Freedom versus power

Rand Paul, the GOP candidate for Kentucky's U.S. senate seat and son of Libertarian leader Ron Paul, recently stated that he believed the Civil Rights law of 1964 should have applied to public venues only, not private establishments. He argues that the Federal Government has no right to tell private business, organizations, etc. whom they can serve or admit as members with respect to race or sexual orientation. For him, when it comes to freedom of the individual versus other rights, there is no higher value than freedom. Many people view this argument as fundamental to the "American way." Others simply declare he is a racist and would be done with it. I think there is a more fundamental issue here and it is one that infects a good deal of American politics.

The argument from democracy as individual freedom goes back to the nation's founders. Jefferson believed freedom was fundamental to a democracy, however, he recognized that freedom had to have an economic base configured to democracy's needs. For this reason he argued for a nation of small farmers, each having the land and associated resources to maintain his economic independence of other citizens. In contrast Hamilton, among others, saw no threat to democracy when employees were dependent upon a factory owner for their jobs.

However, freedom and society can be in conflict because in addition to freedom all societies generate power. Under conditions of absolute freedom that power will gravitate to the strongest individuals or groups who, in their own interests will destroy the freedom of others. This is the law of the jungle. A democracy is intended to distribute the power a society generates to all its members thus assuring that freedom is not lost to those who agglomerate power. This simple lesson, I believe is at the root of much of what is wrong, dysfunctional, and potentially destructive of our society.

In Rand Paul's case if people and institutions, except those of government, were free to discriminate the power available to discriminate would be at least equal to that of government. The majority of employees work in the private sector. Think about the implications of that one fact. Michael Lind has an excellent article on this matter at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/25/rand_paul_black_like_him. Lind recalls the book Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin that relates how Griffin, who had had his white skin darkened by a dermatologist, experienced the hostile racism that permeated the southern states. Griffin's experiences alone are enough to indicate the consequences of Paul's distinction between public and private sector racism.

This advocacy of radical individualism by Libertarians plays out in our own area also. The Murrieta Public Library as well as some others, offers as reading rewards at their summer reading programs for children, coupons from In 'N Out Burger for a free burger. The coupons are emblazoned with a burger, fries and a soda. I have repeatedly expressed my concern, in view of our rampant and increasingly dangerous childhood obesity epidemic. Every major political office from the President, to the Surgeon General, to the California Governor, and the Riverside County Health Officer has expressed their profound concern over what we are doing to children. In most of these cases they have launched programs to fight this trend. This generation of children is projected to be the first in 200 years to have a shorter average life span than the preceding generation. Adult onset diabetes usually first seen at age 45 to 55 is now being seen in children 14 to 16. Over the last 20 years childhood diabetes has increased 10 fold. I have presented this information to the city's Library Commission, to the Library Director and to the City Council. I have been told that it is not the Library's role to determine what the child eats; it is the child's parent. Put another way, the Library can offer coupons for food that is bad for the children, thereby becoming a shill for corporate marketing to the young, and it is up to the parent to stop them. That this is the environment in which this epidemic has occurred and has demonstrably failed escapes them. When children are threatened by commercial products, as in cases from defective cribs to cigarettes, we do not trust parents to protect their children; we pass laws enforced by government. This is exactly the same argument the Libertarians have used repeatedly and is, at root, the same as Rand Paul's racism, i.e. government has no right to tell free individuals in a democratic society what to do. Of course government does, of necessity, tell citizens what to do and often penalizes them if they don’t, e.g. our traffic laws. That an argument this transparently ludicrous should have power in this democracy bespeaks the low level of citizen education, awareness, concern, and, I believe, the power of the media. Why is it that people cannot see that a democratic society requires a strong government to keep the strong (think corporations), from preying on the rest of the citizenry. Is there a risk in a strong government? Of course there is if it is not held accountable by the people. But the people have to be adequately informed, willing to make government part of their lives and pass on a culture of responsible citizenship to their offspring. Without this they shall never be free. Without this they will be deceived pawns of the wealthy and the corporations they control. The pernicious practice of divorcing freedom from power so that power can prevail will inevitably destroy our democracy.

In the mouths of Libertarians "freedom" means power for the few. As recently made evident by the Tea Party rallies saturated with Libertarians, the Party has been a cover for racists, white militia, etc., all of whom prefer power to democracy. Unless capitalism is controlled by a responsible democratic government, it is nothing but a method for transferring power to the wealthy few. These people will trade this delusory notion of freedom for power any time for they know that power allows them great latitude to manipulate the ill defined , easily manipulated, and generally emotion-driven concept of freedom. Until the American public gets this through their heads we shall never have an effective democratic government. Until Progressives make this use of "freedom" clear to the public, they have failed in their presumed purpose.

Bob Newhard