Freedom: Not Just Good. It’s the Right Thing to Do.
“I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.” -George Washington September 19th, 1796
The quote above is a portion of the last paragraph from George Washington’s farewell address. What I find particularly important about this portion, and most especially in our present time in history, are the concepts of freedom, laws, government, and citizenship. Individually, these are all valuable concepts, but they must all be present to make the type of each that we have taken for granted all of our lives. In Washington’s youth as a royal subject, three of the four existed, but the lack of what we take for granted as citizenship relegated the other three to an inferior status. The war to separate us from England’s hold on us as a colony was necessary to give life to our style of these four concepts, and how they work together to give rise to something that had not existed.
Even here, with these bedrock concepts, our style of freedom was not perfect. It is not today. But, what we have is a commitment to the basic philosophy of our style of freedom, and with that commitment, we can bring errors, shortcomings, and transgressions into line with our principles. We also invite others to judge our actions by this set of principles.
Outside of national boundaries, there are no legal authorities. The only thing that can make order is power and submission. The only thing that can keep power from being brutal and corrupt is deference to a noble set of principles. Royalty and the lack of a citizens rights made for a world that allowed for the corrupt power imbalance, by American freedom standards. The lack of citizenship in our own country allows for a power imbalance that supports economic injustice, denies a free government, and by extension good laws. This balance is a struggle everywhere that the freedom construct is attempted.
There is a problem with the erosion of rights domestically, and partitioning of rights of some from rights of others. The diminution of rights for some creates the imbalance that is the diminution of rights for all. As Washington put it, the “benign influence of good laws under a free government”, becomes impossible when this balance is lost. This is also the case with international relations. Power does not ever work in the interest of justice, or the people. Power works in its own interest. Authoritarianism is a power mechanism, not a mechanism of the people. There is no “benign influence”, no “good laws”, and no “freedom” under authoritarianism.
Even under the best circumstances, it can not be known that an authoritarian leader, like Putin, is acting in the people’ s interest. It is impossible to discern clearly, even when the causes are parallel. In the case of war, the worst, and most serious and taxing thing a government can do, it must be known that it is the will of the people. Even when it is the will of the people it can have ethical problems, and with a captive populace, the evil of such government action is unlimited. There is zero accountability when trying to return to stability when wars end. And, all wars must end eventually. When an authoritarian state like Germany went to war in World War I, accountability could not be maintained. Those forced to account were members of a resultant democracy, and the feelings of the people led to another authoritarian state, and another evil war.
It has been said that democracy is not the best form of government, but it is the best we have. I find this analysis to be valid because it allows for choice, and the accountability for those choices. If you tip the balance that George Washington elucidated in his farewell speech, you give rise to situations like Russia’s current day. You have people living in what the leader calls a democracy, but does not function like one. You have a leader committing them to a war, for his purposes, in order to capture another fledgling democracy, and this authoritarian evil is propagated. Our “mutual cares, labors, and dangers” cease being mutual, and the freedom disintegrates. They are not mutual in an authoritarian state, and in a democracy like ours that still aspires to being fully free, can never achieve that noble principle as the evil of authoritarianism is allowed to propagate, abroad or home. Neither citizens, subjects, nor the enslaved of authoritarian states want authoritarianism. They just don’t have any other choice.
02/06/2022 @ 12:11 am
Well said….
If past is prologue, then history can show us the way….
…And yet, we may still wonder how people who could articulate so eloquently about liberty, freedom, and justice but continued to be slave holders….
02/06/2022 @ 1:08 am
That is not a conundrum we will ever be able to rectify. Most of our founding fathers will forever have an asterisk next to their names. The question will be what we do about those asterisks. The sensible answer is that we will teach our children the whole picture, that these men did things that were great and terrible. We cannot teach just one.
02/06/2022 @ 6:27 am
“…we will teach our children the whole picture…”
There are Republican legislatures and governors who are making it illegal to so so….
And, books that tell the whole story are being banned by people who are being told that racism and bigotry are the order of the day and that violence, borne of open ignorance and public stupidity, is a legitimate element of political discourse and debate.
02/06/2022 @ 11:46 pm
That is obviously something to be fought
02/06/2022 @ 1:24 am
We do not approve of Russia’s authoritarianism. However, Russia’s form of government is not on the table. We are not planning to attempt to change it. Nor are we planning to change Ukraine’s, which is authoritarian in its own right. That is not our choice.
Our choice has to do with whether we can prevent an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Militarily, no. That choice is de facto Russia’s. Neither we nor NATO will commit troops to Ukraine. Arm them sure. We already are. All we can do is make an invasion economically unattractive but if Russia objects more to NATO on its border than to sanctions then the sanctions are no more than a statement that will make a Russian civilians suffer. They will still be necessary but that’s what they’ll do.
We have one way to prevent this invasion. We can give Russia security guarantees. Let’s be clear about this: this is not about giving Russia territory. It’s about saying officially You’re Safe From Us, assuming you don’t invade anyone.
Is it worth it? Given that we have no intention of invading Russia anyway, it’s remarkably inexpensive.
And yet it’s not on the table. I don’t see the logic of this.
