Freedom is more than just Speech and Religion - but there's not that much left!

Freedom is one of those words that we use a lot in this country. It’s one of those words that many use assuming that we’re all talking about the same thing, when in reality we are probably not. Many people will argue that one of the great strengths of America is the Freedom of her people. That is about as far as the consensus goes however.

As a touchstone, here is how Webster’s Dictionary defines Freedom:

The quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous

On the most basic level Freedom fundamentally means the ability to do something or a variety of things unrestrained by external forces. (While we may be restrained by internal forces from doing something, the necessity of exercising that restraint suggests we have the freedom to do otherwise.)

If one were to ask Americans today whether or not if they are free, i.e. if they have freedom, most would likely say yes. They might suggest they have Freedom of Speech which allows them to say almost anything they want. Absent most college campuses this is largely true. They might suggest that they enjoy a Freedom of Religion and can worship whatever god they choose or choose not to worship at all. This too is for the most part true. Unfortunately, however, if one were to dig just below the surface of Speech and Religion things become murky quite rapidly.

Fundamental to the founding of this country and enshrined in the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is the notion that the rights of the people are boundless: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Basically, while the freedoms of Speech, Religion, Press etc. are explicitly stated, the people have many more and the absence of their explicit inclusion in the Constitution does not mean they don’t exist.

Why does any of this matter? Because many of those other freedoms are being diminished each day slowly but surely.

How? It’s not as blatant as Congress or state legislatures passing a law that says “Americans no longer have a right to do XXX”. That might spark a rebellion. No, it’s far more subtle, but the result is the same. And the tool with which government slowly takes your freedom? Regulation. Make no mistake about it, regulation means control. And their control means less freedom for you. Of course the regulations themselves rarely highlight the freedoms they are diminishing. A perfect example is the 822 page 2007 Energy Bill signed into law by President Bush. The legislation doesn’t explicitly outlaw regular incandescent light bulbs, but it sets energy requirements such that for all intents and purposes they are outlawed by 2014. You might say, what freedom is being limited there? Well, for one your willingness to pay $.50 for a light bulb rather than $2.00. A manufacturer’s freedom to continue to use their current facilities to manufacture incandescent light bulbs (and ideally return profits to shareholders) verses having to invest tens of millions of dollars in R&D and building new facilities for the new bulbs, resulting of course in reduced dividends to shareholders.

Light bulbs… how often do you buy one? Not too often, and in the big picture it’s not that much of an expense. True enough, but unfortunately light bulbs represent but one tiny filament in the regulatory straitjacket Americans find themselves wrapped in. Mileage standards for cars. Ethanol regulations. Minimum wage laws. Happy Meal bans. License requirement in Texas for the right to call oneself an Interior Designer. The 1099 requirements in ObamaCare. ADA. McCain Feingold. Forced unionism.

Individually any one of these laws might be tolerable. The problem however is that they do not operate individually. They all operate simultaneously. Layer upon layer. What’s worse, each of these regulations has a bureaucracy behind them who’s main purpose in life is to grow its power and serve its constituency. The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners exists to serve the Texas chapter of the American Society of Interior Designers. The Ethanol bureaucracy (Departments of Energy & Agriculture) serve the desires of the environmentalists and farmers. San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors was serving the “We know better what’s good for your kids than you do” cabal when they passed the Happy Meal ban.

The problem is that there is a degree of separation between many of the industries and the citizens themselves. The EPA would be loathe to pass a regulation that says “We are going to force Americans to pay $100 billion more for electricity over the next six years.” They did however issue C02 regulations that will have just that impact, only the regulations focus on industry. This way, when the public sees their bills rise the utility companies get to feel their wrath… not the regulators. Perhaps the energy companies can tell the public why their energy bills are increasing? Not likely. When insurance companies tried to do just that with ObamaCare the administration thugs threatened their very livelihoods.

If freedom means anything, it means more than just being able to say what’s on your mind and attend church of your choice. How often are any of us called on to stand on a soapbox with an

impassioned plea in support of some divisive issue? How often are we forced to defend our worship of God in whatever form we think he takes? How often are newspapers threatened by censorship? Not so often. On the other hand there are myriad things we do each day where our freedoms are impacted by a plethora of regulations, from who can sell us lemonade to what we can earn to the cost of both our car and it’s gasoline to what our kids learn in school. More regulation means less freedom.

