{"id":157260,"date":"2024-08-31T22:03:16","date_gmt":"2024-09-01T06:03:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=157260"},"modified":"2026-04-18T04:49:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T12:49:39","slug":"what-does-kamalas-freedom-agenda-mean","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=157260","title":{"rendered":"What Does Kamala’s Freedom Agenda Mean?"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Democrats have now rebranded as the party of freedom,” Reason magazine Editor Matt Welch noted in a recent video<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Is this freedom agenda more substantial than the joy agenda?<\/p>\n

Linguist John McWhorter wrote in the New York Times Aug. 29<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018Joy\u2019 Is a Euphemism for a Word No One Wants to Say Out Loud<\/p>\n

The problem is that no one is talking about what the joy is really based on and how it could let us down in the end.<\/p>\n

…a good deal of the joy people keep talking about is a result of one fact: that Harris is Black….<\/p>\n

Nothing about Harris just now justifies her being treated as some kind of once-in-a-generation phenom or savior. This is about not substance but optics. Harris is being received on the basis of a category she fits into rather than who she is as an individual. The thing sweeping so many people up is the idea that her being Black \u2014 and a Black woman at that \u2014 would in some resonant way shape her presidency. <\/p>\n

…Obama was a Black president; it\u2019s hard to see how it ended up making anything better.<\/p>\n

There is no reason to suppose that Harris\u2019s color will be any more significant than Obama\u2019s was if she becomes president.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Freedom can never mean anything more than freedom to act according to one’s hero system<\/a>. Any other quality ascribed to freedom is just rhetoric. The “free world” during the cold war was that part of the world largely aligned with America’s dominant hero system (that it largely inherited from England). <\/p>\n

Categories such as true and false, right and wrong, good taste and bad taste, sense and nonsense, weird and normal, depend upon one’s hero system. The position of the observer shapes the data. For example, I’m conservative. I react to the world in predictable ways. <\/p>\n

Reason’s Katherine Mangu-Ward said last week<\/a>: “I saw the silent presence of Chat GPT in so many of those [Democratic convention] speeches like every single one of them could have been and I think many of them likely were written either by or with the assistance of AI and I look forward to the expose on that in the distant future. They were so generic, they were so bland, it really was message discipline on display.”<\/p>\n

Matt: “Freedom to the right to have housing.”<\/p>\n

Katherine: “Freedom to not feel sad about Donald Trump. Freedom to have abortions paid for by nuns.”<\/p>\n

Peter Suderman: “Democrats ran on pablum. Hour after hour of shallow platitudes.”<\/p>\n

Merrill Matthews writes for The Hill Aug. 27<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n…the overriding theme at the convention and until the election is freedom. But don\u2019t be fooled. Democratic strategists made it very clear months ago that they shifted to the freedom theme as a marketing strategy because it sells well.<\/p>\n

As the Wall Street Journal\u2019s Molly Ball reported<\/a> last December, abortion rights advocates have \u201cchanged their message.\u201d And the article\u2019s subtitle explains why: \u201cSupporters of abortion access have emphasized \u2018freedom\u2019 and \u2018values\u2019 in successful campaigns in red-leaning states, with more to come in 2024.\u201d <\/p>\n

…Ball points out, \u201cAbortion-rights activists rarely use the term \u2018pro-choice\u2019 anymore, preferring to talk about people\u2019s \u2018freedom to decide.\u2019\u201d We heard that message from several convention speakers. <\/p>\n

As one Democrat told Ball, \u201c\u2018The messaging we were using wasn\u2019t working, and we knew we had to get at deeper emotions, versus what people say they think.\u2019\u201d Democrats discovered the term freedom resonated with lots of people, especially with independents and seniors. <\/p>\n

Democratic pollster Angela Kuefler added that Democrats \u201ccan seize on the success of the \u2018freedom\u2019 message and tie it to other issues, such as Republicans\u2019 attempts to limit books in school libraries or gender-reassignment treatments.\u201d <\/p>\n

How do you know that Democrats are deceptively using the term freedom to sell their agenda? Because there are lots of fundamental freedoms they have no intention of allowing Americans to enjoy. Here\u2019s some of them: <\/p>\n

Am I free not to have health insurance? <\/p>\n

Am I free not to be vaccinated? <\/p>\n

Am I free not to drive an electric vehicle? <\/p>\n

Am I free not to send my children to the public school of the government\u2019s choosing? <\/p>\n

