The Politics of Freedom: A Closer Look
James Bovard, through the Mises Institute, has written an analysis of Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign and her interpretation of freedom. The campaign's official theme song is "Freedom" by Beyonce, but Bovard suggests that the Rolling Stones' "Under my Thumb" might be a more fitting choice. He argues that the freedom Harris advocates for is one that empowers the government, rather than private citizens.
The Bill of Rights: A Bulwark Against Government Oppression
Historically, the Bill of Rights served as a safeguard for citizens against government oppression. During the American Revolution, the popular sentiment was that the restraint of government equated to the true liberty and freedom of the people. However, Bovard suggests that Harris, along with her running mate Governor Tim Walz, are offering a different interpretation of freedom, one that seems to echo the sentiments of Yugoslavian communist dictator Tito: "The more powerful the State, the more freedom."
The Harris-Walz Definition of Freedom
Harris's concept of freedom appears to be based on the assumption that politicians must intervene to save humanity. She seeks to greatly expand government intervention in order to provide people with true freedom in their daily lives. This interpretation of freedom presumes that the government is inherently benevolent, unless you are a person who deserves punishment or overtaxing. However, the definition of who is "bad" can be expanded to include anyone who protests against being overtaxed, locked down, or silenced.
Harris and Walz's vision of freedom requires maximum government interference in daily life. They have called for a harsh crackdown on misinformation, including penalizing social media companies that fail to comply with Washington's demands. Walz asserts that there is no freedom of speech for "misinformation"—a vague term that could include any statement that is disapproved by the government. Bovard questions when politicians, who are among the most distrusted professionals in America, became entitled to define truth and to forcibly suppress and punish what they label as "misinformation".
Freedom According to the Harris-Walz Standard
Under the Harris-Walz standard, Americans will only have the freedom to say things that the government approves. Walz has endorsed a 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld the imprisonment of anyone who criticized military conscription during World War One. The Biden administration has been criticized by federal judges for suppressing millions of comments and jokes by Americans about Covid mandates and shutdowns. However, according to liberals, this wasn't censorship because only conservatives complained about pandemic policies. Plus, Dr. Fauci is still revered.
The Freedom to Work and Afford Rent
Mindy Kaling, an actress and emcee for the third night of the Democratic National Convention, mentioned "the freedom to work one job and afford your rent." The Biden administration has suggested proposals for nationwide rent control, and Harris is advocating proposals to prevent "price gouging." To achieve true freedom, bureaucrats would need to have veto power over any contract dealing with housing or food. And when federal price controls lead to devastating shortages, this would simply prove that politicians need even more power over daily life.
Freedom from Extremism
At the Democratic National Convention, a Harris campaign video pledged that she would deliver "freedom from extremism." But this would give politicians a blank check to suppress any ideas they disapprove of. Newsweek reported last year that the FBI created a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump's army of MAGA followers. Allowing politicians to define extremism is to let them preemptively vilify their most dangerous critics.
Freedom from Fear
"Freedom from fear" is another promise from the Harris-Walz campaign. Pledging "freedom from fear" allows politicians to seize power over anything that scares anyone. Those who raise concerns about excessive government power will be guilty of undermining freedom from fear. Giving politicians more power based on people's fears is like giving firefighters pay raises based on how many false alarms are reported.
Freedom to be Safe from Gun Violence
Harris promises the "freedom to be safe from gun violence." She has previously supported banning private ownership of pistols, warrantless searches of people's homes to inspect their firearms, and confiscating the most popular rifle in America. Freedom from fear of guns will justify politicians confiscating any firearm that scares any liberal in the country. Disarming Americans will leave them completely dependent on the same politicians who lied to confiscate their guns in the first place.
Freedom for Children to Go to School Without Worry
Walz declared that he and Kamala were committed to safeguarding "the freedom for children to go to school without worrying if they'll be shot in the halls." But what about children's freedom not to be forcibly injected with experimental vaccines? Liberal Democratic governors in California and New York have pushed hard to make Covid vaccines mandatory for school kids. California is also safeguarding the "freedom" to secretly assist kids in changing their gender, while keeping the treatment secret from parents.
The Fundamental Freedom of a Woman
Harris champions "the fundamental freedom of a woman to be able to make decisions about her own body." However, many nurses were fired for refusing to get the Covid vaccine that Biden mandated for all healthcare workers. Biden sought to force tens of millions to get those injections despite their dismal failure to prevent Covid infections or transmission. The Supreme Court blocked Biden's mandate for private employees but allowed it for healthcare workers. This court decision did not prevent liberal governors and mayors from imposing vaccine passport restrictions that effectively sought to banish the unvaccinated from society.