02/06/2022 @ 6:50 am
Actually, Kosh, nothing is on the table. Absolutely nothing will be changed by our discussion. As a result, everything is on the table because a complete understanding of the issue requires a full accounting of relevant issues. We are no less determining when, where or if Russia will invade than we are the types of governments involved. So let’s not try that type of deflection. And, we are discussing an issue between NATO and Russia, right? Think again. Type of government is relevant to the conflict. The conflict is primarily about type of government. If Russia were a true democracy, this conflict would not exist. As for Ukraine being authoritarian also, so is the US to some degree. It was even more so in George Washington’s time. The difference between those and Russia is a commitment to principles, as stated by Washington, to which they can be held and directed. That is the general answer to slave holders of that time, and fledgling democrats today. Russia is not in that class. The government is a criminal organization, run by a murderous authoritarian, who we know is planning to stage a false flag to justify what you claim (or imply) is the will of the Russian people. Oh, by the way, you have tried to have that both ways too. Either the Russian people support the war out of “fear” of the West, or it is “not on the table” as you would say regarding an issue that you don’t want to face. If fear is motivating their support, then NATO would be invading…ultimately. If they are merely afraid of war, and Putin is deciding for them, then NATO is defending Ukraine, the West…and the Russian people.
02/06/2022 @ 11:52 pm
Ukraine in terms of human rights is far closer to Russia than to the US.
What Ron’s article said about Russians is that they did not necessarily favor war but that they agreed with Putin about NATO and Ukraine.
“Absolutely nothing will be changed by our discussion.” That’s an assumption and an assertion I just don’t see a basis for. Putin wants to invade for a particular reason. He states his reason. He states what it would take him not to invade. You assume he’s lying based on what? Authoritarianism? That’s not a good enough basis. There were agreements even the Nazis kept.
02/07/2022 @ 6:49 am
“Ukraine in terms of human rights is far closer to Russia than to the US.”
How so, Kosh, please expound.
“…they (the Russian people) did not necessarily favor war but that they agreed with Putin about NATO and Ukraine.”
Agreed with Putin based on what?
People who would stage and film a fake atrocity perpetrated by Ukraine would most certainly engage in the saturation of the Russian populace with disinformation and misinformation re the political stance and military posture of NATO….
02/07/2022 @ 12:50 pm
Agreed with Putin based on information from the link you provided. It’s how the article starts.
Ukraine human rights: mixed bag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ukraine
02/07/2022 @ 5:12 am
No, I do not assume he’s lying. I don’t know whether he is or not. I assume he is illegitimate.
Also, by “our discussion”, I mean the discussion taking place between you, me, and Ron. Russia won’t decide based upon that, so ruling things out is not necessary. I do think Russia should listen to me, but I am not under any illusions.
02/07/2022 @ 7:37 am
I don’t even think it is relevant that Ukraine is closer to Russia in terms of human rights. It seems like Koshersalaami is grasping for straws there. Ukraine could be doing whatever. The important points are the following. Ukraine is a democracy. Ukraine does not want to be invaded by Russia. Russia is not doing so to improve Ukraine’s human rights record.
I saw an interesting statement this past weekend which tangentially applies in this conversation. In a documentary that is to be shown on Showtime sometime soon, a person was quoted as saying, “white people fear the end of the world. Native Americans have experienced the end of the world several times…”. It applies to the perspective that only easterners and residents of Israel can understand existential threat. I think that is a myopic view. And to use that as a base for the notion that Russia and Putin are justified in their emotional need to invade and steal land from Ukraine, and determine for bordering democracies with whom they might be allied. It is absurd on its face. Yes, Russia has been repeatedly invaded over the past several centuries. Welcome to Earth.
02/07/2022 @ 1:18 pm
It doesn’t matter whether or not they are justified. It matters more whether or not their reaction is predictable.
Sure, you can say that the idea that they should have any sway over whether their neighbors are allied with organizations that historically oppose them is ridiculous, but that and a buck gets you a cheap cup of coffee. We’re looking at a pending invasion. What do we do about it?
To figure out what to do, it helps to be able to figure out how much of what Russia is saying is bluff and how much is not. Is Russia likely to invade if plans continue to allow Ukraine to join NATO? Are sanctions likely to prevent an invasion? Is Russia unlikely to invade if the West commits to security guarantees?
My overall point is a very simple one:
Russia is unlikely to be bluffing.
Russia is unlikely to be deterred by sanctions.
Russia is likely to call off the invasion if they get security guarantees.
This has nothing to do with human rights, Putin’s thugishness, whatever. It has to do with predicting behavior and predicting what course of action is most likely to produce a desired result and why.
When I talk about international actors or for that matter domestic economic actors my focus is rarely on moral judgments. People think that’s what I’m talking about but I rarely am.
02/07/2022 @ 5:17 pm
I predicted several years ago that whether or not Russia continues west will depend on Putin’s state of mind. If he was deterred by the prospect of sanctions, he is acting rationally, and he will stay inside his own border. And, if he is after some irrational quest for empire, he will take the big risk and push through Ukraine. I said this before he went into Crimea, and thought maybe that might be good enough for him. Obviously it wasn’t.
Now, as to whether or not the moral question matters, here is why it does. The moral aspect of this issue is the tie that will bind allies together against an unjust invasion. Lacking that, various countries might make their separate deals for their own reasons. The thing holding countries like Germany, France, and UK with the US in this effort is the moral principle of freedom and democracy. The US is toying with abandoning these principles domestically. The other allies are as well, and are at various levels. It will be changing on those principles that will re-order the West. Holding to those will support the fight to maintain the status quo. At some point there could be a critical mass of people in the West who do not see the value of the morals attached here. At that point, the US and Europe will go the way of Putin’s Russia and Hungary, and Poland, and various other failing or dead democracies. It is true that Russia wont be deterred by a moral principle. The hope for the West is that there are enough people who do not think like you regarding the moral value of freedom and democracy. I do not advocate seeing it the way Russia does. Russia is lost under Putin.
02/09/2022 @ 12:23 am
This is Alan posting under a pseudonym. I had no trouble getting in. Let’s see if this comment. posts.