“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!
Wish I had the book!
Alice
I've had this pulled up for days, planning to leave a comment and "discuss" your questions, but I'm not so sure I'm fully able to do more than "huh" and "hmmm" about politics online. I need the face-to-face interaction to get my brain going. (That and I'd rather ask my "gosh I'm uninformed" questions in the privacy of a home rather than online where my ignorance is marked down for all to see.)
That being said,
1. yes
2. definitely yes
3. definitely too fast, and I'm afraid that our resistance as a nation has been worn down to the point that we no longer are able to discern what's really happening. and that REALLY scares me.
4. executive salary -- as in, the president's?
definition of marriage -- yes
education -- this is where I get caught and I'm not sure, yet, where I stand. so many kids need an extra hand and it seems that there are some good things about the government being involved in education
Hi Jen, thanks for the comment.
As far as executive salary - a law has been passed by the house to say that the government will be allowed to retroactively determine the salary of executives - and any other employees of any company that has accepted any government money. On top of this, there are banks that are trying to give the money back, and the Obama administration is refusing to take the money back.
Education - I wonder about this as well. We value the federal government's role in education because of the resources available for special educational needs of many kids. But just because "that's the way it's always been done," is that the only way it could be done? Is it the best way? For example, what if we put this in the hands of the states rather than Washington?
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) I think he's basically continuing the same pace as Bush, actually. It's just with different programs. I don't understand the "too fast" part of the question, since increasing government power and decreasing personal liberty is always "too fast" [in my opinion :)]
4) I don't think there should be federal legislation on those matters, so no problems there.
@gRegor - thanks for the comment.
The "too fast" part of the question was a question of strategy - changes implemented slowly aren't noticed too much, but if changes are made too fast, whoever is behind the changes will likely meet a lot of resistence.
Are the people behind the Obama administration implementing their philosophy too fast for it to work - will the friction of resistance stop them?