Freedom is an integral part of American consciousness and national identity. Thus, legislation and policy proposals are often debated in terms of their ramifications for freedom. Yet, most Conservatives believe this ideal is their private property and pertains only to private property. They hold a narrow view, which privileges the business class. Freedom for the rest of society will magically flourish so long as corporations have their way. This particular approach to freedom, economic freedom, has been brought up repeatedly by Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has warned that economic freedom in the United States is in danger of disappearing. This claim has twice earned Romney a “Pants on Fire” rating from Politifact.com. Of course, this will not deter Romney or other Republican candidates from extoling the virtues of economic freedom, warning us of its impending extinction and the tyranny which will ensue. Because the conservative’s “freedom” has been so politically consequential in recent years, it deserves close scrutiny,
According to the ascendant conservative ideology, the size of a government stands in inverse proportion to the liberties of its people. Hence, more government means less “freedom.” The corollary to this maxim is that the lifeblood of the government is tax revenue. Hence, if you want to limit the size of government, you must keep taxes as low as possible. Add the claim, following Cold War logic, that restrictions on economic freedom lead to a decline in general freedom, and you have “freedom,” which will then somehow trickle down on the rest of us. The case for economic freedom has its appeal. Yet, the implicit claim that economic freedom necessarily leads to other freedoms, political or otherwise, does not stand up to scrutiny, as revealed by two recent reports on freedom: Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World 2011” and the Heritage Foundation’s “2011 Index of Economic Freedom.”
A comparison of the two lists is quite instructive as it undermines claims that economic freedom is the basis of other freedoms, that socialist programs such as universal health care can only lead to tyranny, and that taxes and the size of government (as measured by government spending) necessarily erode economic freedom.
For example, Canada, with its socialist health care system, ranks sixth on Heritage Foundation’s index, coming ahead of the United States, which ranks ninth. Denmark, a highly egalitarian social democracy with a sizable welfare state, is also ranked ahead of the United States in economic freedom, while being listed as “free” by Freedom House. Singapore, a country with a quasi-authoritarian government, is ranked number two in economic freedom, while only being “partly free,” according to Freedom House. And coming just behind the United States at number ten on Heritage Foundation’s index is Bahrain, listed as “not free” (and getting worse) by Freedom House.
In fact, the two NGOs report opposite trends. The Heritage Foundation claims that, “…the majority of countries are once again on a positive path to greater freedom,” while according to Freedom House, “…conditions [for global political rights and civil liberties] worsened for the fifth consecutive year in 2010.” (In a separate report, Freedom House also claimed that “the rights of workers are in jeopardy in much of the world.”) Thus, the correlation between economic freedom and other freedoms is not absolute, and under some conditions, appears to be inversely related.
The claim that low taxes and less government necessarily means more freedom is even flimsier. The notion, nonetheless, provides grist for conservative NGOs such as Freedom Works, which has the motto “Lower taxes, Less Government, More Freedom,” and Americans for Tax Reform, which claims that “The government’s power to control one’s life derives from its power to tax.” Yet, if we look again at the Heritage Foundation’s index, and zoom in on some of the individual measures which their index is comprised of, we find that several countries which rank higher than the United States in economic freedom actually have both higher tax burdens (as % of GDP) and more government spending (as % of GDP) than the United States. For example, Australia, which ranks third in overall economic freedom, has percentages of 32.2 and 39.7, respectively, to the United States’ 26.9% and 38.9%. Denmark, New Zealand and Canada also exhibit this trend.
In fact, many countries with less economic freedom, and overall freedom, have lower tax rates and lower government spending compared to “free” countries. For example, Iran has a 6.1% tax burden as a percentage of its GDP and its government spending is 28.3% of its GDP, while being ranked as 171st in economic freedom. China, ranked 135st, also has a lower tax burden (26.9%) and lower government spending (38.9%) than the United States. This low ranking, however, did not stop JD Foster, a researcher at the Heritage Foundation, from claiming that the US has much to learn from China about “the power of freedom.”
So the power of a government is not simply proportional to its size, as measured by government spending at least. Yet, following Freedom Works’ logic both Iran and China are “freer” than the United States. Even “freer” still would be Burma, with a government so small (government spending is 8% of its GDP) you might be able to “drown it in the bathtub,” as Grover Norquist would like it, military junta and all.
Conservative claims aside, the United States enjoys a sizeable amount of economic freedom when compared with the rest of the world. Furthermore, taxes and government spending are only two of many factors in determining economic freedom, which itself is but one factor in general freedom, not its primary cause. And according to the Heritage Foundation, “an efficient regulatory framework,” which is “straight-forward” and “transparent,” and “strong anti-corruption laws” which are “well-enforced” (thus preventing the spread of crony capitalism) can actually enhance economic freedom.
