Freedom From

Jesse:
This may seem too pat and obvious, but is there anyone in the US (or here, but you don't tend to hear it quite as much yet) fighting against this "protect our freedom" tea party crap by making an affirmative argument for either:

A) The fact that they're just picking and choosing negative freedoms?

The "freedoms" that the radical right in the US goes on about doesn't include civil liberty; they had no problems with the Bush administration spying on Americans. Which is not even to mention the fact that it's "freedom" only for "them" (whites southerners, mostly), and they have no interest at all in freedoms that were taken away from prisoners, or anyone else?

There's a case to be made there that any serious person would include those freedoms. But I don't really hear it; maybe I've missed it.

B) Freedom from.

This is especially stark in the health care debates. There are at least four ways to talk about health care:

1. It's just regulatory reform
2. It's about giving people an opportunity to succeed
   
3. It's about saving lives
4. It's about freedom from want
   

Now, to my mind, Democrats are focusing on the first one, because it lets them vaguely (or explicitly) demonize insurance companies. And everyone hates insurance companies. We're not hearing much of the second one, which to me is the sort of counter-economic argument ("these people go bankrupt otherwise, we need to help them be able to start small businesses"), though it obviously sounds little like equality of opportunity. We do hear the third one, but I think it's simply a moral power play (which there's definitely space to attack the right with). I think the fourth is something we should be hearing.

Someone should be out there saying that this is about creating freedom. Health care (it should probably be better labelled health insurance) reform in the US is the essence of liberal (small L) government. The American people, through their government, are going to (fingers crossed) decide to come together and create a system which will enable more (not all) Americans to be able to purchase health insurance, thus rendering them free from the affliction of fear for themselves or for their families, or for their own and their families well-being. It's about freedom, not handouts.

Now, obviously the tea party right doesn't think government can possibly create freedom. But since it can, I think that's a part of the debate that shouldn't be ceded.