We’ve misunderstood freedom
It’s been a tough year for republican values.
As COVID-19 ravaged the world, government and private partners worked diligently, if imperfectly, to develop a safe and free vaccine for the masses. Along the way, medical authorities urged various safety measures, including the use of masks, to stop the spread.
At every turn, the loudest critics of these efforts have often been republicans.
They protested medical protocol and institutional efforts designed to mitigate risk and save lives, insisting on the preservation of their individual liberties in the most absolute terms. In practice, this has meant demanding full freedom to reject the vaccine and mask requirements.
This misguided Republican response is anchored by a mistaken understanding of two key conservative values: freedom and local control.
What is freedom?
In his Two Treatises of Government, John Locke explained a critical distinction of freedom in a civil society:
…but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?)… [rather, freedom is] the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another…
Locke understood that freedom is not the absence of rules. In fact, rules (laws, regulations etc.) are intended to maximize our freedoms.
This may sound counter-intuitive, but they do so by preventing what others can do to us that might limit our freedoms and, inversely, what we can and can’t do that might limit the freedom of others. This social contract is what life in a civil society requires. In contrast, full and unfettered freedom would be anarchy, and I think we can agree that’s not ideal.
What we’re learning from the pandemic though is that many republicans ignore this parameter of freedom when government action doesn’t suit their preferences.
When they claim it undermines their individual liberties, they’re actually arguing, perhaps unwittingly, something much more fundamental to the fabric of our democracy rather than a simple policy preference. They’re arguing that our social compact is structurally violated by imposing public health initiatives. This sort of light touch political analysis ignores the wisdom of Locke and conflates principles with preferences. Such an approach falsely empowers them to contort principles to whatever suits their immediate interests, rendering their principles merely preferences of convenience.
What’s so ironic is that republicans use the same reasoning in our capacity as pro-life advocates but in the opposite (and correct) way to argue against abortion. That is, yes, women should have control over their bodies (individual liberty) up until her decisions limit the freedoms of the fetus, namely, the freedom of ‘life’ as described in the Declaration of Independence. This approach coincides perfectly with Locke, maximizing the freedoms of all people but not giving unabated freedom to anyone.
So how can we use this logic against abortion yet put the lives (freedoms) of our neighbors at risk by refusing to get vaccinated?
Local control
Conservatives also believe decisions should be vested in the authorities closest to the people being governed, hence our reliance on the 10th Amendment and a general distaste for government overreach at the national level.
A high degree of localized power maximizes freedom for individuals across our nation’s multitude of diverse communities. This de-centralized control enables Americans to more aptly live in ways that suit their belief systems and helps guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Conversely, preempting local control is a dangerous game in democracy. When we elevate policy debates to higher levels of government than is appropriate, individuals are stripped of agency, making them feel increasingly disenfranchised. Over time this disenfranchisement can mutate into uglier and more actionable emotions.
For example, when governors ban mask mandates in local jurisdictions as they did in TX, FL and OK, this is itself a mandate that comes from a higher level of government than necessary. This surprising lack of self-awareness among republican governors in these states undermines conservative values by usurping choice at the local level and imposing a top-down, one-size-fits-all government decision.
If, on the other hand, mask mandates are to precipitate from municipalities, businesses or school districts, then these are the appropriate places for such decisions to be made whether we agree with them or not. As for the federal government, there are no mask mandates for civilians, so conservatives need not worry.
Conclusion
Without public acknowledgement and correction, this behavior can contaminate the public perception of republicans who have traditionally championed values directly contrary to their current actions. In times like these, when our party leadership is put to the test, failing to adhere to our own professed beliefs puts the long-term relevancy of the Republican Party at serious risk.
Arguments of convenience are not subtle. It’s become painfully obvious that the values of republicans are circumstantial at best.
Future leaders and voters are watching. Which party will they be drawn to?