Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'Freedom Is Not Free': No More of That Fortune-Cookie Bunk

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:12 PM
Original message
'Freedom Is Not Free': No More of That Fortune-Cookie Bunk

by Pierre Tristam

It's one of those Orwellian phrases that re-emerged out of 9/11 mania: "Freedom is not free." Would its thumpers be willing to apply the same verdict to the free market, now that capitalism is capsizing and gasping for us, taxpayers, to bail it out? I doubt it. To do so would assume that we'd have learned to see past conservative ideology's doublespeak since the 1980s, when government became the free market's co-signer and freedom itself, far from being costly, was cheapened to a slogan in whose name sacrifice at home was for fools and war abroad freedom's calling card.

The dogmatic negative at the heart of "freedom isn't free" should have been a clue. The phrase has been attributed to Dean Rusk, secretary of state under John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, though The New York Times used it in a small headline in 1945 to describe an American cemetery in Normandy. Gen. Matthew Ridgway, Army Chief of Staff in 1953, used it to define freedom as the difference between those who "torture their captives" and "those to whom the individual and his individual rights are sacred."

But the phrase really took off as a national verbal tick after 2001. George and Laura Bush and Dick Cheney have used the phrase at least nine times since 2001. For understandable reasons, they never defined it the way Gen. Ridgway did. They never defined it at all.

Ridgway's nuances aside, the phrase is fortune-cookie bunk anyway. Of course, freedom is free, and self-evidently so. Unless Thomas Jefferson had it wrong in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is one of the "unalienable rights." It's not a privilege. You're born with it. If you're in an unfree country, as most people are, you're owed it.

If you're in a free country, by all means, count your blessings, but you're entitled to your freedom. You shouldn't have to justify it, qualify it, tailor it to someone else's idea of it (unless you live in a homeowners association) let alone buy it, as countless slaves in this country had to.

Unless you infringe on somebody else's freedom, it's not even conditional. Those who make conditions are the chain-wielders who dangle freedom by the reins of its antonyms. They're those to whom "freedom is not free," by which they mean to say -- you're not.

Unquestionably, the way the phrase may have been intended -- the way Martin Luther King Jr. supposedly said it when he was hauled off to jail in Birmingham, the way it's inscribed on the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. -- is to point out that sometimes there's a price to pay to preserve what we cherish or to claim what we're owed.

Those soldiers in Normandy's sands died protecting civilization. King and countless civil rights activists died claiming the right they'd been denied for three centuries. A price was paid for freedom's sake, but never to diminish the value of freedom itself, let alone to use freedom to diminish that of others.

Which brings us to the more recent "freedom isn't free" mentality. What did Bush mean when he used the phrase, just seven weeks after the 9/11 attacks, at a high school in Maryland as he spoke of "our commitment to freedom"? What sacrifices did he have in mind, sacrifices the nation was willing to make on a grand scale? None.

Bush had one practical suggestion after 9/11: Shop. He had one policy goal: tax cuts, which he got through Congress in 2001, 2003 and 2004, making the price of freedom, which Bush confuses with the price of money, much cheaper. And he launched three full-blown wars: "terror," Afghanistan, Iraq.

Upward of 100,000 Afghans and Iraqis are dead. So are 5,467 American and allied troops.

Iraq wasn't a failed state in 2003. It is now, with neighbor Iran controlling its fate more than the United States. Afghanistan was a failed state in 2001. It still is, with neighbor Pakistan failing right along, but with nukes in its arsenals and Taliban militants twiddling their beards in the launchers' shadows. Soldiers' lives aside, Americans were asked to make not one sacrifice. They were told that "freedom" was a handout, at least in so far as it dovetailed with free market idolatry: lower taxes, cheap money and housing as a Ponzi scheme for all.

It worked fine. Until it didn't. Now, those who got us here, including that pair of Republican frauds posing as a president and would-be president, have the guile to take no responsibility themselves, to ask us for the favor of our trillion, ask us for our trust, and to add insult to depression, our vote. I bet the national debt that before this comedy of horrors is over, one of them will blurt it out once more, like a narcotic to our rage: Freedom isn't free. And it'll probably work.



