As a nerdy teenager I wasn't even made aware of this self-aggrandizing personal freedom thinking until 9-11. Certainly some anger was justified, but the way "freedom" was depicted and defined in American, mostly white, culture I took in jest: big trucks, gaudy displays of the flag, and silly displays of ultra-masculinity. During the Obama years it seemed like this type of thinking became even more a caricature of itself. It was difficult to tell whether tea partiers were serious as their commitment to self-destruction almost seemed like a parody. As the 2000's wore on, I moved to other parts of the country, and read more to discover this wasn't new, and these people were deadly serious as evidenced by the ever more insane gun-culture that exploded in recent decades.
We're witnessing the self-destruction of this idea and the physical damage that was often overlooked or hidden is now in plain view. Not only do adherents to this conception of freedom ("freedumb" if you will) want others to suffer, they view it as their right to inflict it upon them.
"Ownership - of a home and/or land, guns, a business - is foundational, because in this conception, it speaks to ownership of the self, to true autonomy."
This quote provided an insight. As a lifetime renter there's a cult of home-ownership I've never understood; people rushing to buy a house as far as they can, neighbor's acting haughty declaring themselves "homeowners", or derogatorily referring to me as a renter. Certainly there are benefits to owning property and a house, but it certainly doesn't make anyone more right because they've bitten into 30 years of debt.
There's been a tendency over the last few decades to try to make McCarthyism rock, so to speak. That's where all the big trucks and such come from. I can't stand it, because it gives that conception of freedom a bad name.
Great read, as always. It reminds me of the visceral reaction on the right to "It Takes a Village". Their concept of "freedom" is so deeply, deeply flawed and fundamentally based on an archaic idea of the state of nature: nuclear families fighting the war of all against all to protect their smallholdings.
This is a lot of false conflation and ignores an awful lot of facts, I will just use some of the examples you threw up:
"Close my businesses in the service of public health?"- This is not that simple and businesses have legitimate grievances with how this was implemented. You can easily justify a waiting time and doing, in this example, a waiting time for service so as not to violate the social distancing rule. Mandate that people wear masks and that cleaning will take place after that person has left your place of business. No one in govt really pushed honest, sensible solutions and instead most just closed down everything that they deemed "non-essential." Not understanding the reasonable side of this argument undercuts your general theme.
"Storm the Michigan capitol, bristling with guns."- When you use descriptive words like "storm" you are implying they forced their way in. I am not a fan of protesting like this and think open carry, unless you are going hunting or to the range, is counter-productive, but many states also do not allow concealed, so I can at time understand it. However, none of what they did comes close to the use of "storm" and they had a peaceful, although obnoxious in my view, demonstration. Not putting this into context and using descriptors like "storm" undercut your theme.
"Hang the governor of Kentucky in effigy."- This is as old as the country, as you point out, not sure why this is also only seen as an issue of what I am presuming you view as a "right leaning" movement in terms of your ideas of the freedom issues you write about. I am relatively sure that many of the anarchists and many of the other normal protestors also do this, but it usually involves the POTUS, a SECDEF or perhaps the American Flag. This is just not a good example to use to support the basic premises of your point of view.
"Protest on my street? I’ll come out of my house, armed to the teeth and barefoot, to threaten you. "- Yeah, they broke the gate onto a private street, there were a lot of people and the protests in that same city had turned into riots with police being shot as well as business owners having their lively hoods destroyed. This all happened just prior to this incident. I think if I saw a bunch of people who were forcing their way past a gate to a private street and was keeping up on the local news I would have had similar concerns. There is even video of one of the protestors saying they were not there, on the way to the Mayors house, to be peaceful.
"Make me wear a mask?"- Totally reasonable request and people should put the needs of the whole over their individual needs. At the same time the medical community was giving conflicting information and many, many State and National leaders were making terrible and arbitrary decisions that not only had effects on their personal life, but on their lively hood as well. Add in that the media was sounding more and more like cheerleader during this and people lose faith in the information they get. The worst part was that so many Governors really did act without any kind of thought as to the long term impact of what their choices would have.
Stop looking at these people as just a bunch of knuckleheads who you just don't think are enlightened enough. They have businesses or jobs that they may have been laid off and most of this could have been avoided with adjustments as to times people go into work, distancing, masks, etc....but instead leaders and the media cheers on lock downs. When you add in the complete loss of faith most people have in those leaders, the media and unfortunately medical experts as well then you are not going to reach them by talking down to them Pat. There are legitimate concerns and it is not tied to race or region. It is tied to the individual and how this lack of leadership, narrative pushing and failure by people like yourself to see anything outside of your own bubble has an effect on their lives.
