"Freedom"

"Chomsky shows us how phrases like "free speech", the "free market", and the "free world" have little, if anything, to do with freedom. He shows us that, among the myriad freedoms claimed by the U.S. government are the freedom to murder, annihilate, and dominate other people. The freedom to finance and sponsor despots and dictators across the world. The freedom to train, arm, and shelter terrorists. The freedom to topple democratically elected governments. The freedom to amass and use weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological, and nuclear. The freedom to go to war against any country whose government it disagrees with. And, most terrible of all, the freedom to commit these crimes against humanity in the name of "justice", in the name of "righteousness", in the name of "freedom"." - Arundhati Roy

I posted this quote because I've been thinking a lot about the word 'freedom' ever since Germany. I had a couple of good conversations with my flatmate about the way the government and media in the United States can use words with positive connotations, such as freedom, democracy, and justice, as justification for basically anything. I had never really thought in-depth about how ludicrous it is to use those types of words to describe acts of war. Over the past nine years, we've seen the "leader of the free world" engage in acts such as Operation Enduring Freedom (originally named Operation Infinite Justice) and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Where exactly does freedom come into these operations? One could argue, as the United States does, that the mission is to secure freedom and democracy where it doesn't exist, but it is freedom if a foreign power stages an invasion and asserts control, and if so, for whom? If we support the idea of a free market and Iraq just so happens to have oil, what kind of freedom are we actually seeking?

I think the term has become a deceptively nasty way to mask the horrors of war. When American citizens are constantly reminded to support the troops who are "fighting for your freedom," it becomes much easier to justify unilateral military action, invasions, civilian deaths, weapons of mass destruction, and the deaths of the poor soldiers themselves. First, the government convinces us that we want this vague ideal of freedom; then, it convinces us that the best way to achieve it is by waging war against our enemies abroad and against our civil liberties at home. It just astounds me how Americans can accept legislation like the PATRIOT Act or show support for racial profiling in the name of freedom, even though they both directly infringe upon our constitutional rights. The government's motive for using those kinds of terms is obvious, of course - it's so much easier to drum up support for ANY policy as long as the voting public believes it is just, free, and American. The part I can't believe is how incredibly detached we have become from the true meanings of the words we throw around. It is completely commonplace to see people protest gay marriage, abortion rights, and the idea of a Muslim president while simultaneously supporting the Iraq War, the use of corporate money in elections, and Arizona's draconian anti-immigrant laws, all in the name of freedom. That kind of "freedom" means nothing to me, and my conversations with my flatmate showed me how it often means nothing to the rest of the world either.

The mere fact that I can write this demonstrates some degree of real freedom, of course. My phone is probably not going to get wiretapped and I highly doubt I'll ever be brought in for questioning by the authorities. What's more likely, though, is that some people will accuse me of being "un-American" or that this blog will be used against me by an opponent if I ever run for office. Maybe that's the part that baffles me the most. If freedom is our country's ultimate ideal and the only thing I'm trying to do is promote REAL freedom, then why do people with similar views as me get vilified in the news or denounced as radicals? What's radical about protesting the government and media's misuse of a term that could mean so much, but has come to mean so little? I view dissent and debate as absolutely crucial in any effective civil society, and I think we come closer to true freedom when no one's views immediately get marked as anti-freedom or "anti-American." That phrase means even less to me than freedom does (although I suppose it means something to people like Rand Paul or Bill O'Reilly). There is nothing inherently American about the overarching concept of freedom, and I think the commonly accepted American version actually damages what the word is supposed to mean.

As a debater, I've encountered many cases about free speech and other civil liberties. One argument in particular often comes up, saying that no matter how vile, repulsive, or ridiculous a citizen's views might be, he or she should have a near-absolute legal right to express them. This allows people to march with the KKK or join the Westboro Baptist Church or believe that gay marriage is immoral. I agree with this argument completely, but not because I think the KKK has any worthy ideas. I agree because I think that dissent and debate will reveal and eventually eliminate the worst ideas and beliefs in society. Government doesn't need to intervene and it shouldn't have the right to do so. Blind acceptance of the word freedom or unfounded criticism of different political beliefs makes it easy to ridicule dissenters without actually thinking about what they have to say. This keeps bad ideas in circulation while preventing new ideas, whether good or bad, from entering the competition at all. That, I think, is dangerous for any society that gains its power from the people and their convictions.

All I want is for American citizens to truly think about the actions of our government without using the labels that have been pre-determined for us, making it possible to determine the validity of ideas, policies, and goals from a more neutral standpoint. This would, of course, be near-impossible with the strength of the mass media and our appetite for information. We certainly have to learn about policies somewhere, and nearly any source is going to have some degree of bias. I think we would at least be better off if we began to question the word freedom, which we hear so often without really hearing at all. Once we do that, I think we might come closer to recovering its true meaning, making it worthy of not only our respect, but the respect of the rest of the world.