The Freedom to Breathe Clean Air and Drink Clean Water
Harris pledges to give Americans "the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis." Since the 1970s, federal legislation has significantly reduced pollution of air and water. However, it's unclear how Harris would define this new "freedom." Would it be based on parts per billion or parts per trillion of contaminants? To meet Harris's vague standards, federal regulators would be entitled to ban gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves. Harris would also empower bureaucrats to impose endless restrictions on development to satisfy the latest green trend.
The Harris-Walz Freedom: A Circus Shell Game
Bovard argues that the Harris-Walz interpretation of freedom is a circus shell game in which constitutional restraints disappear and politicians always win. Once politicians invoke the new freedoms to extend their power, it doesn't matter whether they deliver the benefits they promise. Citizens will be left silenced and disarmed and at the mercy of the government.
The campaign video pledged that Harris would give Americans "freedom from control." A more honest Harris-Walz campaign slogan might be: "For your own good." Or perhaps they could promise Americans the "freedom to be what the government approves"? Maybe the Harris-Walz art team could create an icon portraying an iron fist as the new, improved symbol of freedom, with a smiley face atop the fist to align with the Harris "joy" and "positive vibes" campaign theme.
Redefining boundless arbitrary power as freedom is the death knell for government under the law. The Harris-Walz delusions on freedom stem in part from the Democratic Party's perverse notion of the proper role of government. The perverse redefinition of freedom parallels the attempt to portray politicians as literal saviors. At the Democratic National Convention, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham hailed Harris: "We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug."
Bottom Line
Instead of placing blind trust in Harris and Walz, Americans should heed Thomas Jefferson's 1798 warning: "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Those constitutional chains will come in handy no matter who wins the election next month.
Is there as much confusion in America about the meaning of freedom as there is about the benefits of tariffs? For almost half a century, prevailing opinion in this nation recognized the folly of allowing politicians to recklessly blockade our own ports with heavy taxes on imports. But both parties are now portraying tariffs as economic magic wands.
Similarly, Americans for generations have recognized the danger of unleashing politicians and allowing government officials to intrude into their lives wantonly. The Supreme Court declared in 1934, "A general, roving... investigation, conducted by a commission without any allegations... is unknown to our Constitution and laws; and such an inquisition would be destructive of the rights of the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny." But this is practically the recipe for Harris-Walz freedom as well as some of Donald Trump's interventionist schemes. Regardless of the election outcome, Americans must beware of Trojan horse definitions of freedom that allow bureaucrats to emerge and take over everyone's lives.
What are your thoughts on this analysis? Do you agree with the points raised? Share this article with your friends and start a conversation about the politics of freedom. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
The Politics of Freedom: A Closer Look
James Bovard, through the Mises Institute, has written an analysis of Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign and her interpretation of freedom. The campaign's official theme song is "Freedom" by Beyonce, but Bovard suggests that the Rolling Stones' "Under my Thumb" might be a more fitting choice. He argues that the freedom Harris advocates for is one that empowers the government, rather than private citizens.
The Bill of Rights: A Bulwark Against Government Oppression
Historically, the Bill of Rights served as a safeguard for citizens against government oppression. During the American Revolution, the popular sentiment was that the restraint of government equated to the true liberty and freedom of the people. However, Bovard suggests that Harris, along with her running mate Governor Tim Walz, are offering a different interpretation of freedom, one that seems to echo the sentiments of Yugoslavian communist dictator Tito: "The more powerful the State, the more freedom."
The Harris-Walz Definition of Freedom
Harris's concept of freedom appears to be based on the assumption that politicians must intervene to save humanity. She seeks to greatly expand government intervention in order to provide people with true freedom in their daily lives. This interpretation of freedom presumes that the government is inherently benevolent, unless you are a person who deserves punishment or overtaxing. However, the definition of who is "bad" can be expanded to include anyone who protests against being overtaxed, locked down, or silenced.
Harris and Walz's vision of freedom requires maximum government interference in daily life. They have called for a harsh crackdown on misinformation, including penalizing social media companies that fail to comply with Washington's demands. Walz asserts that there is no freedom of speech for "misinformation"—a vague term that could include any statement that is disapproved by the government. Bovard questions when politicians, who are among the most distrusted professionals in America, became entitled to define truth and to forcibly suppress and punish what they label as "misinformation".
Freedom According to the Harris-Walz Standard
Under the Harris-Walz standard, Americans will only have the freedom to say things that the government approves. Walz has endorsed a 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld the imprisonment of anyone who criticized military conscription during World War One. The Biden administration has been criticized by federal judges for suppressing millions of comments and jokes by Americans about Covid mandates and shutdowns. However, according to liberals, this wasn't censorship because only conservatives complained about pandemic policies. Plus, Dr. Fauci is still revered.
The Freedom to Work and Afford Rent
Mindy Kaling, an actress and emcee for the third night of the Democratic National Convention, mentioned "the freedom to work one job and afford your rent." The Biden administration has suggested proposals for nationwide rent control, and Harris is advocating proposals to prevent "price gouging." To achieve true freedom, bureaucrats would need to have veto power over any contract dealing with housing or food. And when federal price controls lead to devastating shortages, this would simply prove that politicians need even more power over daily life.
