Tag Archives: libertarian premise

Minding Our Own Business

The brilliance of Tim Walz’ response to the GOP’s culture war is that it put a foundational element of the Bill of Rights into everyday language.

“Mind your own damn business” is a more direct expression of that underlying philosophy than the one that I used in my classroom–“Live and let live.” As I have posted innumerable times on this blog, the Bill of Rights, taken as a whole, is based on the libertarian premise that individuals should be free to pursue their own ends–their own life goals–so long as they do not thereby harm the person or property of someone else, and so long as they are willing to accord an equal liberty to their fellow citizens.

Government’s role is to protect our individual liberties while keeping the strong from abusing the weak.

Adherence to that philosophy means that even if you strongly disagree with your neighbor’s choice of religion or life partner or reading material, you mind your own damn business. You don’t try to get the government involved in the absence of harm to nonconsenting others. You don’t try to use the power of the state to impose your own religious or lifestyle preferences on your neighbor–and he doesn’t get to impose his on you.

Live and let live.

The current iteration of the GOP has utterly abandoned fidelity to that limited government principal. The culture war being waged by the MAGA Christian Nationalists is all about punishing–or at least burdening–life choices with which they disagree. The latest–and yes, weirdest–example is JD Vance’s insistence that women who don’t produce biological children should be socially and legally disfavored. (Vance has even proposed that people with children be rewarded by giving them “extra” votes.)

These very unAmerican approaches to policy disputes also tend to be delivered in the nastiest possible way. As the Bulwark recently noted,

Consider the latest weird statement by JD Vance to emerge. Vance disagrees with the education policies pushed by the American Federation of Teachers and its president, Randi Weingarten. He doesn’t like Weingarten’s political activities either. Fine. That hardly makes him unique among Republicans.

But apparently he can’t just say that. He has to attack her personally. Weingarten, it seems, doesn’t have children. And Vance has a view on that. What’s more, he has a view on the character and effectiveness of teachers who have kids and those who don’t, and has decided he’s “disturbed” by those who don’t.

One could ask, are the private lives of millions of teachers any of JD Vance’s damn business?

As the article proceeded to note, Vance obviously thinks so. But it isn’t just Vance–it’s a core belief of MAGA world that everything is their business.

For MAGA—as for other authoritarian movements of the left and right—the personal is the political. MAGA is about judging and disparaging other people, whole classes of people, whole groups of our fellow Americans…The routine slander of individuals and groups is part of the essence of the movement.

It is true that political disputes often get nasty. History is replete with examples of unfair accusations and various slanders leveled by candidates for office and their supporters. What the Bulwark reports in this particular case, however, gets to the essence of what is wrong with today’s GOP, and its devolution into White Christian Nationalism. There are a number of reasons to label that movement unAmerican, of course–any fair reading of the First Amendment and the Founders’ insistence on Separation of Church and State will provide the most obvious one. What is less obvious, but equally shocking, is the MAGA movement’s manifest belief that government should be able to dictate the personal behaviors of individuals even when those behaviors do not affect others.

So MAGA says government can force women to give birth. That government can prevent medical personnel from helping trans children. That government can remove library books that offend MAGA sensibilities, even though many other citizens want access to those books and no one is forcing the censors or their children to read them.

MAGA Republicans want government as busybody, despite the fact that such a role is entirely contrary to the foundational philosophy of this nation.

If, as I believe, real patriotism requires fidelity to our foundational philosophy– if it requires citizens to mind our own damn business in the absence of harm to unconsenting others– then MAGA culture warriors must be ranked as the most unpatriotic of all Americans.

We all need to listen to Tim Walz.

Comments

The Stakes II

A couple of days ago, I considered the stakes of this year’s election choices, and speculated about whether and to what extent the abortion issue will drive both turnout and results. What I failed to explain ( thanks to the word limit I have self-imposed for these daily rants) is why the debate about reproductive choice is in reality about far more than a woman’s right to control her own reproduction, important as that is.

The deeply dishonest Dobbs decision struck at a fundamental premise of America’s Constitution, as we have come to rely upon it– the belief in limited government.

When politicians talk about “limited government,” they generally focus on the size of government, but the U.S. Constitution defines those limits in terms of authority, not size. What is to be limited is the power of government to prescribe certain decisions that should be left to the individual. In the original Bill of Rights, the federal government was forbidden to censor speech, prescribe religious or political beliefs, and take other actions that were invasions of fundamental rights–rights for which early Americans demanded recognition.

Over the years, those limitations on federal government power were imposed on state and local government units, and evolving cultural and social norms prompted a fuller understanding of what sorts of decisions individuals are entitled to make without government interference. I frequently cite what has been called the Libertarian Principle, because that principle undergirds America’s particular approach to government. The principle is simple: Individuals should be free to pursue their own ends–their own life goals–so long as they do not thereby harm the person or property of someone else, and so long as they are willing to accord an equal liberty to their fellow citizens.