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/28-0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
codjh9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Making Colossal War Mistakes Isn't F-ing Free EIther"... I've always hated that stupid 'Freedom
Isn't Free' bumper sticker... it's literally true, but they think they can use it to justify any friggin' military action anywhere, any time, all in the name of 'freedom'....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Freedom isn't freedom, either
I had my civil rights violated when organizing a counter-bush rally.
Repeat a thousand times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
codjh9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's the damn truth - and it's worried me a great deal. If we allegedly have 'freedom of
speech', why are protesters constantly being arrested? It's f-ing '1984'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Two types of freedom spoken of..
Edited on Sun Sep-28-08 01:31 PM by undergroundpanther
One side of freedom is to live free of abuse including torture,manipulation,slavery, fraud, rape,pillaging,murder, and financial abuse.Freedom is maintained by the boundaries of a social contract that enables all to be free it is like a conduct rulebook to help us live together and be free as possible without destroying others..

The other definition of freedom as defined by the wall street pigs and their cronies and sociopaths is of Freedom to abuse ,manipulate,torture and financially abuse anyone they want to.
They want freedom from the social contract and the boundaries on conduct it has that enables all humans to be free as possible.The pigs in power do not want other people to be free.Not at all because free people do not tolerate being abused or having their social contract destroyed and their freedoms taken.and this pisses of sociopaths and pigs that want to break the social contract and take more than they are worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Right-wingers don't believe in any social contract. To them, that denies them their
FREEDOM.

The problem, I think, is that once we step outside specific constitutional guarantees, it all becomes a subjective mess that requires a monster visio presentation to track the derivatives and dependencies of those guarantees... And even then, defining the implications of the rights and freedoms surrounding our lives, our liberties and our ability to pursue 'happiness' leaves the most well-schooled in constitutional matters in conflict. I mean, who would ever guess that we would be debating with conservatives about our privacy rights? WTF? It's a moving target for them.

The bottom line is, at least in my opinion, based in the philosophical underpinnings of the world-views offered by the spectrum of political philosophies of the world. Whose "freedoms" are we talking about - the freedom of the priveleged to do what they need to do to maintain their social status, or the freedom of the wider community to to what is necessary to ensure that they share a fair piece of that social/economic pie?

"Which side are you on, boys?" as the song goes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I don't think that is supportable anymore
Edited on Sun Sep-28-08 04:30 PM by Two Americas
Either it is not just right wingers who believe that, or else we have a lot of right wingers masquerading as something else.

The Democrats just had a once in a lifetime opportunity to smash the right wingers, to eliminate them from power for a generation or more. That would be of interest to them, one would think. But they must have some other goal, some other agenda. That agenda may require all of us believing that it is us against the right wingers and that they are with us on that. But are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Great point. The implications aren't as surprising as they are disappointing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. that is exactly right
Freedom to exploit and abuse others is not freedom.

There is massive lying and bullying going on about this. This latest business of cramming this bailout down our throats was just pure naked bullying. Notice how no one here could defend it without resorting to bullying. Bullying defended and promoted with bullying. The end and the means are one and the same. Bully here, bully there, protect and defend other bullies, and bully people to do it. Bully people even when it works against what the bully says they want.

To BE bullies is what people want. That is the goal, and the reward, and the desire and the method. Bullies get stuff, the bullied don't. Bullies have privilege and more choices, the bullied are denied everything.

Someone here a week ago, defending the need to hand over what is left of our freedom and peace to the bullies on Wall Street, slipped and said "you people are fear-mongering, and that is dangerous. Whether we like it or not, the system runs on greed and fear. Fear hurts the market and that hurts all of us." In other words, we should be greed-mongering. Notice, though, that fear-mongering is just fine when it is used to bully people into rolling over for the greedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Ask those who sport the "Freedom isn't Free" stickers to...
define "freedom" sometime. It's good fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-28-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It's sad
So few people know what a social contract is,and why our conduct to each other and this world must be limited to allow freedom.

Saddest part is they can't define freedom because they are not free anymore,and worse they have grown fond of their chains and masters and will defend them,even to the point of calling slavery freedom..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hestia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. Have ya'll read "Freedom is a Two-Edge Sword" by Jack Parsons?
Excellent book, only like 150 pages or less, quite ahead of its time (1950).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC