3. Freedom: Is It Really Just Another Word?
 David C. Kopp
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
  -- Kris Kristofferson, American Philosopher

Some recent discussions on some email lists I belong to have gotten me to
thinking lately, and that old line from "Me and Bobby McGee"
keeps running through my head.  Is "Freedom" just another word
these days?  Have we strayed so far from the vision of the Founding Fathers
that most modern Americans don't really understand the meaning of that
word?  These are important questions to folks like myself, but I'm
beginning to wonder just how important they are to the "Average
Joe".

An understanding of the concept of freedom in America is inseparably tied
to a fundamental knowledge of our nation's history.  This country was born
in revolution, and the philosophical ideals that form the basis of our
government were, and are, unique in the world. We are the only country in
existence whose political foundations begin with the premise that all power
is inherent in the people, and that the powers of government are only those
that the people have
delegated to it through the Constitution.  True, there are other countries
that make similar claims, but their basic political structure and their
behavior towards their citizens makes those claims sound awfully hollow to
me.  If we are to understand the concept of freedom as the Founding Fathers
envisioned it, we must first understand how it is that we got from there to
here.  So, we need to learn about our history.  It sure sounds simple, and
most
folks would probably say, "I did learn about our history, when I went
to school!"  But did they really?

It's no big secret to many people that the public schools don't do much
actual "educating" these days.  Talk to any public school
teacher, and you will quickly gather that they're not much more than
expensive baby sitters.  They may not actually say that to you outright,
but if you have any talent for "reading between the lines",
you'll figure it out for yourself.  However, if you should confront them
with that reality, and start asking them for the reasons why, in their
opinion, things are the way they are, than you'd better step back and get
ready for a long litany of excuses.  I have yet to meet a public school
teacher who doesn't blame the problem on the students themselves, or their
parents, or the world around them, or the phases of the moon, or some one
out of a million other possibilities.  But, oddly enough, I have found that
any mention of the public school system itself being at fault is strangely
absent.  Suggest to them that maybe, just maybe, the methods that they use
to teach the students, not to mention the subject matter being taught,
might be at fault, and they will inevitably look at you as if you'd
suddenly grown an extra head.

Look at any public school curriculum these days, and tell me if you see any
mention of "History" therein.  Sure, you'll probably see
"Social Studies" or some derivative thereof, but
"History"?  I don't think so.  History is a dangerous thing to
teach as far as the public schools are concerned, and an even more
dangerous thing, in their opinion, for students to learn.  Especially a
history as radical, individualistic, and freedom oriented as American
history tends to be.  Teach the children that the country they live in was
founded by a bunch of right wing, Christian, gun toting, white, male
revolutionaries who lived by the strange ideal that men should control
their government, instead of their government controlling them?  Good
heavens, can you imagine the outcome of such an education?  Teach them that
sort of thing, and the next thing you know they'll be questioning
authority!  Why, perhaps they'd even start speaking up and asking
penetrating questions in the classroom. Reading books instead of watching
TV.  Studying instead of "hanging out" on the street corners. 
Having dinner with their families instead of playing video games with their
friends.  And *brace yourself* they might even go to church or something! 
No, no, NO, NO!  Couldn't have that, now could we?  I'm quite sure it'd be
bad for discipline.

So, instead of history, we get social studies.  We teach our children all
about other countries.  You know, those countries that most of our
ancestors fled from years ago, many under cover of darkness, with the
loaded gun of an oppressive government at their backs.  Maybe we'll mention
a few things about our own history.  Of course, we'll do our best to leave
out the really radical stuff.  You know, things like that pesky Bill of
Rights, or the Constitution it amended.  Or things like the Federalist
Papers, that described to all and sundry why the central government that
the new Constitution was creating would never be as oppressive and
tyrannical as the British government we had just successfully gotten rid
of.  No, what we do mention about our own history has to be carefully
screened, lest the impressionable little minds that we're molding get some
kind of idea that they're supposed to be individuals with inalienable
rights.

We can, for example, tell them about how some of the Founding Fathers owned
slaves.  Everyone knows that slavery is bad, so we can create the
subliminal impression that the Founding Fathers were bad too. Just don't
mention the fact that slavery was a very common practice all over the world
in those days, or that some of the Founders, who valued principle above
pragmatism, freed their slaves long before it became fashionable to do so. 
If we get them thinking, deep down inside, that the Founding Fathers were
basically bad people, than all
those radical ideas that they had will sound pretty bad too.  Won't they?