The gender of your chosen mate, your adherence to a non-Christian religion (or your utter rejection of the notion of divinity), your choice to reproduce or not, and a number of other life choices are simply none of government’s business. (As Jefferson is often quoted, such decisions “neither break my leg nor pick my pocket.”)

The Libertarian Principle was central to the original Bill of Rights, and its application has  extended as “facts on the ground”–scientific and cultural–have changed. Ever since 1965, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Griswold v. Connecticut– informing the Connecticut legislature that a couple’s decision to use contraceptives was none of government’s business–the belief that there are areas of our lives where government simply doesn’t belong has been absolutely central to Americans’ understanding of liberty.

When I was much younger, the importance of limiting government to areas where collective action was appropriate and/or necessary—keeping the state out of the decisions that individuals and families have the right to make for themselves– was a Republican article of faith. It was basic conservative doctrine. Ironically, the MAGA folks who inaccurately call themselves conservative today insist that government has the right—indeed, the duty– to invade that zone of privacy in order to impose rules reflecting their own particular beliefs and prejudices.

It’s critically important to understand that what is really at stake in what we shorthand as the “abortion issue” is that fundamental Constitutional premise. Forcing women to give birth, denying medical care to defenseless trans children or forbidding school children to read certain books are not “stand-alone” positions. They are part and parcel of an entire worldview that is autocratic and profoundly anti-American.

I used to point out that a government with the power to prohibit abortion is a government with the power to require abortion. (As an ACLU friend used to say, poison gas is a great weapon until the wind shifts.)

The issue at the heart of the Bill of Rights–as I interminably repeated to my students–isn’t what decision is made. The issue is who gets to make it. In the government system devised by our Founders, certain decisions are simply off-limits to government. I may disagree with your religious beliefs or political opinions; I may disapprove of your choice of marriage partner or your selection of reading material–but I cannot use the government to countermand your choices and require behaviors more to my liking.

It is that fundamental premise that is at stake in this year’s elections, which will pit the MAGA theocrats and autocrats against those of us who want to preserve America’s hard-won civil liberties and individual rights.

The abortion issue is about so much more than abortion, and I have to believe that, at least at some level, most Americans realize that.

Comments

Loving, Fifty Years Later

It has been fifty years since the Supreme Court struck down laws against miscegenation–interracial marriage–in the case of Loving v. Virginia. At the time the decision was handed down, sixteen states–all in the south–still had such laws on their books. The anniversary of the decision is being marked by various magazine articles, and a movie about the couple at the heart of the case (aptly named Loving) has just been released.

My students tend to think of laws forbidding interracial marriage as part of a bizarre and distant past. They have enough trouble understanding the hysteria that preceded and accompanied recognition of same-sex marriage, and to them 1967 seems as distant as 1867. Many of us in older generations, however, are painfully aware of the stubborn persistence of such laws well into our own adulthoods.

Loving is a great teaching tool, because it squarely addresses the central issue of public administration and political philosophy: what is the proper role of the state? What is government for? What sorts of decisions are appropriately made by legislatures acting on behalf of popular majorities, and what sorts of decisions represent an unwarranted intrusion into realms that should be left to individual citizens?

Despite the fact that our Constitution was based upon a belief in limited government, America’s history is replete with examples of the tensions between the respect for individual liberties that animates the Bill of Rights, and the desire of moralists to use government to control the behavior of their neighbors.

Back in 2007, I wrote a book called God and Country: America in Red and Blue, in which I examined the religious roots of public policy disputes; in it, I posited that a significant number of our most intractable debates can be explained by a conflict  in worldviews originally rooted in religious ways of understanding reality. It is a battle between those I dubbed “modernists” and those I called “Puritans.”

These differences are far more profound than we usually recognize.

Our contemporary Puritans are philosophical heirs of the early American settlers who came to these shores for a version of liberty that most of us would not recognize. The folks who braved the trip across the Atlantic came for the religious “liberty” to impose the correct religion on their neighbors. The notion that each of us should have the right to believe as we wish–let alone live lives based upon those beliefs– was utterly foreign to them. It would be another 150 years until the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment  changed our forebears understanding of liberty to the more libertarian construction  incorporated in our founding documents.

That libertarian construction is based upon respect for individual autonomy–the belief that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, until and unless they harm the person or property of another, and so long as they are willing to accord an equal right to others.

It can be very difficult to agree upon the sorts of harms that justify government intervention, and there are many good-will disagreements over the propriety of such things as seat-belt laws and smoking bans. But it really strains credulity to argue that your choice of a non-traditional spouse somehow harms me.

Loving reminds us of the importance of distinguishing between issues that government can properly decide, and areas where government doesn’t belong.

Tomorrow, at the polls, most of our contemporary Puritans will vote for authoritarianism and a government that does not respect America’s Constitutional limits. Let’s hope the Modernists outvote them.

Comments