The most salient point I take from your judgement of right wing talking points is “Rights are for me and rules are for you.” The current group think of American conservatism needs to be rooted out and destroyed so that a legitimate discussion can take place between the American left and a reformed American right.
This has to be the most ironic comment I have seen on here. I think you might want to pay attention to the news a bit more, especially where it concerns the ideas of masks and physical distancing oneself from others. I mean, sure the protests and the riots are ok, but everything else is not? Come now, you would have to living under a rock not to see this irony, but as I often see with the left, especially the elite left, it is "Rights for me and rules are for you."
Masks-wearing is obvious low-hanging fruit as it costs almost nothing by any measure. But I don't know that such attitudes are limited to those you describe. Others just use a more sophisticated tool: the law. Is much zoning law not a case of "rights for me, rules for you"? In our town, zoning was put in place that made about 40% of EXISTING properties non-conforming, making it impossible for one to build a new property even if it would have been in keeping with existing norms. Or perhaps a more simple example -- some towns prohibit hanging laundry outside, which is fine for those who have clothes dryers, less fine for others. I could go on, but you get the idea. I think when rules are created that unnecessarily impose on freedoms, it can make people cynical and foster an attitude that all restrictions are no more than the powerful imposing their sensibilities on others.
"superficially autonomous life" -- yeah, these bozos imagine they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, built their entire lives without help ,and are completely autonomous of, say, those darn immigrant workers who pick all the produce they eat.
In a complex society, doing your part--doing what's asked of you--is supposed to earn you a status of full standing that stands in, so to speak, for true self-sufficiency; money enables this indirect self-sufficiency, which is where the preoccupation with finances and the MY TAX MONEY complaint about government programs comes from. The question of whether others are being done right by seldom comes up--out of sight, out of mind, I guess.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages." It's the same attitude seen against the progressive movement, the civil rights movement, every attempt to extend rights to more of humanity. They're the Volk; they deserve everything good because they're Good People, and the rest of us can beg for scraps or try to join the Volk.
Thanks for this.
As a nerdy teenager I wasn't even made aware of this self-aggrandizing personal freedom thinking until 9-11. Certainly some anger was justified, but the way "freedom" was depicted and defined in American, mostly white, culture I took in jest: big trucks, gaudy displays of the flag, and silly displays of ultra-masculinity. During the Obama years it seemed like this type of thinking became even more a caricature of itself. It was difficult to tell whether tea partiers were serious as their commitment to self-destruction almost seemed like a parody. As the 2000's wore on, I moved to other parts of the country, and read more to discover this wasn't new, and these people were deadly serious as evidenced by the ever more insane gun-culture that exploded in recent decades.
We're witnessing the self-destruction of this idea and the physical damage that was often overlooked or hidden is now in plain view. Not only do adherents to this conception of freedom ("freedumb" if you will) want others to suffer, they view it as their right to inflict it upon them.
"Ownership - of a home and/or land, guns, a business - is foundational, because in this conception, it speaks to ownership of the self, to true autonomy."
This quote provided an insight. As a lifetime renter there's a cult of home-ownership I've never understood; people rushing to buy a house as far as they can, neighbor's acting haughty declaring themselves "homeowners", or derogatorily referring to me as a renter. Certainly there are benefits to owning property and a house, but it certainly doesn't make anyone more right because they've bitten into 30 years of debt.
There's been a tendency over the last few decades to try to make McCarthyism rock, so to speak. That's where all the big trucks and such come from. I can't stand it, because it gives that conception of freedom a bad name.
Just wait until these people hear about restaurants with "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policies...
Great read, as always. It reminds me of the visceral reaction on the right to "It Takes a Village". Their concept of "freedom" is so deeply, deeply flawed and fundamentally based on an archaic idea of the state of nature: nuclear families fighting the war of all against all to protect their smallholdings.
This is a lot of false conflation and ignores an awful lot of facts, I will just use some of the examples you threw up:
"Close my businesses in the service of public health?"- This is not that simple and businesses have legitimate grievances with how this was implemented. You can easily justify a waiting time and doing, in this example, a waiting time for service so as not to violate the social distancing rule. Mandate that people wear masks and that cleaning will take place after that person has left your place of business. No one in govt really pushed honest, sensible solutions and instead most just closed down everything that they deemed "non-essential." Not understanding the reasonable side of this argument undercuts your general theme.
"Storm the Michigan capitol, bristling with guns."- When you use descriptive words like "storm" you are implying they forced their way in. I am not a fan of protesting like this and think open carry, unless you are going hunting or to the range, is counter-productive, but many states also do not allow concealed, so I can at time understand it. However, none of what they did comes close to the use of "storm" and they had a peaceful, although obnoxious in my view, demonstration. Not putting this into context and using descriptors like "storm" undercut your theme.
