Freedom
Freedom is deeply rooted in the history of American revolution and is enshrined in many ancient political philosophies. Fast-forward to today’s context: liberals and conservatives vary in their interpretations about the meaning of the term.
One of the earliest discussions on the term freedom comes from John Locke’s theory of freedom, which underwent several revisions by Locke himself. In his essays, Locke defined the individual freedom of will as “the Idea of a Power in any Agent to do or forbear any Action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, whereby either of them is preferr’d to the other” — in simpler terms, the power of people to exert their mind to do or not do anything. Locke related this concept of freedom to the rights of people, based on which he argued that a conditional transfer of some of these rights enabled the formation of governments. Locke’s philosophy on freedom heavily influenced the American Revolution, and his idea of protection of “life, liberty, and estate” was enshrined in the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Similar to how Locke described freedom as a “‘two-way’ power,” many conservatives and liberals diverged in their focus on the two aspects of freedom: positive and negative freedom. While positive freedom refers to the possibility of acting to realize one’s fundamental principles, negative freedom refers to the absence of any obstruction or restriction. This idea was explored by Isaiah Berlin, who distinguished the two concepts as potentially incompatible. What this implies for today’s political debates on freedom is that though both Democrats and Republicans tend to claim themselves as defenders of freedom despite varying reasonings, they might both be right in their interpretations of freedom.
In general, liberals tend to interpret freedom as positive freedom. Positive freedom concerns the individual’s “capacity to” do things they wish. In other words, it is the absence of internal limits. These internal limits can be gender-based, racial and socio-economic barriers that limit the individual's access to resources or opportunities to exercise their free will. Isaiah Berlin describes this kind of freedom as self-realization or self-mastery in pursuing one’s desires, even though, similar to Kant’s ideas of freedom, the pursuit of such mastery means obeying rules that the uncoerced self “prescribed” to themself.
Based on the logic of self-prescription of rules, liberals reconcile with the presence of restraint from governmental rules as a condition of state provision that enabled individuals’ autonomous pursuit of happiness and values instead of being guided by external stimuli. In liberals’ vision, government intervention should promote equality and surmount the external barriers they might face to pursuing their free will. An example of this argument lies in state-mandated education, and liberals tend to argue that the law to obtain education is not to restrain individuals’ freedom of not going to school but to equip them with the resources to form their value systems so that they can pursue their happiness guided by their values from an empirical perspective.
It is also not to say that liberals see the conduciveness of government restriction in every aspect of preserving freedom. One exception to the idea of positive freedom is reproductive freedom. In liberal discourse, the relationship between government intervention and protection of freedom is complicated. Some liberals consider government interference an infringement of freedom. For example, Congresswoman Angie Craig (D-MN) expressed that “The federal government has no place interfering in the decisions between a woman and her doctor, criminalizing abortion or enacting arbitrary laws that undermine women's reproductive freedoms.” Despite that, some liberals see the potential importance of government in protecting equal access to reproductive rights. In an op-ed published by the Los Angeles Times (Lean Left Bias), the columnist calls for federal-level or state-level legislation to protect reproductive rights.
However, conservatives put heavy emphasis on freedom more in alignment with the meaning of negative freedom. Conservatives tend to argue that freedom should be independent, and the kind of freedom conditioned by government provision makes an individual “dependent and weak.” One school of thought among them refers to freedom as the absence of external restraints, which extends in real life to support minimal governmental intervention. As long as there is deliberate interference from other people, the individual is not free. This school of thought distinguishes lack of freedom from mere incapacity to act. To illustrate the distinction, if a person cannot afford to obtain something due to economic incapacity and government interference is not in the picture, they are still considered politically free by the definition of negative freedom.
It is also necessary to point out that modern-day conservatives don’t overwhelmingly align with the libertarian notion of negative freedom. Some others, including constitutional conservatives, view moderation as essential to secure and conserve freedom. In light of the spirit of the American Constitution, this group would advocate that freedom is achieved through balancing competing interests and dispersing powers of domination. While constitutional conservatives advocate for limited government, they also see the government's responsibilities in providing “the incentive and tools to perform it [freedom] effectively.”
Libertarians, especially, also point out that positive freedom tends to contradict the notion of negative freedom. Because contributing public resources to enable people to exercise their free will takes others’ resources from them, violating the givers’ negative freedom, the state should only promote negative freedom. Examples of such include taxation for social safety nets, in which libertarians would argue it is a violation of the taxpayer’s negative freedom; and even if hypothetically a free educational or healthcare system is not funded by anyone else’s resources, it would be a violation of the doctor’s/teacher’s negative freedom by forcing them to provide their labor for free.
While there is considerable difference between positive and negative freedom, people across the political spectrum don’t necessarily have completely different views on fundamental democratic values like freedom of expression, assembly, belief, and press. A poll done by the University of Massachusetts Lowell found that 10 percent more Democrats would say they support freedom of assembly if the group in question is Black Lives Matter, and 11 percent more Republicans would express support for the same cause if the group identified is the “alt-right” movement. This shows that the framing of the questions and the influence of current events matter as well for people’s conception of freedom.