The Pressure Cooker of Freedom

 

The Pressure Cooker of Freedom

A pressure cooker is heating up in American politics. The upcoming election requires critical thought to release the pressure that could otherwise blow up the country. Listening to the speeches at the Democratic National Convention, I was struck by Obama’s emphasis on values. It occurred to me that while much of what was said sounded good, these ideas cannot be fully realized by merely tinkering with the government. Effective governance sets up guardrails that encourage behaviors benefiting the common good. However, good behavior cannot be legislated. True freedom requires us to manage the pressure of our national debt through sound governance.

The Obamas and Kamala emphasized hope as the value that sustains freedom. I disagree. While I concur that freedom is our crowning value, it is actually a function of four competing forces: liberty, equality, order, and disorder.

Liberty is the mantra of the Republican Party, deeply embedded in our Constitution. When James Madison drafted the Constitution, liberty was highlighted as the most important value. This is underscored by the fact that, initially, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote in our early elections. Our break from England was not led by protestors with nothing to lose but by successful individuals willing to risk everything for change. They had skin in the game, prepared to sacrifice their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the common good. This social contract is the foundation of our government. While Democrats also value individual rights like abortion, transgender identification, and the American Dream, these rights stem from a desire for equality.

Equality is the mantra of the Democratic Party and another essential element in the freedom equation, often in conflict with liberty. Yet, this conflict does not diminish its importance. The principle of equality was first articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence with the phrase “All men are created equal,” which remains a core American belief. Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party, codified this belief through the 13th Amendment. However, equality must be balanced with liberty; otherwise, freedom becomes meaningless. While everyone is equal in value, not everyone has the same aptitudes, talents, or achievements. In a republic like ours, individuals can excel and improve their circumstances, which is why people flock to the United States—the opportunity to pursue the American Dream is universally sought, regardless of political affiliation.

Order is the mantra of monarchy and another crucial pressure in good governance. Order exists on a spectrum, from monarchy to the direct democracy of ancient Greece. Since monarchies often lead to tyranny and direct democracies can lead to demagoguery, modern governments operate between these extremes. The rule of law is the critical guardrail that balances order and disorder. It evolves from natural law, judicial decisions, and the willingness of representatives to sacrifice individual rights for the common good. The more we prioritize domestic tranquility by sacrificing rights, the closer we move toward a statist government. Conversely, sacrificing common peace for individual rights shifts us closer to direct democracy.

Disorder is the mantra of Libertarianism, which also plays an important role in the pressure cooker of freedom. It is the release valve for the other pressures. When dissident voices are added to a discussion it can release pressure from the forces forging freedom. There have been examples of direct democracy. Switzerland, for example, uses referendums to decide social contract outcomes, a system shaped by its small, isolated cantons. Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Our Founding Fathers recognized that disorder was inevitable. However, when people protest with nothing to lose, it can lead to manipulation by demagogues or, worse, bribery, which does not serve the common good. Even experts, who can be wrong, sometimes fuel these movements, as evidenced by the conflicting expert testimonies in courtrooms across America. U.S. libertarian ideology pushes the guardrails toward disorder, which I respect as someone who tends to test the boundaries of order myself.

So, why am I a moderate conservative? All the conflicting pressures mentioned above define American freedom. I believe that in order to achieve meaningful equality, we must first establish liberty. In the American experiment with democracy, we began as a republic and later incorporated equality to form a more inclusive democracy. In a republic, not all people are equal. We elect representatives to carry our messages to institutions that create and uphold the rule of law. These institutions—Congress, the judiciary, and the executive—constantly balance the competing pressures of liberty, equality, and order. Liberty must come first because equality cannot exist without recognizing the rights people surrender. Our liberties drive us to become a great nation. When people have the opportunity to improve their circumstances, they will do so by competing with others, just as the pressures of liberty, equality, and order compete. There will always be haves and have-nots. The Democratic Party's great misunderstanding is the belief that self-improvement involves no transaction. In reality, when one person gains, another loses. While win-win scenarios do exist, they often come at the expense of someone else.

A prime example of this dynamic is the federal budget deficit. It is disappointing that neither political party has made this a central issue in the 2014 election. The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal budget deficit to reach $1.9 trillion by 2024. In 2024, servicing the federal debt accounts for 17% of total federal spending, up from 10% in 2023, with projections suggesting it will rise exponentially unless fiscal policies change. To put this into perspective, military spending is 13.3%, Social Security is 21%, and national health expenditures are 17%. These three areas alone account for a staggering 68% of federal spending. When I say there are winners and losers in every competition for liberty, I also mean on a macro scale. China is undoubtedly watching these numbers, and if we do not get our finances under control, they could outspend us on military expenditures, take over Taiwan, and begin colonizing the South Pacific. To date, neither party has led the country in reversing these trends. If these trends continue, we will be the losers, and China will be the winner.

I believe we can still change course, but it will require a combination of increased growth, higher tax revenues, and cuts in federal spending. Cutting spending is difficult when discussing equality, and increasing taxes means taking money from those who risked their personal assets for greater gain. It is impossible to grow revenues while simultaneously creating a disincentive for capitalism. Therefore, we should reduce the pressure of equality and increase the pressure of liberty in this case. Cutting spending and raising tariffs on China is the best strategy to reduce the deficit and, in turn, the national debt. Raising revenues by increasing government spending is a counterfeit strategy that merely postpones the budget deficit problem and increases inflation. Similarly, a capital gains tax cut is a short-term fix that will lead to larger deficits in the future. Both parties are looking for ways to release the pressures of liberty and equality without blowing the top off the cooker. Doing the hard things—raising tariffs, cutting spending, and growing the economy—can increase the pressure of freedom, ultimately raising the standard of living for all under the rule of law without blowing the top off the cooker.