The rule of law is indeed an important factor of economic freedom, and of course, freedom in general. Where rule of law is weak and not evenly applied to all, as it tends to be in heavily authoritarian countries, both economic and political freedom will suffer as powerful individuals and corporations refuse to play by the rules. Thomas Jefferson recognized this potential outcome when he wrote, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
For too long, the rhetoric of freedom has been dominated by conservatives who emphasize trickle-down “freedom,” directing debate away from dangers to freedom posed by the concentration of wealth and power that is currently happening in the United States. Now is the time for a deliberate debate about freedom beyond conservative ideology.
The problem with the U.S. today is not it’s freedom because we are in face “less free” than we have been in the past. If we returned to free market principles and the government receded as envisioned by our founders we would a considerably better off. No one should be brought up that they are owed a living. We could start off by kicking out the U.N., and bringing all our troops home and stopping all these stupid wars. Let freedom ring from sea to shining sea and get the government off our necks. As far as I’m concerned the Congress should be paid off and go home and do NOTHING. That would be money well spent. And the president should do likewise. Just leave us alone. Follow the maxim of the physician, “First do no harm.”
I should have been more precise with my use of the term “conservative.” I do not put Republican Conservatives like Mitt Romney in the same category as a Libertarian Conservative such as Ron Paul, with whom I agree a great deal with on some issues. When I use the term “conservative” I’m actually referring to “crony capitalists” that raise the banner of “freedom” in order to justify anything from stupid wars to pumping corporate cash into political campaigns, something which ensures that crony capitalism, and consequently big government, is not going anywhere anytime soon. Freedom, as an ideology, which is “freedom,” can be misused. We need more freedom, not more “freedom.”
But I share your contempt for Congress, but probably not for exactly the same reasons. At this point, if they went home and did nothing their approval rating might actually increase. (Not that I necessarily advocate for them doing so. )
Let me stipulate that I am a “conservative” and am sympathetic to the “Tea Party” point of view of limited government with limited handouts to buy votes. I am also sympathetic to the views of Ron Paul in that I want to end all foreign wars and bringing our troops home to protect our borders. We could also use them to help organize and fight the wildfires which are burning Texas down as I write. A lot of people like to trash Texas as though we are a bunch of wild-eyed reactionaries who don’t care anything about our “great wealth.” Truth is that I am neither wealthy or have lived in Texas all my life. I came here to escape the cold of the north but had no idea that “Hell” would descend on Texas that is the worst drouth in recorded Texas history. What people don’t seem to realize is that if Texas were to leave the United States and become its own nation we have the natural resources to provide our needs for the next 1,000 years. Since we don’t have enough water, we could, if necessary desalinate the ocean’s water and refill our lakes which are drying out and contributing to this disaster. We didn’t get a drop out Tropical Storm Lee and have had no appreciable rainfall since May 21, 2011. Two years ago we got 55 inches of rain. This year we have had 10 inches.
Before anyone thinks I am crazy I encourage everyone to drive south of Houston and observe the oil industry there and then think what would happen if we cut that supply off to the rest of the nation. We could afford to desalinate, at great cost, but now affordable since we could charge three times what the going price of oil is going on the world market and the rest of the states except for Louisiana would be at Texas’s mercy much the same way that the whole of the United States was in 1973 when the Saudis cut off our energy supply. Anyone remember the lines to fill up our gas tanks on alternate days?
This may seem all irrelevant to the person with a liberal mindset. They can turn up their nose and think the worse of those who live in Texas as somehow backward having religious beliefs and living and believing what the “beautiful people” on the east and west coast want to cram down our throats.
To repeat what I have already said, I don’t give a hoot in Hell what someone else does with their lives. What I want and most people I associate with is to be left alone and stop telling us what it is we are to believe. Virtually all intellectually honest conservative Republicans believe this. I certainly do. Ron Paul, for one does not want to control anyone. He wants what most Republicans want (who tend to Libertarianism anyway) and a sound money supply. This era of “funny money” will either end voluntarily when we regain our senses or it will end in a revolution such as was experienced with the Weimer Republic and the rise of Adolf Hitler.
BTW, most of the “crony capitalists” are Democrats as evidenced by their contributions to President Obama.
That is a matter of public record.