We could probably mention something about the Civil War, because that had
some connection to slavery too.  Of course, that particular war came about
more because of oppressive trade taxes that were imposed on the southern
states by the industrialists and their pet legislators in the northern
states.  But we don't have to mention that.  Just trot out the fact that
Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator" who was President of the
Union (i.e. northern) states,
freed the slaves, and you can gloss over the rest.  But be sure to forget
the part about the Emancipation Proclamation only freeing the slaves in the
southern states, or the part about the war being several years old before
said proclamation was published.  These things don't really send the
message we want to send, now do they?

When we're done breezing through our own country's past, we can get into
the really cool stuff that we want the kids to learn, like how wonderful
the United Nations is, and how grand it's "Declaration of Human
Rights" sounds.  Of course, the subtle turns of phrasing in said
Declaration that would give some folks that idea that all rights are
granted, and are therefore revocable, by the United Nations itself can be
glossed over as well.  After all, most folks wouldn't even notice that sort
of thing.  They might have noticed it if they had ever learned some real
American history, but we've already taken care of that part, haven't we?

We can glorify so-called "political and economic geniuses" like
Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, and ignore actual political and economic
geniuses like Thomas Paine and Friedrich Hayek.  We can rave about
"diversity" and "multi-culturalism", but denigrate
"individualism" and "nationalism".  We can mention our
great "democracy", but forget to mention that it was supposed to
be a "republic".  We can discuss all the great "social
programs" implemented by Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon
Johnson, and castigate those horrible Presidents like Ronald Reagan who
tried their best to cut some of them down to size.  Never forget that
framing the debate in this fashion will completely obliterate the notion of
"a government of limited powers, sharply defined".  Start talking
that way, and people might take a look at that Constitution we glossed over
earlier.  If they did that, and then started thinking about some of the
philosophy associated with that document's creation, then they might
realize that it was meant to define exactly what powers the central
government had, and exclude any others not listed.  Take it that far, and
they might even figure out that if some power or other wasn't explicitly
listed in that document, then the central government wasn't entitled to
exercise it.  Once they got that far, they might actually start to protest!
 Maybe even do something radical like "petition the government for a
redress of grievances"!  Or … gasp … they might even start expecting
the
grievances"!  Or *gasp* they might even start expecting the government
to operate within it's Constitutionally defined parameters!!!  And then
what would happen to all that education money we've been gorging on for
years? There's no mention of that in the Constitution anywhere!

No, it's better if we just keep things as they are, and just keep churning
out semi-educated "Average Joes" with no real inkling of our
history or the philosophical basis of our form of government.  After all,
teaching people collectivism and group-think has worked so well for so long
now, why change things? Start teaching people about concepts like
"Freedom", and you'll be asking for trouble.  No, it couldn't be
the "educational system" that's at fault here.  Must be something
else.

It's my considered opinion that the importance of the lessons of history,
and the knowledge said lessons impart, will have exactly the same level of
significance in the average person's mind as it was given during that
person's education.  If you didn't learn much about our history, or if you
didn't learn the proper significance of that history, just how important
would it's lessons be to you?  Odds are, it would rank right up there with
who the janitor is at the local bowling alley.  So, I'll ask you … did you
really learn about our history in public school?  Are you sure?

Maybe it's true.  Maybe "Freedom" is just another word these
days, at least for most folks.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  How can
I possibly expect the "Average Joe" to understand a concept that
they haven't even been taught?  After so many years of public schooling, I
really shouldn't be surprised when discussing the concepts of
"Freedom" and "Individual Rights" causes many of these
folks to get that glazed look in their eyes.  You just know that they're
getting a headache from all of this "Freedom" stuff, and would
feel much better
if I'd just let them alone so they could get back to their favorite TV
show.  I guess the fact that the concept of "Freedom" is still
important to me is an aberration, so I probably shouldn't get too upset
when other people don't get as fired up about it as I do.  But you know,
these realizations don't really help me much, and they don't really make me
feel any better.  They do, however, cause another old line to keep running
through my head …

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  -- George Santayana, American Philosopher

Copyright  David C. Kopp, 2002-2003. Permission is hereby granted to
distribute freely provided the author is quoted in full, and full credit is
given to both the author and The Libertarian Enterprise.

---