"Hang the governor of Kentucky in effigy."- This is as old as the country, as you point out, not sure why this is also only seen as an issue of what I am presuming you view as a "right leaning" movement in terms of your ideas of the freedom issues you write about. I am relatively sure that many of the anarchists and many of the other normal protestors also do this, but it usually involves the POTUS, a SECDEF or perhaps the American Flag. This is just not a good example to use to support the basic premises of your point of view.
"Protest on my street? I’ll come out of my house, armed to the teeth and barefoot, to threaten you. "- Yeah, they broke the gate onto a private street, there were a lot of people and the protests in that same city had turned into riots with police being shot as well as business owners having their lively hoods destroyed. This all happened just prior to this incident. I think if I saw a bunch of people who were forcing their way past a gate to a private street and was keeping up on the local news I would have had similar concerns. There is even video of one of the protestors saying they were not there, on the way to the Mayors house, to be peaceful.
"Make me wear a mask?"- Totally reasonable request and people should put the needs of the whole over their individual needs. At the same time the medical community was giving conflicting information and many, many State and National leaders were making terrible and arbitrary decisions that not only had effects on their personal life, but on their lively hood as well. Add in that the media was sounding more and more like cheerleader during this and people lose faith in the information they get. The worst part was that so many Governors really did act without any kind of thought as to the long term impact of what their choices would have.
Stop looking at these people as just a bunch of knuckleheads who you just don't think are enlightened enough. They have businesses or jobs that they may have been laid off and most of this could have been avoided with adjustments as to times people go into work, distancing, masks, etc....but instead leaders and the media cheers on lock downs. When you add in the complete loss of faith most people have in those leaders, the media and unfortunately medical experts as well then you are not going to reach them by talking down to them Pat. There are legitimate concerns and it is not tied to race or region. It is tied to the individual and how this lack of leadership, narrative pushing and failure by people like yourself to see anything outside of your own bubble has an effect on their lives.
Shouldn’t you be on 4chan or Parler?
The most salient point I take from your judgement of right wing talking points is “Rights are for me and rules are for you.” The current group think of American conservatism needs to be rooted out and destroyed so that a legitimate discussion can take place between the American left and a reformed American right.
This has to be the most ironic comment I have seen on here. I think you might want to pay attention to the news a bit more, especially where it concerns the ideas of masks and physical distancing oneself from others. I mean, sure the protests and the riots are ok, but everything else is not? Come now, you would have to living under a rock not to see this irony, but as I often see with the left, especially the elite left, it is "Rights for me and rules are for you."
Until you reconcile which statement you believe is more true, you’re either misguided or immoral.
Police disproportionately killing black people is awful but we must stop the destruction of property.
Or
Destruction of property is awful but we must put an end to police disproportionately killing black people
Masks-wearing is obvious low-hanging fruit as it costs almost nothing by any measure. But I don't know that such attitudes are limited to those you describe. Others just use a more sophisticated tool: the law. Is much zoning law not a case of "rights for me, rules for you"? In our town, zoning was put in place that made about 40% of EXISTING properties non-conforming, making it impossible for one to build a new property even if it would have been in keeping with existing norms. Or perhaps a more simple example -- some towns prohibit hanging laundry outside, which is fine for those who have clothes dryers, less fine for others. I could go on, but you get the idea. I think when rules are created that unnecessarily impose on freedoms, it can make people cynical and foster an attitude that all restrictions are no more than the powerful imposing their sensibilities on others.
For the love of god please narrate these so I can listen while I'm working!
He’s just as amazing a narrator as he is a writer, I agree.
"superficially autonomous life" -- yeah, these bozos imagine they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, built their entire lives without help ,and are completely autonomous of, say, those darn immigrant workers who pick all the produce they eat.
In a complex society, doing your part--doing what's asked of you--is supposed to earn you a status of full standing that stands in, so to speak, for true self-sufficiency; money enables this indirect self-sufficiency, which is where the preoccupation with finances and the MY TAX MONEY complaint about government programs comes from. The question of whether others are being done right by seldom comes up--out of sight, out of mind, I guess.
Insightful and thoughtful article-keep it up!
As the saying goes: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
@Patrick: it would be interesting to explore potential parallels to the Late Roman Republic, especially the period preceding the ‘Social Wars.’
In any case, do keep the writings coming!
With appreciation,
Peter Lyons
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages." It's the same attitude seen against the progressive movement, the civil rights movement, every attempt to extend rights to more of humanity. They're the Volk; they deserve everything good because they're Good People, and the rest of us can beg for scraps or try to join the Volk.