Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America's Most Important Idea (16 page)

What is particularly interesting here is that the market is a
causal system—an extremely complex system where it is difficult to determine the effect of any one choice. It inherently involves systemic causation. But the metaphor of the market—if each person seeks his own profit (direct causation), then the profit of all will be maximized (by the invisible hand)—turns a complex system via metaphor into a system governed by individual direct causation. Even the metaphor of a single invisible hand having the causal effect is a case of direct causation.

You can see why the “What would Jesus drive?” campaign never caught on with conservative Christians.

Many questions of freedom come down to questions of causation—systemic or direct. Because of the details of the strict father versus nurturant parent models, radical conservatives and progressives tend to see causality—and with it, morality—in very different ways. Moral responsibility is, of course, about freedom, about the question of what you are morally free to do. Differences in perceptions of causation have everything to do with differences in judgments about freedom and hence about what is moral.

Suppose it is true that those using strict father morality tend to favor direct causation in moral decisions and largely ignore systemic causality, while those with nurturant parent morality readily admit systemic causality into moral decisions. What follows is a major split in our understanding of what is real—a split along moral and political lines!

It is hard to overestimate how important this is. Our understanding of causation defines what we take to be real in the world and what we take to be the consequences of our actions. Political decisions affect reality. What is disturbing is that political ideology can so deeply affect the understanding of what is real and so thoroughly hide the real consequences of so many political decisions.

I should point out, in conclusion, that the argument in this
chapter—and in this book as a whole—is based on systemic causation. Conceptual systems are systems, after all. There are systems of conservative and progressive thought, and I am endeavoring to describe their causal effects. The irony, in this case, is that I am using systemic causation to study the difference between systemic and direct causation. It makes me wonder whether such a book could be written only by a progressive.

In political speeches, freedom is often spoken of in grand terms: self-government, free elections, freedom of speech and religion—the great ideas of American democracy. What is lost in this rhetoric are the nitty-gritty personal freedoms of everyday life, often unnoticed until they are gone.

Liberals and conservatives have very different ideas of what constitutes nitty-gritty personal freedom. Indeed, in many cases what are freedoms for liberals contradicts what counts as freedom for conservatives. Understanding this difference is politically important, since it lies behind much of conservative populism—the idea that ordinary working people are under attack by a liberal elite and that conservatives represent the values of ordinary folks. This flies in the face of the liberal idea that liberals are the true populists, defending the material interests of the working poor and the middle class. Socioeconomic liberals wonder why poor and middle-class conservatives vote against their material self-interest; they recommend a populist electoral strategy without understanding conservative populism and the role that the conservative notion of personal freedom plays in it.

Conservatives have a litany of lost freedoms, a litany that serves as a call to arms against the “liberal elite,” the snobs who, according to conservative orthodoxy, look down their noses at
ordinary Americans trying to exercise their God-given freedoms. In the culture wars, the liberal attitude is called “political correctness,” a snide term suggesting that liberals think they know what’s right and are trying to impose it politically on ordinary people, who know better.

So far as I have been able to tell, conservative populism has several factors. The first is the ordinary people frame, in which there is a contrast between the elite and the ordinary people. In this frame, the ordinary people are the good people and the elite are their oppressors. The elite are snobs who look down on the ordinary people, and especially look down on their values. Snobbishness can have many parameters: wealth, education, body image, language, social position, body language, and taste in clothes, food, forms of recreation, consumer goods, places to shop.

Populism is about identifying oneself as an ordinary person, oppressed by the elite. The ordinary person is poor, uneducated, hardworking (doing manual labor), physically strong, religious, patriotic, uses bad grammar, has loosely articulated pronunciation, and has a traditional sex role.

Men fit certain stereotypes: in the South, good ol’ boys; in the Midwest, farmboys; in the West, cowboys. The word “boy” is not accidental here. There is a notion that “boys will be boys,” that a certain male naughtiness is part of the stereotype.

Marketers have picked up on the stereotype. Music: country western. Recreation: Nascar races, football, gambling. Drink: workingman’s beer, namely, Bud, Miller, Coors. Car: SUV. Dress: jeans. Food: fast food, meat. Religion: fundamentalism. Shoes: boots (preferably cowboy boots).

Conservative populism takes advantage of this stereotype and
brands liberals: limousine liberals, Hollywood liberals, Volvo-driving Birkenstock-wearing latte-sipping sushi-eating liberals.

Conservatives have politicized populism. Conservatism identifies the ordinary person as an ordinary American, a conservative patriot with conservative values (strict father morality). And they have identified the elite as the liberal elite, with liberal political and social values: feminism, gay rights, environmentalism, peace, protection, safety, anti–death penalty, high culture. Liberals are portrayed not just as effete social snobs, but as political snobs who tell people what to believe about politics—what is politically correct or PC.

Conservative populism is significantly about freedom. Part of liberal oppression is the intrusion of liberal PC values on personal conservative freedoms.

The word “liberty” tends to be used more by conservatives than by progressives. And the conservatives who use it tend to be populists. This entry in the Mac dictionary explains why: “Liberty” is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

“Liberty” may, like “freedom,” refer to the state of being free. But “liberty” comes with a very different frame than “freedom.”

Here is what the liberty frame looks like:

• There are within society oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.
  

• Liberty is
  freedom from
  those oppressive restrictions.
  

• Liberty is also
  freedom to
  do positive things you feel you
  have the right to be free to do given your way of life, or the way of life you think you should have.
  

