Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Republicans have called themselves the party of freedom, while Democrats have focused more on equality, justice and diversity. Now, Democrats are racing to reclaim the mantle of freedom. Their response to the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade was the opening gun in the bigger race.
To traditional conservatives wedded to the idea that freedom and smaller government are joined at the hip, this development might seem incomprehensible. Despite the populist takeover of the Republican Party, 8 in 10 Trump supporters say they prefer a smaller government providing fewer services, according to recent Pew Research Center polling. By contrast, only 2 in 10 Harris supporters want smaller government. More government means less freedom, conservatives say, so how can Democrats masquerade as the party of freedom?
To find the answer, we must look back to the ideas on which the American political tradition was built. According to the Declaration of Independence, individuals are endowed with natural rights. But it’s one thing to have inherent rights and quite another for those rights to be respected and protected. Individuals can get away with violating others’ rights if there isn’t an enforcement power to stop them. That’s why government is needed—to “secure” our ability to exercise our rights—and it must be strong enough to do so. Government can go too far, and citizens must resist it—with their voices and votes, and through the courts—when it overreaches. Conversely, a government too weak to secure our rights is not more but less compatible with freedom.
What rights does the government exist to protect? Most Americans can recite the triad: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But preceding this passage in the Declaration are the words “among these are.” This language implies—and the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment underscores—that people have other unalienable rights as well, some of which are unenumerated, meaning not explicitly stated in the law. When government expands to protect these rights, it doesn’t exceed its rightful authority.
The Sixth Amendment, for instance, states that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant has the right to have the “assistance of counsel for his defense.” If a defendant can’t afford a lawyer, this right is an empty promise—unless the government provides one at public expense. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court rightly required government to do just that. There it is: an expansion of government, but for a critical purpose.
Another example: The 15th Amendment says that neither the federal government nor a state may deny or limit the right of American citizens to vote. But for nearly a century after this amendment’s passage, many states flagrantly disregarded it and the federal government failed to enforce it—until the civil-rights movement forced the issue. Enforcement proved costly, complex and controversial. Once again, a larger and stronger government was needed to secure a fundamental right.
In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined “four freedoms” he believed the government was obligated to protect: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The Atlantic Charter, signed by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, expanded on these four freedoms and formed the core of the Allies’ fight against Nazism. These ideas about freedom eventually made their way into the founding documents of the United Nations. Far from being radical or un-American, they became the subject of some of Norman Rockwell’s most famous paintings.
Freedom from want and fear affect individual liberty and prospects for collective self-government. “Necessitous men are not free men,” Roosevelt said in 1944. “People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” He was right: Desperate times allow demagogues to appeal to people’s needs and emotions, and then no one’s liberties are safe.
When a government collects taxes, it restricts my freedom to use these resources for my own purposes. But without revenue, the government won’t have what it needs to carry out its responsibilities. The government’s existence necessarily imposes limits on us. Our rights, however, can’t be secured without such limitations. A definition of freedom that ignores this truth undermines itself.
In every society, some individuals and groups are stronger than others, and they’ll perennially be tempted to use their strength to the disadvantage of others. As philosopher Isaiah Berlin once wrote, “Total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” Government is needed to protect the rights to vote, speak freely, assemble peaceably, organize to improve workplaces and society, and compete as entrepreneurs on a level playing field. A government too weak to protect vulnerable members of society is too weak to fulfill its constitutional promise of equal freedom under the law.
To traditional conservatives wedded to the idea that freedom and smaller government are joined at the hip, this development might seem incomprehensible. Despite the populist takeover of the Republican Party, 8 in 10 Trump supporters say they prefer a smaller government providing fewer services, according to recent Pew Research Center polling. By contrast, only 2 in 10 Harris supporters want smaller government. More government means less freedom, conservatives say, so how can Democrats masquerade as the party of freedom?
To find the answer, we must look back to the ideas on which the American political tradition was built. According to the Declaration of Independence, individuals are endowed with natural rights. But it’s one thing to have inherent rights and quite another for those rights to be respected and protected. Individuals can get away with violating others’ rights if there isn’t an enforcement power to stop them. That’s why government is needed—to “secure” our ability to exercise our rights—and it must be strong enough to do so. Government can go too far, and citizens must resist it—with their voices and votes, and through the courts—when it overreaches. Conversely, a government too weak to secure our rights is not more but less compatible with freedom.
What rights does the government exist to protect? Most Americans can recite the triad: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But preceding this passage in the Declaration are the words “among these are.” This language implies—and the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment underscores—that people have other unalienable rights as well, some of which are unenumerated, meaning not explicitly stated in the law. When government expands to protect these rights, it doesn’t exceed its rightful authority.
The Sixth Amendment, for instance, states that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant has the right to have the “assistance of counsel for his defense.” If a defendant can’t afford a lawyer, this right is an empty promise—unless the government provides one at public expense. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court rightly required government to do just that. There it is: an expansion of government, but for a critical purpose.
Another example: The 15th Amendment says that neither the federal government nor a state may deny or limit the right of American citizens to vote. But for nearly a century after this amendment’s passage, many states flagrantly disregarded it and the federal government failed to enforce it—until the civil-rights movement forced the issue. Enforcement proved costly, complex and controversial. Once again, a larger and stronger government was needed to secure a fundamental right.
In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined “four freedoms” he believed the government was obligated to protect: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The Atlantic Charter, signed by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, expanded on these four freedoms and formed the core of the Allies’ fight against Nazism. These ideas about freedom eventually made their way into the founding documents of the United Nations. Far from being radical or un-American, they became the subject of some of Norman Rockwell’s most famous paintings.
Freedom from want and fear affect individual liberty and prospects for collective self-government. “Necessitous men are not free men,” Roosevelt said in 1944. “People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” He was right: Desperate times allow demagogues to appeal to people’s needs and emotions, and then no one’s liberties are safe.
When a government collects taxes, it restricts my freedom to use these resources for my own purposes. But without revenue, the government won’t have what it needs to carry out its responsibilities. The government’s existence necessarily imposes limits on us. Our rights, however, can’t be secured without such limitations. A definition of freedom that ignores this truth undermines itself.
In every society, some individuals and groups are stronger than others, and they’ll perennially be tempted to use their strength to the disadvantage of others. As philosopher Isaiah Berlin once wrote, “Total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” Government is needed to protect the rights to vote, speak freely, assemble peaceably, organize to improve workplaces and society, and compete as entrepreneurs on a level playing field. A government too weak to protect vulnerable members of society is too weak to fulfill its constitutional promise of equal freedom under the law.
'
