This, especially in today's political discourse, doesn't reveal too much about me.
First, when I refer to freedom I refer to "negative freedom": freedom from external restraints. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to it like this:
"The negative concept of freedom ... is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty."One can also refer to "positive freedom": the possession of the capacity and the resources to do what one wishes to do.
My prioritization of negative freedom over positive freedom as a voter doesn't mean that I neglect the latter notion. Assuming that negative and positive freedom can even be distinguished in the first place, negative freedom depends in some ways on positive freedom. I think that the necessary relationship can be understood in terms of separation of powers.
In the American system of government, power is divided among legislative, judicial and executive branches. It is also divided between state and federal governments, although power has weighed heavily towards the federal government since the Civil War.
In the American system of government, power is supposed to be vested in "the people." Power among the people has become less "separated" since the turn of the century. A small percentage of our society has proportionately more "positive" freedom than it has for about a century. Positive freedom has a lot to do with the power to acquire things (I'm putting aside the objections of ascetics for now), and this power (in terms of real wages) has declined for the left side of the income bell curve.
Our society is beset by unrest among those whose "capacity and the resources to do what they wish to do" is less than they ever expected it could be. Many have found a champion, a demagogue who threatens both forms of liberty in a way that Americans haven't considered in their lifetime.
Among global states, it is America that enjoys disproportionate positive freedom. With some exceptions, America has been an almost unprecedentedly good steward of this capacity over its seventy or so years of supremacy: America has generally projected its power without reducing the freedoms, positive or negative, of non-American individuals. But the preservation of America's capacity relies on relationships and alliances that America has built and nurtured over the span of its dominion. The demagogue, a Presidential candidate, threatens to discard these relationships and obligations at a time when we need them to be strongest. Russia is testing our alliances in Europe, and China wishes to force its will in the South China Sea.
No man is an island, and this has never been truer than today. In at least some substantial sense, our negative liberties rely on the positive liberties of others in our state and of our own state on the global stage. As long as we maintain our system of government, a tide that raises a few boats and sinks many will threaten the stability of our nation. And at this point in history, that threatens the stability of the world.
