After identifying himself as anti-Bush, these two descriptions of freedom are worth considering:
"In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries.
But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds, freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance. Freedom is largely a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world.
Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the other. It is experienced most powerfully in mobility - both socioeconomic and geographic."
In the end, though, freedom is personal, not 'ivory-towerish' as this commentator describes in his first description. The lofty first definition of freedom may be enchanting to intellectuals and certainly is the underpinning of who we are as a country. But the second definition is the one that describes people where they live and how they live out freedom. Nevertheless, the second is predicated on the first, but both together describe our democracy, warts and all.
Parsing the definition of the word freedom too finely, while intriguing, holds little relevance to reality. People in other countries want both. That's why immigrants flock here, to experience freedom in all its dimensions.
No comments:
Post a Comment