Sounds like ebm120 is a “true believer,” and a snarky one at that. My larger pointreally is that freedom is defined from a particular perspective. When examining the “Labor Freedom” category of Heritage Foundation’s index we see that this factor often stands in inverse proportion to Freedom House’s findings, from its report on “The Global State of Worker’s Rights.” That is, countries with a high degree of “Labor Freedom” according to Heritage Foundation’s index will be considered “Repressive,” or worse, regarding labor rights, by Freedom House. For example, according to the Heritage Foundation, Singapore has a very high degree of “Labor Freedom” while being “Repressive” according to Freedom House. The United States has a relatively high degree of Labor Freedom, 95.7, highest of all those in the top ten, with the exception of Bahrain (Repressive) and Singapore (Repressive), while being only “Mostly Free” according to Freedom House. In fact, in authoritarian countries, labor rights tend to be poor, so it is tempting to conclude that labor freedom affects freedom in general. However, it will be sufficient to conclude that labor unions do not necessarily inhibit economic freedom. The claim that they do is “class warfare.”
I have no problems with unions. I have been in unions in the past. My beef is solely with public unions is that they sit on both sides of the table, negotiating their pay and benefits and electing the politicians who will do their bidding. The taxpayers get the shaft and the bill.
Freedom is a relative thing. I’m sure that most Germans in the 1930s felt relatively “free” as they were enjoying their economic boom. Freedom in the midst of poverty is no better because a hungry man doesn’t put a high premium on economic freedom when his belly is empty. The problem is getting to the point where we have both economic freedom and economic vitality. One doesn’t have to be an Einstein to realize that the situation in the United States today is going to destroy our way of life. Paying people to be unemployed is not the solution.
I would concede that the minimum wage does not appreciably affect the unemployment figures as numerous studies have looked at this and concluded the impact is miniscule.
There can be little doubt, however, that benighted concoctions such as Obamacare are hamstringing business with rules and regulations that hold down employment. If we had a truly free market of medical care it almost certainly restrain costs. Where we ran off the rails was after WWII when employer paid medical care was offered as it was, at that time, relatively inexpensive. Today it is eating us alive. And the reason is quite simple. It is paid by someone else and not the actual recipient of the medical services. No one values freedom that much when they are in serious medical problems or hungry.
I say all this because it seems that almost everything we are doing is the wrong thing. If it could be established another nation had a better way to provide for its citizens why didn’t we simply adopt their way of governance and not reinvent the wheel?
Bottom line is that freedom is a devalued currency when our economy is in the toilet. And from most indications we are decidedly heading in the wrong direction. I truly believe that a revolution is entirely possible within this decade. We barely survived without one during the Great Depression. That is a historical fact.
Points well taken. However, for one thing, I don’t think the stereotypical “liberal mindset” is something which most Liberals actually possess. There are some snobs no doubt, but I believe this stereotype has been fed my mass media and the culture wars. The everyday reality is, more often than not, something much different. Yet if enough people feel that there is such a “liberal mindset,” the belief could evently take on a life of its own. I suppose it already has.
And I think you raise a very good point: “The problem is getting to the point where we have both economic freedom and economic vitality.” Many countries have been able to find a balance between the two. However, in the United States it has become a zero-sum game: “More freedom for you, means less freedom for me.” One of the solutions I believe is a sense of “common sacrifice.” If you’re going to have a nation that isn’t a fascist state, where it’s winner take all, then you should take the concept seriously. But Americans are really having a difficult time coming to a consensus on who should sacrifice what. “Culture wars” and “class wars” don’t help matters much. They erode trust.
I think that Scott’s central point is that economic freedom is not the only kind of freedom and is not the basis of all other freedoms. This is a fundamental point. I am planning on developing this in a future post. But please let’s not make assertions that suggest that state activity necessarily undermines economic productivity, or take it as given that the healthcare reform we finally got is undermining economic productivity. This is little more than a political talking point, supported by assertion rather than evidence.
There is a lot in the comment that I think you need to clarify or at least think through more rigorously. You can be conservative with sympathy for the Tea Party, but you cannot make the connections between a real (by which I mean true) limited (to no) government. The Tea Party (and RP) come up on both sides of the debate. They make nonsense arguments for deregulating the markets (have they forgotten what happened just a few years ago, all of which was the result of aggressive deregulation) but they want a say — they believe it is the place of the government to have a say— in one’s sexual orientation, reproductive rights, etc. If you really don’t care what anyone else does with his/her life (within reason, of course) that conviction means nothing in terms of your political affiliation.
Hypotheticals like the one you put forth about Texas can also be said about the US— in theory we can support ourselves, in THEORY. But the world is not a simple place.
Not true that most Republicans tend toward libertarianism—- old school Republicans do not.
And no revolution came out Hitler— mass murder does not always ties to revolution.
Raising the concept of economic freedom is useful. As with most concepts, it is complex and needs to be considered analytically. The Heritage Foundation shows how it operationalized the term. I suspect others might do it somewhat differently. Only in a theoretical world does a pure state of economic freedom or lack of economic freedom exist. As I see it, the rankings provided suggest that most other freedoms fair better in countries rated in the first quartile of economic freedom than in the bottom quartile.
