In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Thomas Frank chides progressives for allowing the free-market Right to monopolize the word ‘freedom.’  Frank gamely proposes that ‘freedom’ should be our theme.  To reclaim it, we must stand with those who have encouraged our nation to embrace a wider vision of freedom.

The free-market Right was well-represented at the teabaggers’ gathering in Washington. They made a point of equating ‘freedom’ with the ‘absence of government.’ They say our reform proposals will lead the country down a path toward higher taxes, bigger government and less freedom. This equation suggests that freedom means big banks and corporations can do whatever they want to our economy and environment.  And soon the Supreme Court may say they can buy our elections, too. It all fits within free-market notions of freedom.

As Frank points out in his column, it is galling to hear free marketeers appeal to populist anger about the bailouts, given their complicity in Wall Street’s recklessness:  “Many of the most destructive and even corrupt policies of the past few decades were engineered by exactly the sort of people who claim to be motivated by freedom and liberty.”

The Right represents a strand in American politics that has existed since the Revolution: the notion that freedom means being left alone to fend for oneself. This conception of freedom, which is tied to go-it-alone individualism, does not recognize the social basis of individual fulfillment. Another conception of freedom, linked to the idea of a common purpose, in which the development of the self is linked with the development of the good society, also has existed since before the Revolution. It is best expressed by Tom Paine, who said: “The public good is not a term opposed to the good of individuals; on the contrary, it is the good of every individual collected.”

Here are some examples of a more progressive take on 'freedom':

A Revolutionary Vision of Freedom. For many of the revolutionaries, liberty and freedom were linked to the notion of a commonwealth that recognizes the worth and value of all human beings. The new nation they fought for was meant to be ‘by, of and for the people.’ Many, like Paine, believed in government’s responsibility both to rein in the tyrants and enshrine the rights of all. Needless to say, the young United States fell short of the mark. But this idea of freedom has been tested, contested, stretched and enlarged by numerous peoples’ struggles.

FDR and The Four Freedoms. In recognition that freedom and democracy are living, evolving things, FDR embraced change as a dynamic feature of American life.  In his January 1941 address to Congress, the President described four universal freedoms: 1) Freedom of speech and expression; 2) freedom to worship in one’s own way; 3) freedom from want and 4) freedom from fear. ‘Freedom from want,’ which suggests government action, hopefully in cooperation with business, was enthusiastically embraced by all but the radical Right, and immortalized in a Norman Rockwell print.

Three years later, Roosevelt called for a 'second bill of rights' which tied freedom to economic justice: 'True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence."

The Civil Rights Vision of Freedom. The civil rights movement called into question our nation’s commitment to freedom, and whether freedom can exist without racial and social equality. America's claim to be 'freedom-loving' rang hollow in the ears of those who lived with economic and social discrimination. In Black Visions, Michael Dawson argues that black liberal activists who believed in the promise of freedom had to convince African Americans that their aspirations for freedom and equality were achievable in America. This was difficult, given the African American experience. At the same time, they had an even more difficult task of convincing white Americans that “Only by embracing the widest vision of freedom and equality could America both fulfill its obligation to its black citizens and, by doing so, redeem itself.” Questions about our commitments to freedom and equality still linger today, especially as free market fundamentalists make common cause with birthers and others who call the first African American President a ‘squatter’ or a ‘witch-doctor.’

When taken to its logical conclusion, the Right’s narrow conception of freedom means the absence of democratic mechanisms by which we, the people can participate in running and renewing our society. In particular, it constrains any kind of economic democracy, and denies that corporations and finanicial institutions are accountable to the public for their actions. Over the past thirty years, market fundamentalism has led both to the gutting of vital social programs and the failure of government to regulate Wall Street.

As Duke Ellington observed, "The word ‘freedom’ is used for many purposes. It is sometimes even used in the interest of ‘freedom.’ (from Ellington's Sacred Concert).

--Sandra Hinson