Am I free to go to church or synagogue during a pandemic? <\/p>\n

Do I have the freedom, if I\u2019m a young lady, to compete in sports only against biological females? Not in Walz\u2019s world. When Minnesota Republicans introduced a bill that would ban transgender athletes from playing on sports teams matching their gender identity, as opposed to their biological sex, Walz threatened to veto it. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Molly Ball wrote for the WSJ Dec. 30, 2023<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Shortly after November\u2019s state-level elections affirmed voters\u2019 support for abortion rights in Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, a Democratic pollster named Angela Kuefler got on a webinar to deliver an analysis\u2014and a warning\u2014to her fellow progressives. Yes, it was clear abortion was a winning issue, she said, but it mattered a lot how advocates talked about it.<\/p>\n

\u201cTalking about this in the context of values really widens our support,\u201d said Kuefler, an adviser to the Nov. 7 ballot initiative in Ohio that added a right to abortion to the state\u2019s constitution, winning by nearly 14 points in a state President Biden lost by eight. By values, she explained, she was principally talking about the idea of freedom. In polling by Kuefler\u2019s firm, Global Strategy Group, majorities answered \u201cyes\u201d to both \u201cShould we restore the rights we had under Roe v. Wade?\u201d and \u201cShould personal decisions like abortion be up to women rather than the government?\u201d But the latter statement outperformed the former by a whopping 19-point margin, she noted, adding, \u201cIt\u2019s the values language that allows us to win by such big margins.\u201d<\/p>\n

…many Democrats see the issue\u2019s success\u2014at a time when their party\u2019s stances on many other issues are unpopular\u2014as a crucial political asset: not only as a way to drive turnout in the 2024 presidential election but also a road map for appealing to voters\u2019 fundamental values on issues from the economy to education.<\/p>\n

…Republicans have noticed the resonance with their liberty-loving voters. \u201cThey stole freedom!\u201d one antiabortion Republican consultant recently remarked.<\/p>\n

…A similar linguistic and conceptual shift powered the public\u2019s increasing support of same-sex marriage as advocates switched from talking about \u201cgay rights\u201d to talking about the universal values of love and commitment and the \u201cfreedom to marry\u201d whomever one chooses.<\/p>\n

Democrats, Kuefler said, must not assume that simply putting abortion on the ballot will automatically be a winner as activists work to do so in multiple states in 2024. But they can seize on the success of the \u201cfreedom\u201d message and tie it to other issues, such as Republicans\u2019 attempts to limit books in school libraries or gender-reassignment treatments, or even conservative policies on healthcare, taxes and crime that liberals argue circumscribe people\u2019s autonomy. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe \u2018freedom\u2019 argument both speaks to a value we have and undercuts a Republican brand advantage,\u201d Kuefler said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Andrew Heywood wrote in his 2015 book Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\nFreedom or liberty (the two terms are best used interchangeably) is, in its broadest sense, the ability to think or act as one wishes. An important distinction is nevertheless made between negative and positive freedom (Berlin, 1958). Negative freedom means non – interference: the absence of external constraints on the individual. The individual is thus \u2018at liberty\u2019 to act as he or she wishes. The clearest manifestations of negative freedom are in the form of freedom of choice, civil liberty and privacy. Positive freedom is linked to the achievement of some identifiable goal or benefit, usually personal development or self – realization, though Berlin defined it as self – mastery and linked it to democracy . For Berlin, the negative\/positive distinction was reflected in the difference between being free from something and being free to do something. However, the \u2018freedom from\u2019 and \u2018freedom to\u2019 distinction is misleading, because every example of freedom can be described in both ways. For example, being free from ignorance means being free to gain an education. G. C. MacCallum (1991) proposed a single, value – free concept of freedom in the form: \u2018X is free from Y to do or be Z\u2019. This suggests that the apparently deep question \u2018Are we free?\u2019 is meaningless, and should be replaced by a more complete and specific statement about what we are free from, and what we are free to do.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What about the freedom to make jokes? Our ruling elite have concerns. Matt Bernius (“a design researcher working to create more equitable government systems and experiences”) writes for OutsidetheBeltway.com Aug. 30<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cLeopards Eating People\u2019s Faces Party\u201d VP Candidate Publicly Eats Supporter\u2019s Face<\/p>\n

J. D. Vance seems to have a cruel sense of humor and issues with women. Weird!<\/p>\n

In an attempt to \u201cdunk\u201d on Kamala Harris and her upcoming CNN interview, Vance published the following tweet\/xeet\/whatever:<\/p>\n

\n

BREAKING: I have gotten ahold of the full Kamala Harris CNN interview. pic.twitter.com\/c6nfcJrFJy<\/a><\/p>\n

— JD Vance (@JDVance) August 29, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n