I believe that experience has shown that, State activity may either enhance the prospects for economic productivity or detract from it. The controversial point is which State activities enhance economic productivity and which detract from it. This is where most of the arguments take place. Government policies and regulations influence economic growth positively and negatively.
In my opinion, one of the reasons that healthcare reform is still being debated is because it was pushed through without obtaining consensus for it, and left most of the implementation to regulators. Few Americans (including legislators) understood what was in the bill before it was passed, and its nature is being shaped as bureaucrats promulgate regulations. Had a different political process been used, there may have been less uncertainty about it, how it is going to work and what’s its impacts are likely to be. Uncertainty tends to lead to gridlock as far as decision-making is concerned.
It seems to me that for decades we have been empowering an Imperial Presidency supported by a massive bureaucracy led by appointed regulators, and taking power away from the other branches of government. Considering the relatively low turn out in most elections, there is also a disconnect between many citizens and their representatives. I think that this is problematic.
I think that one of the reasons consensus for healthcare reform was not achieved was the massive disinformation campaign that Republicans, and some Democrats, threw at it. But the fact that even many progressives opposed the bill does not bode well for its efficacy. Yet the claim that national health care systems necessarily erodes freedom is simply not true, and the Heritage Foundation’s index shows.
It is true that, “The controversial point is which State activities enhance economic productivity and which detract from it.” The debate that follows is often over-simplified and particular interests are often framed in general terms, as in the saying, “What’s good for X is good for America,” where X would be any corporation lobbying for more “economic freedom.”
The decline in freedom in the US should be read as the rise of corporatism, which is, by definition, fascism: the merger of corporation and state.
I’m not originally from the United States, and my background might affect my view on freedom, however, I personally think that freedom is most overused and misused word in the political discourse in the US.
I agree with the author that conservatives’ arguments about freedom divert attention from dangers posed from the concentration of wealth and power, and that conservatives’ arguments focusing on the government’s negative impacts on its people’s freedom is a prime example of the diversion.
I like the part in which the author showed that economic freedom isn’t the primary cause of overall freedom. However, according to Freedom House, economic freedom and political freedom are significantly correlated to each other. I wonder what the author’s response to the claim is.
I also like where the author points out that taxes and government spending are only two of many factors in determining economic freedom. Heritage Foundation used eight other factors to determine economic freedom. These ten factors are averaged equally into a total score. I wonder how appropriate weighting equally all the factors is.
According to John Miller’s 2005 article in ‘Dollars & Sense’, Heritage Foundation’s the Index of Economic Freedom, measures government spending/size as the change in government spending instead of its actual size (as % gross domestic product). Miller also points out that the Index of Economic Freedom gave a lower score to the US’s government spending/size than those of Sweden and Denmark because the index uses the change in government spending in spite of the US’s smaller size of government spending as % gross domestic product. He also notes regulations, including requirements for transparency in corporate accounting, environmental ones, regulations of job-related health and safety lower the country’s ranking. Miller also states that Heritage Foundation’s Index doesn’t properly measures tax burden because the index doesn’t measure effective tax rates which are conditional on what part of corporate profits and personal income are taxed.
I’m curious about the trend in the rule of law in the US as well as those in other countries. I also wonder how transparency of the government affects overall freedom.
I think the reference to the 2001 Freedom House report is from Wikipedia; I would say, first, that correlation is not causation, which is the Conservative’s claim in this instance, and second, I don’t dispute the overall claim that economic freedom correlates with political freedom, however, there are plenty of instances in Heritage’s Index where countries with high economic freedom have low political freedom, enough cases that call into question the necessary link between the two; furthermore; third, I looked at specific measures in the index to see how they correlate with economic freedom, such as government spending, which is often cited by Conservatives as a danger to freedom, and many of the countries near the top of the list have high government spending as a % of GDP as well as a high degree of economic freedom; furthermore, since those countries also have “mixed economies,” that is, they are social (as in ‘socialism’) democracies. This contradicts the claim that socialism necessarily leads to tyranny. Lastly, I would just re-iterate that the two indices which I looked at report opposite trends: economic freedom was increasing in the world while political freedom was decreasing; admittedly, a more thorough analysis of the correlation is necessary to determine the most salient factors for both economic and political freedom. It appears that taxation and government spending aren’t the decisive factors.
Also, Jeffrey Sachs claims that there is no correlation between economic freedom and economic growth. I think he’s right. But it seems I left some things out, but Miller’s conclusion does not contradict mine: “So it seems that the Index of Economic Freedom in practice tells us little about the cost of abandoning free market policies and offers little proof that government intervention into the economy would either retard economic growth or contract political freedom.”