The Land of the Free

Red or Blue - Pick your Poison - By Currents Affairs Editor Adrian Quinn

As the forty-sixth president of the United States of America, Joe Biden, approaches the end of his first and final term in office, the quadrennial spectacle of the US presidential election race has commenced. American’s will take to the polls on the 5th of November this year to elect a new leader. The nature of the United States’ first-past-the-post voting system means that, as ever, this will be a two-horse race between a Democratic candidate and a Republican counterpart. As Vice President Harris seeks to curb Trump’s advance to a second term in office, she is repeating the message which played a large part in Biden’s victory in 2020 - that Trump, more than anything or anyone, poses the greatest threat to US democratic freedom. In a country which labels itself as the “land of the free” and sees itself as a beacon of democracy, why is Trump, a man who increasingly uses authoritarian and dictatorial rhetoric, so popular? What really does it mean to be “free” to Americans?

When the US Charters of Freedom were established in the late 1700s, their purpose was to serve the interests of those who framed these canons - the white, middle-aged, property owning and slave owning men of the thirteen colonies. Guarantees of voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, and protection of private property applied exclusively to this demographic. America’s female and slave populations were excluded from many of these privileges. It was only in 1920 that women received suffrage in the USA, and only previously in 1863 were America’s Black slave population emancipated - and that emancipation was very limited in scope. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the US constitution sparked hope for America’s Black population, as it gave them freedom, citizenship and voting rights - in theory that was. However, it was not long until sectarian Black Codes and Jim Crow in old Confederate States in the south dashed away any hopes of freedom for Black people, and instead reaffirmed their status as second class citizens. Even for those in the North, where the treatment Black people received was marginally better, acting upon this new found freedom was almost impossible due to the lack of resources and support, namely property and wealth. 

It’s examples like these where the nebulous concept of US freedom exposes its own intrinsic contradictions. While these slaves, at least in theory, had indeed been freed from the literal chains of slavery, they were curbed in their freedom to embark on their pursuit of happiness and the life of the whiteman as they lacked the resources he had at his disposal. It’s here where Isaiah Berlin’s essay titled Two Concepts of Liberty takes centre stage in this discussion. Berlin discusses the notions of positive and negative liberty. According to Berlin, negative liberty is the freedom from interference and constraints by others. Positive liberty, on the other hand, concerns having resources and power available to people in order for them to do what they want. In the case of the USA, it’s certainly the concept of negative liberty which prevails amongst Americans when discussing what freedom means.

One need only look at the economic system upon which America operates. Americans are free from the high level of taxes seen in many European countries which contribute largely to funding public healthcare projects, public education and social security nets. They are thus free from government interference. Conversely, countries which employ higher and more proportional levels of tax, as a result, turnout higher standards of public services. This in turn provides people with the resources necessary and freedom, to achieve whatever it is they may want to in life. Freedom in the American sense can be viewed as  freedom from these tax obligations and instead choosing whether to buy your own health insurance or send your children to a private school. Unfortunately, just like the emancipated slaves of 1863, this freedom is fabricated - many Americans do not have the resources or support, that is to say the money, to pay for healthcare or education even if they wanted to.   

Digressing from Berlin’s abstract views on freedom and returning to the principal concern of this year’s election which is, certainly, the threat that Trump poses to democracy in America, conspiracy theory is not necessary in trying to prove this. The Capitol Hill riots of January 6th 2021 should serve as a reminder of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, as he incited an attempted insurrection of the Capitol Hill building through public speeches. The neo-fascist Proud Boys and other supporters of Trump rallied together and attempted to prevent the counting of the electoral college votes, which would ratify Biden’s presidency, and should have resulted in a peaceful transition of power. As a result, Trump was indeed impeached and is currently under trial for his involvement in these attacks. 

Another contentious topic in the forthcoming elections is the subject of abortion. While Trump has continuously produced contradictory views over his stance on abortion, his decision to claim credit for the overturning of Roe v. Wade may have revealed his true colours on stripping women’s freedom to their own bodily autonomy. Roe v. Wade, a landmark in US judiciary history, affirmed women’s constitutional right to have an abortion. Following the overruling of this decision in 2022, Americans will be forced to revisit this subject when choosing their president. 

Given the advent of Trumpism to the forefront of US politics, could Kamala Harris prove to be the saviour of freedom and democracy for the USA as it potentially reaches its twilight years? Omitting the obvious and immediate threat that Trump poses to becoming dictator of a dystopian 21st century free market hellscape, the answer is likely no. Understanding Berlin’s idea of positive freedom, the United States does not seem concerned in achieving this type of liberty. While Harris’ policies are certainly more focused on granting social freedoms and funding public services, if Scandinavian countries such as Denmark and Sweden are the benchmark for freedom in the positive and collective sense, the United States is a far cry from this, despite Harris’ more progressive views. Combined with Harris’ staunch support and funding for Israel’s apartheid regime against Palestinians, and her shady record as a prosecutor contributing to mass incarceration and the overcrowding of prisons in California, her record on freedom is not one to be lauded.

To protect freedom and democracy in the United States, the United States must already be considered free and democratic. The first-past-the-post system and electoral college system on which voting in the United States is run is possibly the furthest from democracy a country can be while still satisfying the threshold requirements of democracy. A system in which representation in government does not proportionally correspond with the public's votes, and one in which candidates and political parties’ successes rely on multi-million dollar funding from American tycoons with vested self-interests can hardly be perceived as a global standard for democracy.