why do conservatives hate freedom?

[bentech]

By Michael Lind

Why Do Conservatives Hate Freedom?

Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.

May 15, 2012



Why do conservatives hate freedom? The question may be startling. After all, don’t conservatives claim they are protecting liberty in America against liberal statism, which they compare to communism or fascism? But the conservative idea of “freedom” is a very peculiar one, which excludes virtually every kind of liberty that ordinary Americans take for granted.

I distinguish conservatives from libertarians, who, on issues of personal liberty, tend to side with liberals. Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.

During the civil rights era, the leading conservative politician, Barry Goldwater, and the leading conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley Jr., along with most of their followers opposed federal laws banning racial discrimination. To their credit, they later admitted they had been mistaken; indeed, both Buckley and Goldwater supported gay rights late in their careers. But at the time that conservative support for a color-blind society might have made a difference, the leaders of American conservatism sided with the Southern segregationists. They claimed they did so, not because of racial prejudice, but because they feared federal tyranny — a weaselly stance that, in practice, made them side with white supremacist tyranny at the state level. If they had truly believed in their own propaganda about federalism, conservatives could have opposed federal civil rights legislation while campaigning for civil rights laws at the state level. They didn’t.

The civil rights revolution was followed by the sexual revolution. Here again, conservatives, as distinct from libertarians, were on the side of government repression. The mainstream conservative movement opposed the legalization of contraceptives and abortion. In this case, unlike in the case of civil rights, the American right did not even pretend to have constitutional reasons for opposing Supreme Court decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (which struck down state bans on the use of contraception, including by married couples) or Roe v. Wade in 1973 (which struck down state bans on most abortion). The mainstream right simply argued that conservative Christian beliefs about sexual morality should be incorporated into law. In other words, the very conservatives warning us about the dangers of “mobocracy” when it came to the welfare state had no objection to using the power of government to force their fellow citizens to live their private lives according to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas or the Book of Leviticus, as interpreted by semi-literate Southern Protestant preachers.

The conservative campaign against gay rights is equally impossible to justify, in terms of America’s Founding philosophy of natural rights. Unable to come up with any Lockean liberal reason why citizens of a democratic republic should be discriminated against, on the basis of their sexual orientations, conservatives are forced to cite the Bible or thousands of years of tradition. The whole point of the American Founding, however, was to establish a regime that was not based, like the pre-modern monarchies of Europe, on revealed religion or ancient custom. In the words of Gen. George Washington in his circular to the states, shortly after victory in the American war of independence:

The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government…” A theocratic or tribalist Right that argues for public policies by invoking divine revelation to some ancient prophet or immemorial custom dating back to “the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition,” is profoundly, radically un-American.

In the cases of freedom from racial discrimination and freedom from sexual repression, American conservatives have been solidly on the side of government repression of the powerless and unprivileged. The same is true with respect to workers’ rights, debtors’ rights and criminal rights.

To listen to their Jacksonian rhetoric, American conservatives are the champions of the little guy against the “elites.” But not, it appears, in the workplace or the bank. The American right is opposed to anything — minimum wage laws, unions, workplace regulations — that would increase the bargaining power of workers relative to their bosses.

And what about debtors? Genuine Jeffersonians and Jacksonians have usually sided with working-class debtors against upper-class creditors. Not American conservatives. They supported laws making it harder for families crippled by medical bills to declare bankruptcy. The Tea Party was mobilized in part by opposition to proposals to restructure the debt of homeowners who are “underwater” with their mortgages. And — best of all — the very same American right that wants to impose Catholic or Old Testament sexual morals in the bedroom opposes Catholic and Old Testament teachings about the need to limit usury.

Last but not least is the appallingly authoritarian conservative record in the realm of criminal rights. If American conservatives really believed their talk about the threat of government tyranny and government incompetence, they would unanimously oppose the death penalty. Nothing could illustrate arbitrary, despotic government power more than the possibility that execution might depend on the vagaries of jury selection or the incompetence of state-appointed legal counsel. And yet when it comes to the death penalty, American conservatives abruptly forget their qualms about state power in its most lethal form. The same conservative movement that claims that government cannot be trusted to run the postal system or administer Social Security insists that wise and flawless government never applies the death penalty to the guilty inconsistently and never executes an innocent person by mistake.

What would America look like, if conservatives had won their battles against American liberty in the last half-century? Formal racial segregation might still exist at the state and local level in the South. In some states, it would be illegal to obtain abortions or even for married couples to use contraception. In much of the United States, gays and lesbians would still be treated as criminals. Government would dictate to Americans with whom and how they can have sex. Unions would have been completely annihilated in the public as well as the private sector. Wages and hours laws would be abolished, so that employers could pay third-world wages to Americans working seven days a week, 12 hours a day, as many did before the New Deal. There would be far more executions and far fewer procedural safeguards to ensure that the lives of innocent Americans are not ended mistakenly by the state.

That is the America that the American right for the last few generations has fought for. Freedom has nothing to do with it.



http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/155443 ... e_freedom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anu]

even if they're a billionaire with a radical lesbian daughter they can still hate freedom.Billionaire fuk may commit 10 million to defeat O'Bama

Published: May 17, 2012
PoliticsBillionaire tied to Wright ad blitz a rising force

Joe Ricketts – Photo: AP

Joe Ricketts – Photo: AP
More Photos (1 of 1) WASHINGTON (AP) — The wealthy executive who considered and then dropped a proposal to revive controversy over the relationship between President Barack Obama and his former pastor is a rising conservative maverick with ties to the Chicago Cubs baseball team. He's also linked to a "super" political action committee that bankrolled an upset in Nebraska's recent Republican Senate primary.