The fight against overregulation will be neither easy nor short but the first step in taking on that battle is understanding what’s really at stake. Regulation means control – control means fewer choices – fewer choices mean less freedom in our lives. Today it’s just the Happy Meals in San Francisco. Before long McDonalds and the rest of the obesity inducing profiteers will be put out of business and we will all be eating tofu burgers garnished with organic tomatoes on pita bread. Yummy!

Christine O'Donnell - Senator or martyr for the cause...

Tuesday’s selection of Christine O’Donnell as the GOP nominee in Delaware has brought to a boil the debate that has been simmering in the Republican Party for years. The front lines of that fight played themselves out in front of cameras throughout the week. The first shot came from Karl Rove on Tuesday night when he savaged her on Sean Hannity. While Rove said that he was supporting the Republican, he made it crystal clear that he thought she was unelectable and that Delawareans had made a huge mistake. The other side of the argument was delivered by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. In responding to criticism that his support of O’Donnell essentially stripped the GOP of the opportunity of picking up Delaware and potentially gaining a majority in the Senate, DeMint said: “I don’t want the majority back if we don’t believe anything” and “I’d rather lose fighting for the right cause than win fighting for the wrong cause.” The lines have been drawn… just in time for the American people to make a decision.

It might seem counter-intuitive, but what Rove and DeMint are seeking to do is the same thing… compile a governing majority. Where they differ however is how they want to govern. For Rove the goal is to have a majority that is part of the squishy middle whereas DeMint wants a majority that is clearly conservative. Rove and many of the GOP establishment are happy to maintain the squishy / big government policies that were part of the Bush administration. Amnesty, prescription drug programs, steel tariffs, billions for AIDS research in Africa, etc. While Barack Obama may have perfected the big government model, George Bush was no stranger to its design and Karl Rove was right there with him the whole way. Jim DeMint on the other hand, along with the tea party movement, is largely focused on small government, lowering taxes and securing the borders. Jim DeMint states point blank that he doesn’t want a governing majority simply for the sake of getting cushier offices and new letterhead. Rather, he would rather stay in the minority fielding a team upon whom the GOP can count to support basic conservative principles than field a winning team full of RINOs.

His reasoning is simple: It’s better to have players on your team who you can count on than to have a roster full of players about whose support you are dubious. There is a battle royale taking place for the heart of the American people. In any battle a general wants to focus his attention on the objectives ahead rather than have to spend his time plugging leaks in his foundation. In this battle, Jim DeMint wants the American people to have a clear choice. He wants the Republican brand to stand for something specific, something conservative. He is making the case that Americans, when given a clear choice between the progressive agenda the Democrats have foisted upon them and a conservative agenda that focuses on smaller government and lower taxes, will choose the latter. That clarity of message is imperiled when people running under the Republican banner don’t adhere to its most basic tenants.

When the established GOP puts forward candidates like Mike Castle who do not understand the fundamental difference between Democrats or Republicans, it’s easy to see how the electorate might be confused and think there’s not much difference at all – see Dede Scozzafava or Arlen Specter. Every time a RINO votes for bigger government or higher taxes, the public gets confused as to who stands for what. A perfect example of this is Olympia Snowe’s vote for ObamaCare in the Senate Finance Committee. Her vote allowed Robert Gibbs to claim that ObamaCare had bipartisan support. When a politician’s votes or positions demonstrate that either an R or a D by their name would fit equally well, then the letters have ceased to have any meaning at all and as a result voters feel like they have no real choices.

That is what Jim DeMint is trying to avoid. He understands that the only option in this battle for the soul of the country is to give voters a clear choice. Having once voted for the disastrous mirage of “Hope and Change” most Americans are looking for candidates who will give them sensible ideas about how to solve our economic malaise. Christine O’Donnell is clearly not a perfect candidate, but then church is where one goes to find perfection, not the ballot box. She is however a conservative who promises to man the ramparts against higher taxes and the metastasizing cancer of government intervention and regulation. Delawareans may indeed choose to send to Washington a tax and spend big government progressive like Chris Coons, but by nominating Christine O’Donnell the tea party has forced the Republicans to strengthen the foundation of the message they will carry into the 2012 elections. She may end up being a martyr for the cause, but if in the process she helps save the country from the progressive contagion that is rapidly eviscerating our freedom and prosperity, I’m guessing that is a sacrifice she is more than willing to make.