Loyal Opposition

Loyal opposition. It has no meaning in today's political world. It was a term applied to those who disagreed with your political stance. Unlike today, the opposition was seen as a good thing: they looked at the world from a different view, so they saw things you didn't. They brought up issues you hadn't thought of. They were recognized as "loyal" because they had the same goals you did: building up the country, though they wanted to do it in a different way.

This view has been entirely lost to history. Today, the political parties only seek to demonize each other. Each takes the view that "I'm right and you are wrong." They don't see things from different angles; simply a two dimensional view in which the opposition is set to destroy our country. They call the actions of the other party "unpatriotic" in a effort to stir up public opinion against them.

Nowadays, if a bill passes Congress without the approval of one party, they seek to impede it or otherwise make it fail. I hear similar things from people who dislike Pres. Obama. They hope he fails. It doesn't seem to dawn on some people that where Obama fails, America will fail. If he doesn't fix the economy, these people will be able to tell everyone in the unemployment office that they were right about him. Some satisfaction.

If Obama succeeds, everyone wins at least a little. If he turns out to be the great leader the Democrats have touted him to be, America WILL be in better shape. Certainly, some of his followers will be maddeningly smug and other people will have to deal with their wounded pride, but we'll all be better off in some way.

So, from someone who voted against Obama: here's to a successful four years.

Reflections on Obama's Inauguration

Two days ago, I got to watch the inauguration of Barak Obama. Although I was as unhappy with his victory over McCain as I was with McCain's nomination, my perception of Obama has since been tempered.

My initial reaction to his victory was one of disappointment and foreboding. I do a decent job of following politics; I know what kind of president McCain or Clinton would have been. I knew nothing about Obama when he put in his name for nomination. Even today, I don't know what kind of president Obama will be. We have his words about what he will do, but what president ever rigidly followed his campaign promises? It seems that once you arrive at the White House, you notice there are a lot more messes to clean up than you originally thought, and your speeches have a way of being pushed to the side in favor of more pressing matters.

On the flip side, I don't think Obama is going to reduce the U.S. to a socialist state. I don't think that he is the harbinger of the apocalypse. Like all presidents, he will do some good and some bad. There is just no escaping it: fixing problems causes other problems and not fixing problems prevents other problems. It's amazing the federal government doesn't go insane.

The lingering fear I do have is that a single party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. Historically, this often leads to problems. A "rubber stamping" mentality has often led to problems (ie. the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Patriot Act, etc.) because cooperation between the parties is not needed. As someone once told me, "it is more important to listen to your enemies because they will tell you those things you don't know, but should." When once party controls the government, they can pass laws without the help of the opposition, which often means important issues are not brought up.

So, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next four years. I hope it's good.

Thoughts on Freedom

As part of an assignment for my American Government and Society class, we read an excerpt from John Winthrop's 1645 speech before the Massachusetts General Court in which he spoke about the Puritan view of what freedom means. Here, I present my own thoughts about freedom.


Freedom, in today's vernacular, seems to have come to mean license to do as one pleases. In other words, to act as you will without fear of consequences. This view seems to me to have come right along with the attitude of relative morality: there is no ultimate right or wrong, just what is acceptable to society at any one time. When a teenager speaks about freedom, he usually is referring to an absence of parental supervision, in which he is left to do anything he pleases. An anarchist views freedom as an absence of law or government supervision.

May I respectfully disagree with these definitions of freedom? In my view point, freedom can be broken down into what I will call "liberty" and "agency." Liberty is the freedom accorded to us by the rule of law. Agency is moral freedom. I contend that freedom, in its proper usage, is not an absence of rule, but rather a combination of government protection and individual obedience. Freedom is possible only through a correct application of law both from the state and the individual who is being governed. The absence of such laws yields not freedom, but actually a lack of freedom.

I will first address liberty. The primary requirement of liberty is a state that respects certain rights of individuals, and individuals that respect the rights of the state to enforce those laws applicable to maintaining those rights. A state that recognizes free speech, for example, is certainly according its citizens an important liberty. The protection of that liberty is as important to that freedom as is the right itself.

Imagine a state of anarchy, in which some suppose they have freedom because they have no government to censor or suppress their speech. However, without a government, other individuals have just as much right to silence their fellows as their victims have to express their opinions. There is no freedom in this.

As such, the individuals that recognize the right of the state to enforce free speech by the punishment of violators are individuals that are engaged in the protection of freedom.

If I may momentarily digress, it may seem strange that I speak of "enforced freedoms." However, in order for recognized freedoms to be preserved, other actions must be suppressed. A government must punish thieves in order to protect the freedom to own property. The thief’s right to go where he pleases and do as he will must be restrained in this instance. It is only through the punishment that the owner's rights are protected. This enforced freedom is necessary for freedom to exist at all.

Just as the state must recognize the rights of the individual, the individual must recognize the right of the government. Obedience to the laws of the land is paramount to the preservation of freedom. Crime moves towards anarchy because it always infringes on the rights of others. A speeding motorist infringes on the other driver's right to a safe road. A murderer infringes the right to life. An embezzler infringes the right of his employer to retain his rightful property.

I would write more about this, but I think I've made my point sufficiently. Liberty, the freedom that comes from a mutual recognition between governments and the people, is made possible only by the obedience of the people to the laws established by the government, and the government’s recognition and protection of the people's rights.

In contrast to “liberty,” agency is moral freedom. It is the freedom to choose our standards and our actions that may or may not be governed by law. Unlike liberty, agency is much more subjective. A codified law is either kept or broken; it’s usually black or white. Moral freedom is almost always grey, since all people have their own standards.

The secret to maximizing agency, though, is not to let yourself go and do whatever you want. In fact, the more restrictive you are on yourself (to a point), the more freedom you actually have. A bit counter-intuitive, isn’t it? Perhaps an example will illustrate.

There is no law that says I cannot smoke in my own house. I am completely at liberty to do so. If I use my agency to smoke, I will eventually become addicted to cigarettes. I will then have little choice but to continue. However, if I decide it is against my standards, and I use my agency to not smoke, then I will develop no habits. I continually have the same choice; the addict is nearly forced to continue.

The basis, I think, of what helps to maximize moral agency is knowing what to limit and what to embrace. If something is habit forming and negatively affect us – not just in the sense that drugs are habit forming, but things we may become so mentally attached to that it is nearly impossible to let it go – then it should be shunned. In contrast, we should embrace those things that build character. This way, we avoid doing those things which will entrap us in poor habits, and develop those attributes which will allow us to further explore new talents and possibilities.

By doing this, and by obeying established law, we maximize our freedom. As I stated earlier, freedom isn’t the absence of law; rather, it is the embracing of it. When we obey the state’s laws, we are free to continue to pursue our lives in whatever way we see fit; we have liberty. When we set high standards for ourselves and live them, we become more able and less dependent; we have agency. This is the spirit of freedom.