To a conservative populist, the oppressive restrictions are called political correctness. They are seen as imposed by a liberal elite. Conservative populists resent that elite.

Exactly what is oppressive to a conservative populist, and why? So far as I can tell, the following are the sources of such oppression:

• Their way of life is governed by strict father morality, which can determine what positive things they feel they have a right to do.
  

• The oppressive restrictions arise from the condition that one is not free to interfere with the freedom of others. The question is, What counts as interfering with the freedom of others?
  

• Suppose that “interference” either involves systemic causality, which they do not recognize as valid, or assumes nurturant morality, which they reject. Any such restriction against interference will not be seen as valid.
  

• The everyday things they feel they should have a right to do are being blocked by either a liberal view of morality or a liberal understanding of systemic causation. That feels like oppression by uppity liberals who think they know what’s right and how ordinary folks should live.
  

• Liberals who speak of such interference are seen as either crazies, extremists, elites who don’t know how real people live, or uncaring authoritarians.
  

Conservative Christians often speak of “religious liberty”—what they see as the political freedom to practice their religion
as they choose to. That practice includes spreading the “good news,” the truth of Gospel. They do not see this as an imposition on the freedom of others, since they are helping others by communicating to them how to avoid the torture of hell and achieve the bliss of heaven. Displaying the Ten Commandments in schools and courts is seen as offering freedom from hell, not imposing on freedom. School prayer is a perfect example of direct action: one child saying one prayer on one occasion. Saying a prayer, or reading a passage from the Christian Bible, is simple and natural in that way of life. To see school prayer as a harmful act requires, first, empathy with non-Christians and atheists—sinners who are going to hell—and second, the effects of peer pressure and fears of in-group exclusion, which are complex.

Other conservatives speak of owning and using guns in terms of liberty, of freedom from taxation as a liberty issue, and of liberty being at stake in restrictions on suburban and exurban development.

The word “liberty” tends to be used more by conservatives than by progressives because it focuses on individual freedom of choice and not on the imposition of that choice on others. And it tends to be used more by, and for audiences of, conservative populists, who see themselves as culturally oppressed by values they don’t believe in or views of causation that make no sense to them.

Progressives, because of empathy and their sense of systemic causality, pay particular attention to how everyday acts can impose on the freedom of others: how driving SUVs can dirty the air and contribute to global warming; how secondhand smoke can be harmful to nonsmokers; how taking water from a river can kill the fish and other aquatic life; how dams can lead to salmon extinction; how hate speech both reflects and reinforces hate, and contributes to violence; how Wal-Mart’s low prices lead to low pay, no benefits, higher taxes, and the destruction of communities; how cutting down old-growth forests eliminates
habitats for species. Conservative populists often see these acts either as imposing on their values, or as not making any sense.

Conservative populism is also about identity as an ordinary American. The main areas of identity are family, religion, community, love of the land, forms of recreation, work, and health.

Here are some examples of conservative freedoms—or liberties—that conservative populists claim are either under attack or already taken away and need to be reclaimed.

• The freedom to decide what is going to be taught to my children—what is taught about history, science, sex, religion, and morality—should fit my values.
  

• The freedom to use or dispose of my property as I see fit—without government intervening with antisprawl laws, or zoning, or environmental regulations.
  

• The freedom to get rid of waste in the easiest and cheapest way—burning leaves, dumping waste in streams, burying garbage in the earth or the ocean.
  

• The freedom to have a wood fire in my fireplace—regardless of its contribution to local pollution.
  

• The freedom to defend myself and my family with any kind of gun I decide I need—even automatic weapons.
  

• The freedom to hunt—regardless of whether I am hunting an endangered species.
  

• The freedom to use any kind of vehicle anywhere—an SUV to drive over rough terrain, a snowmobile in Yellowstone, a dune buggy in the desert, a speedboat on a lake—without having to worry about sensitive habitats or other people’s sensibilities.
  

• The freedom to extract and use any natural resource to make a living—without having to care about environmental effects.
  

• The freedom to take water from a river to irrigate my farm—regardless of its consequences for fish or other aquatic life in the river.
  

• The freedom to make as much money as I can, as long as it is legal.
  

• The freedom to hire or promote or fire anyone I please—without having to worry about discriminatory hiring or labor policies.
  

• The freedom to offer any wage to an employee—with-out having to worry about unions, minimum wage laws, working conditions, or medical benefits.
  

• The freedom to make and sell any kind of product—free of governmental agencies judging whether it is safe or effective.
  

• The freedom to grow and sell any kind of food—with-out having to worry about pesticide use or food safety regulations.
  

• The freedom to build and develop anywhere—wet-lands, sensitive habitats, beaches, riverbanks, flood-plains.
  

• The freedom to say anything to anybody—even if the language is degrading or hurtful.
  

• The freedom to practice and promulgate my religion—even in public, using public facilities.
  

• The freedom to do business without the threat of class action lawsuits.
  

• The freedom to choose among the widest range of consumer products possible at the lowest possible prices—without having to worry about third-world sweatshops, employee working conditions, effects on small businesses, old-growth forests, pollution, monocultures.
  

• The freedom to decide how I spend the money I earn.
  

• The freedom to live in a community without threats to myself or my family from immoral people—drug addicts, ex-convicts, sexual predators, pornographers, gays.
  

• The freedom to live in a country and a community with values I identify with—values that do not threaten my sense of who I am, what I should be, or how I should bring up my children.