The Perception of Liberty

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This piece of the Declaration of Independence articulates noble ideals. I believe it was de Tocqueville (I could be mistaken) that commented on the fact that the American founders had solved with great ease a problem that had plagued past architects of government. They recognized the universal truth that rights come from a Creator and not from government. It's a unique, interesting, and American idea. If those rights that are unalienable come from a Creator they can never be taken away or altered. The Declaration then goes on to speak of government being legitimate only based upon the consent of the governed, which dovetails nicely with the idea of unalienable rights. However, if those rights come from government they are not unalienable and can be taken away by the sheer brute force of governmental coercion. This is an idea the American founders rejected wholeheartedly. As well, it articulates those rights that are considered to be unalienable: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In reading this profound piece of our history I was captured most by the idea of liberty. What is liberty? There are competing forces in today's America as to what defines liberty. John Edwards chose to articulate the idea of there being two Americas during the 2004 presidential campaign: red states and blue states. The repulsive implication of that idea went unstated but was perfectly obvious to many: red state America is bad, blue state America is good and virtuous. Red state America stands between us and liberty, and blue state America is the path to true, unbridled freedom. I see it differently. I see one America, but I see two visions competing for the future of America: one vision is that of our Founders, the idea of America as a shining city on a hill, of a nation where everyone is treated equally under the law, the true essence of what Reagan referred to as ordered liberty; the second vision is what I think of as being a perception of liberty, where anything goes, and what is passed to our children as liberty is actually chaos and anarchy.

President Reagan spoke of ordered liberty, the idea that true liberty is that which flourishes through the confines of the Constitution. This is also a grand and noble idea, one that takes root in the beliefs of our Founders. John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." The implication of Adams' statement is that American liberty derived from the Constitution must have its roots in something more solid than the whims of the day or the base impulse of humanity. The soil of Judeo-Christian philosophy and biblical-based morality is what allowed American liberty to take root. Ordered liberty is liberty that exists hand-in-hand with the Declaration's ideals of a Creator that has bestowed unalienable rights upon us all, but runs counter to the idea that "anything goes" or "if it feels good, do it." Human nature is prone to failure and sin. These are truths that some would rather not talk about. Our friends on the Left believe that humanity is essentially good and that human nature ultimately leads all to do good in this world. It is a noble and optimistic view, but one I have difficulty sharing when I see Muslim men flying airplanes into buildings. I believe, as many others do, that the uniquely American idea of ordered liberty is what has created such a good and benevolent society. Ordered liberty allows us to live as free men and women, but places responsibilities on us to conduct ourselves a certain way. It can be uncomfortable to talk about or think about the concept of responsibility in a much more profound way than paying the mortgage or car payment, but the very preservation of liberty depends upon it. In fact, it is the very idea that liberty has limits which allows liberty to flourish endlessly. The limits we have placed upon ourselves come in the form of the US Constitution and, despite the cries from liberals, from religion (specifically Christianity and Judaism).

The perception of liberty is something different. It begins in a gray area where something feels like ordered liberty but isn't. I'd put the unfettered access to pornography in this category. Yes, pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States and the capitalistic nature of our society allows for the free exchange of goods and services within the confines of the law. But the fact remains that pornography has damaging effects on society as a whole, on adults, and on children. As such, pornography lives in that gray area where free speech and the best interests of society collide. We all know that the foundation of the First Amendment is the freedom of speech, but the founders intended political speech to be the primary form of speech protected in the Constitution. I'd imagine they didn't anticipate hardcore porn finding comfort under the blanket of the First Amendment.