Freedom from Extremism
At the Democratic National Convention, a Harris campaign video pledged that she would deliver "freedom from extremism." But this would give politicians a blank check to suppress any ideas they disapprove of. Newsweek reported last year that the FBI created a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump's army of MAGA followers. Allowing politicians to define extremism is to let them preemptively vilify their most dangerous critics.
Freedom from Fear
"Freedom from fear" is another promise from the Harris-Walz campaign. Pledging "freedom from fear" allows politicians to seize power over anything that scares anyone. Those who raise concerns about excessive government power will be guilty of undermining freedom from fear. Giving politicians more power based on people's fears is like giving firefighters pay raises based on how many false alarms are reported.
Freedom to be Safe from Gun Violence
Harris promises the "freedom to be safe from gun violence." She has previously supported banning private ownership of pistols, warrantless searches of people's homes to inspect their firearms, and confiscating the most popular rifle in America. Freedom from fear of guns will justify politicians confiscating any firearm that scares any liberal in the country. Disarming Americans will leave them completely dependent on the same politicians who lied to confiscate their guns in the first place.
Freedom for Children to Go to School Without Worry
Walz declared that he and Kamala were committed to safeguarding "the freedom for children to go to school without worrying if they'll be shot in the halls." But what about children's freedom not to be forcibly injected with experimental vaccines? Liberal Democratic governors in California and New York have pushed hard to make Covid vaccines mandatory for school kids. California is also safeguarding the "freedom" to secretly assist kids in changing their gender, while keeping the treatment secret from parents.
The Fundamental Freedom of a Woman
Harris champions "the fundamental freedom of a woman to be able to make decisions about her own body." However, many nurses were fired for refusing to get the Covid vaccine that Biden mandated for all healthcare workers. Biden sought to force tens of millions to get those injections despite their dismal failure to prevent Covid infections or transmission. The Supreme Court blocked Biden's mandate for private employees but allowed it for healthcare workers. This court decision did not prevent liberal governors and mayors from imposing vaccine passport restrictions that effectively sought to banish the unvaccinated from society.
The Freedom to Breathe Clean Air and Drink Clean Water
Harris pledges to give Americans "the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis." Since the 1970s, federal legislation has significantly reduced pollution of air and water. However, it's unclear how Harris would define this new "freedom." Would it be based on parts per billion or parts per trillion of contaminants? To meet Harris's vague standards, federal regulators would be entitled to ban gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves. Harris would also empower bureaucrats to impose endless restrictions on development to satisfy the latest green trend.
The Harris-Walz Freedom: A Circus Shell Game
Bovard argues that the Harris-Walz interpretation of freedom is a circus shell game in which constitutional restraints disappear and politicians always win. Once politicians invoke the new freedoms to extend their power, it doesn't matter whether they deliver the benefits they promise. Citizens will be left silenced and disarmed and at the mercy of the government.
The campaign video pledged that Harris would give Americans "freedom from control." A more honest Harris-Walz campaign slogan might be: "For your own good." Or perhaps they could promise Americans the "freedom to be what the government approves"? Maybe the Harris-Walz art team could create an icon portraying an iron fist as the new, improved symbol of freedom, with a smiley face atop the fist to align with the Harris "joy" and "positive vibes" campaign theme.
Redefining boundless arbitrary power as freedom is the death knell for government under the law. The Harris-Walz delusions on freedom stem in part from the Democratic Party's perverse notion of the proper role of government. The perverse redefinition of freedom parallels the attempt to portray politicians as literal saviors. At the Democratic National Convention, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham hailed Harris: "We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug."
Bottom Line
Instead of placing blind trust in Harris and Walz, Americans should heed Thomas Jefferson's 1798 warning: "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Those constitutional chains will come in handy no matter who wins the election next month.
Is there as much confusion in America about the meaning of freedom as there is about the benefits of tariffs? For almost half a century, prevailing opinion in this nation recognized the folly of allowing politicians to recklessly blockade our own ports with heavy taxes on imports. But both parties are now portraying tariffs as economic magic wands.
Similarly, Americans for generations have recognized the danger of unleashing politicians and allowing government officials to intrude into their lives wantonly. The Supreme Court declared in 1934, "A general, roving... investigation, conducted by a commission without any allegations... is unknown to our Constitution and laws; and such an inquisition would be destructive of the rights of the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny." But this is practically the recipe for Harris-Walz freedom as well as some of Donald Trump's interventionist schemes. Regardless of the election outcome, Americans must beware of Trojan horse definitions of freedom that allow bureaucrats to emerge and take over everyone's lives.
What are your thoughts on this analysis? Do you agree with the points raised? Share this article with your friends and start a conversation about the politics of freedom. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
