On the occasion of the 4th of July I asked myself: what is the greatest threat to our freedom as Americans?
Is it a foreign military power or an attack by terrorists? We can never rule out the possibility of such threats and must be grateful to the men and women of the Armed Forces for protecting us from such dangers. But this is not our greatest threat. We have been able to face such dangers in the past.
Is it an all-invasive government which observes our every move and controls our every action, much like George Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ in his work ‘1984’? This is a real danger in today’s contemporary world, particularly since our Internet age has made the tracking of our activities all the easier for the government. But in the end, no matter how controlling the government, it cannot be sustained when enough of its citizens refuse to cooperate – as was witnessed in the Velvet Revolution of 1989, which overthrew the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in a matter of weeks.
Is the greatest threat to our freedom financial collapse due to a possible government default on its enormous debt which would make our currency worthless overnight? This too must be taken seriously, nevertheless there is still time for the government and individuals to live within our means, pay down our debt and avoid such a scenario. This is not the greatest danger.
The greatest danger to America’s freedom is more subtle. It is that which undermines our ability to effectively address all the other threats mentioned above. Ironically, the biggest threat to our freedom as Americans is our false concept of freedom. We have confused liberty with license, which Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines as: ‘freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility,’ and as a, ‘disregard for standards of personal conduct.’ So if someone understands freedom to be the ability to ‘do whatever I want’ without any moral constraint, then he is seriously undermining the liberty we so cherish in this country. How is this so?
G.K. Chesterton wrote, ‘Every sane man recognizes that unlimited liberty is anarchy.’[i] If someone is going to get drunk at a party, he will either risk killing himself and others driving home or get someone else to drive for him. He is now dependent upon another for what he should have been able to do for himself. If a man fathers one or more children outside of marriage and is unwilling to bear the practical and financial burden of raising them – then the single mother often becomes dependent upon extended family or the government to fill the void. Dependence is the key word – the opposite of independence. The examples could be endlessly multiplied, but the principle is the same: when an individual acts irresponsibly his freedom and the freedom of others is seriously undermined.
This is not an invitation to individualism, which says that each person should fend only for himself. Interdependence is an essential part of our social nature. But it is precisely personal responsibility that is the glue that keeps that social network intact.
And as long as there are enough responsible people to cover for the irresponsibility of the few, society can be sustained. But when a society as a whole reaches a tipping point where there are so many acting irresponsibly that there are no longer enough hands to keep things going, then it all breaks down. So if six friends go to a party, five can get drunk as long as one is a designated driver. But if all six get drunk, there is no one left to drive. If there is no extended family to assist a single mother, will a check from the government be sufficient help to raise the child? And if there are not enough people paying into such government programs to help the truly needy, where will the money come?
If enough members in society are so completely ignorant of or indifferent to the political process because they are more interested in Facebook, American Idol and sports than responsibly fulfilling their civic duty – then how can we be surprised that politicians and interest groups can so easily get away with policies that undermine our freedom? The politicians ultimately know that they will not be held accountable to their constituents as long as we have bread to eat and modern day circuses to entertain us.
Our democratic tradition in the United States is something for which we can rightfully be proud. And yes, we must be deeply grateful to the soldiers, statesmen, social and religious leaders, and ordinary citizens who have sacrificed to sustain that liberty. But that liberty must be re-conquered by each generation through their willingness to embrace the self-sacrifice necessary to take on the responsibilities that freedom entails. Will we do it? That depends upon your definition of freedom.
[i] G.K. Chesterton in ‘The Superstition of Divorce’, p. 78 quoted in http://www.chesterton.org/discover-chesterton/quotations-of-g-k-chesterton/#Liberty
That’s cool
Excellent–thanks for this thoughtful analysis. C.S. Lewis wrote something similar in the Abolition of Man: “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”