The perception of liberty continues past the gray area into areas of our lives that are accepted as normal behavior or made to seem like they SHOULD BE accepted as normal behavior. Abortion comes to mind immediately. Under the guise of "reproductive freedom" (here we're actually invoking the word freedom!) we've allowed our culture to become accepting of the fact that forty million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade. There is actual scientific proof that human life begins at conception. A unique genetic human being is formed at that moment but for a variety of reasons, whether it be said reproductive freedom, "the right to choose", some sort of (unfounded) concern that the majority of those aborted babies would have been chained to a life of poverty, birth control convenience, or whatever other reasons are provided, we've allowed ourselves to digest the idea that ending human life is the exercise of liberty! Nothing could be further from the truth. The preservation of all forms of human life is the ultimate expression of ordered liberty whereas the culture of death (abortion on demand, euthanasia) is very much a perception of liberty.

The idea of gay marriage is a perception of liberty. Marriage, throughout its entire 5,000 year history, has been the union of one man and one woman. Much like the word "mother" or "father" cannot be redefined, the word marriage cannot be redefined either. However, aside from that obvious point, we're told that there exists a fundamental denial of the rights of marriage to homosexual couples. This is simply not true. For every man and woman in America there exists a right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Constitutionally speaking this is absolute equality under the law and there is no denial of rights. Further, the state has a rational basis to define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman because society's essential building block is the nuclear family. Promoting the healthy family of a husband and wife to raise children furthers the best interests of society because it allows for the regeneration of that society. Moreover, every study that has ever been done shows irrefutably that children are significantly better off with a father and a mother, and not two dads or two moms. But now we're to be told that despite the fact that no rights are being denied to homosexuals, despite the fact that the state has a rational basis to define marriage as it has always been defined, and despite the fact that children (and there can be no greater good in society than protecting the interests and health of children) are better served with a mother and a father, that liberty is being denied because the overwhelming majority of the American people wish to preserve the 5,000 year old institution of marriage. This sort of thinking defines the perception of liberty.

Ordered liberty grounded in biblical morality and protected by the Constitution is the path to true freedom. I've written about the choices we have to make between living free or becoming slaves to our own government. We're fortunate to have at our hands the tools to be free: the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the bedrock of Judeo-Christian philosophy. John Edwards tried to sell the American people on the idea of two Americas, the red states and the blue states. I can only harken back to President Reagan, who put it best: "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." Let us continue Ronald Reagan's march toward ordered liberty and reject wholeheartedly the anarchy and chaos that serve as a perception of liberty which will lead us down to the ant heap of which he spoke.

ADDENDUM - 7/14/06: In response to the comments by "Anonymous" I felt it necessary to respond, but not as a comment below the article.

The idea that ordered liberty isn't flexible means "Anonymous" has completely missed the point. It's absolutely inconceiveable to suggest that liberty doesn't have limits. Liberty without limit is not liberty at all, but rather anarchy. Hence the coining of the phrase "ordered liberty", which refers to liberty within the confines of a constitutional structure. The mere presence of a constitutional structure does not imply or mean that liberty is inflexible or unable to adapt or change to meet the needs of present day society. It means that we view everything through the lens of "law", which flows from the Constitution. Law that does not flow from the Constitution (and there can be no debate that there are many laws passed that are unconstitutional regardless of whether we accept them or not) is illegitimate, and therefore does not fall within the confines of ordered liberty. The perception of liberty begins when we accept things that do not flow from the Constitution, but are told we should accept them as being legitimately born from the founding documents. I mentioned three specifically, one of which is certainly a gray area. I could go on and on to prove my point but I chose three to highlight the point I was looking to make.

To suggest that ordered liberty is somehow rigid and incapable of meeting the current times is facile. Ordered liberty provides us with every means necessary to meet the needs of our times. The founders had no concept of the internet or even telephones/cellphones when they penned the Fourth Amendment against illegal searches and seizures, but we manage to shape the Fourth Amendment to prevent unreasonable searches and allow reasonable ones within the confines of a constitutional structure as it relates to internet transactions or wiretapping. This is but one example to refute the claim that ordered liberty is inflexible.

The perception of liberty argument can come full circle, as "Anonymous" proves, to the discussion of how the Constitution is interpreted. I will make my argument about this in my next posting as it seems the logical next issue to debate.