative action.

The concept of opportunity is an easy sell to progressives. And yet, since the Reagan years, we’ve been losing the struggle to the right wingers who flatly oppose opportunity.

Conservatives have fought against ending discrimination, even though equal treatment is a precondition for equal opportunity. They don’t even pretend to support equal opportunity in commerce; instead, conservatives lobby for government favors, no-bid contracts, and economic development giveaways. And right-wingers seek to destroy anything that allows individuals to stand up to larger economic forces, with labor unions, consumer protections, and antimonopoly policies under constant attack.

Our mission is clear. It is to guarantee that all Americans can realize their goals through education, hard work, and fair pay. We must provide every person, not just the privileged few, with an equal opportunity to pursue a better life—equal access to the American dream.

Security

Where government acts to protect those who cannot reasonably protect themselves, including future generations, progressive policy should be based on security. By security, we mean protecting Americans from domestic criminals and foreign terrorists, of course, but also insuring the sick and the vulnerable, safeguarding the food we eat and products we use, and preserving our environment.

There is always a threat that larger or unexpected forces will attack any one of us, so progressive policy adds weight, in the form of government institutions and programs, that helps protect us from harm. For example, society has a responsibility to protect the elderly, the disabled, widows and orphans and that’s why an aptly named federal program has functioned in that role for more than a half-century—Social Security.

Security can be divided into three categories. First, government should secure our personal safety and health. That includes military and police protection, firefighting, health insurance, medical research, and protection from impurities, pollutants and hazardous waste. Second, government should perform its fiduciary duty to protect individuals who cannot reasonably protect themselves. That includes people who are children, elderly, disabled or mentally ill—as well as future generations. Of course, the weaker the individual, the greater the protection required. Third, government should protect our common future as a nation. That includes building and maintaining infrastructure, using zoning powers to enhance quality of life, and safeguarding the environment.

Progressives support the concept of security, of course. But we usually detour around the word when talking about law enforcement or national security. Like freedom, the word security seems to stick in our throats.

Progressives want to jump immediately to collaboration and cooperation, rehabilitation and reeducation. That line of thinking is both destructive and unrealistic. Crime and terrorism are issues of security. Yes, we believe that our policies are the best means to ensure security, but we need to talk about the ends as well. The proper role of government in these matters, and the top priority of officeholders, is to provide security for our communities. To ignore security is to lose the argument.

America’s founding principles

Now that you think about it, don’t the principles of freedom, opportunity and security sound kind of familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This famous line from the Declaration of Independence is more than a set of high-sounding platitudes—it is an assertion of American political philosophy.

By “Life,” Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration did not mean simply the right to survival, which would suggest that being beaten almost to death is okay. They meant a right to personal security. By “Liberty,” they were referring to the kinds of freedoms that were ultimately written into federal and state Bills of Rights, blocking the government from infringing upon speech, religion, the press, and trial by jury, as well as protecting individuals from wrongful criminal prosecutions.

And how do we translate “pursuit of Happiness?” It cannot mean that everyone has the God-given right to do whatever makes them happy. Read “happiness” together with the earlier part of the same sentence, “all men are created equal.” The Declaration of Independence is not saying that people have an unbridled right to pursue happiness; it is saying we have an equal right to pursue happiness. In today’s language, we’d call that equal opportunity.

These are the principles that served as the foundation for American independence and self-government. They are ideals that we learned in school and relearn throughout life.

The whole project of America revolves around eliminating barriers to individual success. In revolutionary times, the monarchy and aristocracy controlled what people could do economically, socially and religiously. All those barriers needed to be toppled so that individuals could live successful and happy lives. Two hundred fifty years ago, eliminating barriers was simpler—just get rid of unjust restrictions. But today, eliminating the barriers to freedom, opportunity and security is more complicated because modern life is more complicated. No one lives self-sufficiently on a farm anymore—everyone relies on everyone else. So today, protecting our rights as Americans requires a more proactive government. But progressives are still pursuing the spirit of the American Revolution.

Put another way, government must employ the historic American concept of checks and balances. When social and market forces do not naturally promote freedom, opportunity and security, we must achieve them through checks and balances supplied by our government. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

We progressives haven’t forgotten the principles that inspired America. But we have misplaced them. And worse, we’ve allowed right-wing extremists to hijack our ideals and wave them like a flag, rallying Americans to their distinctly un-American cause. It is time to right that wrong.

Freedom, opportunity and security for all

Let’s raise the banner of freedom, opportunity and security for all.

That means we believe society should step into an unfair competition, balancing the scale to help the weaker interest get a fair deal. It means that where government has no proper role, we demand freedom; where government acts as a referee between economic interests, we champion opportunity; and where government should protect those who cannot protect themselves, we call for security.

Every issue of public policy is described by at least one of our three ideals. Abortion, racial profiling and voting rights are about freedom. Equal pay, mortgage assistance and improving public schools are about opportunity. Terrorism, sentencing reform and health care are about security.

Moreover, some issues can be framed by more than one of these ideals. Unemployment insurance is about opportunity (pay displaced workers fair compensation) and about security (protect hardworking people who need temporary assistance). IVF treatment is about freedom (don’t let religion dictate to science) and about security (access to modern health care). LGBTQ+ rights are about freedom (don’t let religion dictate how people are treated) and about opportunity (prevent discrimination in employment and housing) and about security (protect individuals and families, as well as the children of same-sex couples).

To dig a little deeper, realize that one frame is often a more persuasive argument than another. Generally, freedom is the strongest argument, closely followed by security, with opportunity sometimes a poor third. Let us say that two candidates talk about the issue of crime, one framing it with opportunity (e.g., addressing inequality among the causes of crime) and the other framing it with security (e.g., cracking down on violent criminals). Even in a Democratic primary, all else being equal, the security frame will win.

Now it should be easy to understand why conservatives have called so many of their issues a matter of freedom or security. The question is, why did we let them get away with it? The war in Iraq, for example, was launched under the banner of freedom and security, but, in fact, the war diminished both. Voter ID laws are promoted as security, but all they do is erode freedom. And the Trump Administration’s border wall, offered as security, provided nothing at all.

In sum, here is the political distinction between the left and right. We seek to extend freedom, opportunity and security to all Americans. They work to limit freedom, opportunity and security—to redistribute wealth toward the wealthy, power toward the powerful, and privilege toward the privileged.

Our values are the principles that fueled the flame of the American Revolution. The same torch of American ideals was passed from Jefferson to Lincoln, and from TR to FDR to JFK. So let us stop hiding our glorious light under a bushel.