J. Joseph Ricketts, 70, a politically conservative Nebraskan known as "Joe," built the TD Ameritrade brokerage firm into a billion-dollar empire that backed the purchase of the Cubs as well as interests in film, media, resorts and bison meat products. As the man reportedly behind a planned $10 million anti-Obama ad blitz — a spokesman on Thursday blamed the proposal on consultants and said it was being shelved — Ricketts is a new force in GOP and conservative politics.

Advertisement

It doesn't run in the family: Ricketts' daughter, Laura, is a prominent lesbian activist who is a volunteer fundraiser for Obama. Joe Ricketts was identified by a Republican strategist Wednesday as the financier behind plans being drawn up for a $10 million campaign that would have targeted Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor with a history of racially incendiary sermons. Wright's relationship with Obama, his former parishioner, was a hot-button issue in the 2008 presidential race.

Obama's 2008 rival, Sen. John McCain, mostly steered clear of the topic and aides to Mitt Romney quickly repudiated the tactic on Thursday, leading Ricketts to torpedo the plan. The new super PACs allow well-funded business and other interest groups to wade into political issues that are too sensitive for rival campaigns. Ricketts is on the cutting edge of that phenomenon, one of several wealthy conservative financiers who have single-handedly set up super PACs and nonprofit foundations to advance their pet issues.

Ricketts spent nearly $1.2 million in 2010 to create Ending Spending Action Fund, which was reportedly considering the Wright attack ads. The committee has a sister nonprofit, also called Ending Spending, which Ricketts set up for issue advocacy. It was preceded by Taxpayers Against Earmarks, an advocacy group for Ricketts' campaign against the use of congressional provisions to benefit specific projects in legislators' districts.

Calls to Ricketts at Ending Spending were not immediately returned, but the president of the committee, Brian Baker, said in a statement on the group's website that the planned ad campaign "reflects an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects." Baker called the plans "only a suggestion" and added that Ricketts was "neither the author nor the funder" — despite indications of deeper involvement.

A champion of limited government and free enterprise who once supported Democratic Party candidates, Ricketts joins such well-heeled conservative activists as the Koch brothers, who head the conservative Americans for Prosperity organization, in pumping millions of dollars into campaigns to influence elections and public policy. His Tampa, Fla.-based super PAC spent $600,000 in the Nevada Senate race in 2010 in a failed attempt to unseat Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

But Ricketts has also shown an independent streak, willing to take on rival conservatives as he did in Nebraska's recent GOP Senate primary. Ricketts' super PAC quietly fronted $130,000 for ads supporting Debra Fischer, a state senator who upset a well-funded rival supported by other influential conservatives. Fischer had tea party support but was opposed by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and other top conservatives.

Ricketts' website describes him as an advocate for "responsible government that promotes freedom, fosters free enterprise and encourages individual opportunity." The site also describes Ricketts' ventures since he retired in 2011 from TD Ameritrade, including the American Film Company; DNAinfo.com, a New York hyper-local website; and High Plains Bison, a bison meat product firm.

Ricketts' family in 2009 purchased 95 percent ownership of the Chicago Cubs for a reported $900 million. The main investor was Ricketts' son, Tom, who is the team's chairman, but Ricketts' other three children, Laura, Pete and Todd, also have interests and are on the team's board. Joe Ricketts also has an interest. Despite his limited government philosophy, the ball club is pressing for $200 million in state-backed bonds to renovate Wrigley Field, the Cubs stadium also owned by the family.

On Wednesday, Tom Ricketts directly confronted the reports that his father was behind the anti-Obama ad campaign. "As chairman of the Chicago Cubs, I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has," he said.

Laura Ricketts also spoke out. "We have different political views on how to achieve what is best for the future of America, but we agree that each of us is entitled to our own views and our right to voice those views," she said.

Laura Ricketts is listed by the Obama campaign as a bundler raising between $200,000 and $500,000 in donations. She introduced Obama last February during a Chicago fundraising event that took in more than $1.4 million

[Intrinsic]

Why do conservatives hate freedom? By Michael Lind
I read it and could not find the answer in his lengthy “answer”. Instead it was mostly about elitists’ freedom under the banner of conservatism, not why.
FWIW I will attempt to concisely answer the question:

Conservatism inherently implies little or no change.
Freedom, from empirical evidence of nature, leads to a variety of change, not all “good” or all workable. The intrinsic concept of conservatism is opposed to any change that is not good.

[MadMoonMan]

The current Liberals want to destroy Freedom by complete control of your life. Tell you what to eat drink and how to be properly merry.

Robots do as we say and provide for us.

The current Conservatives have changed in last few years with the Tea Party Conservatives versus the Establishment Repuplicans.

Truth is after all that exhaustive analysis theres not really a lot you can do to save the world from economic and financial destruction. Rolls a joint.

Wheres that beer I had? Man stupid cat drank my beer again.. ok wait here it is .. lol must of missed it sitting on my lightstand next to me.

Ok thats comedy all right? See there how after you get drunk and smoke a joint you get funny and ..

ok .. fine I forget the joke ending so sue me..

OK yes I was going to make a very funny joke about shooting cats but my 9 lives survival instinct kicked in and I'm like .. whoa dude.. dead cats are not funny no matter how many lives they live.

land on your feet

hope gravity still applies

Bible says the world will get so wild and crazy and from chaos the world begins to teeter like a top beginning to spin off axis and fall.

Of course thats at the end in the worst of it.

I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian with Christian values.

I despise false religions.

GOD doesn't turn you into a robot why should they be allowed to.

Dont tread on my broken snake man.