“With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.” – Abraham Lincoln, 1864.
Levin's premise: conservatives agree with Lincoln's definition of liberty - valuing the individual as primary, necessitating the duty of every person to respect the liberty of others. Meanwhile, strict limitations should be put on the power of the federal government – for this definition of liberty the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding fathers, and conservatives agree.
He contrasts this with the “Statist[1]” perspective that believes in the “supremacy of the state.” Individual value and rights are devalued because they impede the goals of the authoritarian state. Thus, the Statist is in fundamental disagreement with the Declaration, the Constitution, and the founders.
The Statist agenda finds resistance, so the pursuit toward a totalitarian state must be taken in small steps of increased government power and individual dependency on the federal government.
There were real limits on the federal government's role and the separation of powers, until FDR and the lopsidedly partisan congress began to reverse that. The courts became stacked with judges who would allow any new government program regardless of constitutionality, and the powers of the federal government grew, and continue to grow to the detriment of personal rights and liberty.
Questions for discussion:
- Do you agree that the ideal of a central government is to protect and increase individual liberty?
- Does personal liberty necessarily decrease as centralized government power increases?
- Obama’s administration is dramatically increasing government power and reducing personal liberty. Is this happening to fast? Will this meet too much resistance, or has the resistance worn down too much to have any effect?
- If our federal government scaled way back, and our federal laws were about protecting individual liberty, would you be willing to give up your sacred cows? If the following do not violate any individual’s liberty, are you/we willing to remove and deny federal legislation on:
- Executive salary?
- The definition of marriage?
- Education?
[1] – Levin uses “statist” rather than “liberal” because the classic meaning of “liberal” was an opposition to the authoritarian state, but non-conservatives are in fact pushing for an increasingly authoritarian state.
If you're reading this on Facebook or somewhere else, please comment on the original blog post instead. Thanks!
