Two Concepts of Freedom

I am wary of seeming to rely too much on Harvard professors who publish in the New York Times, 'cause the Republican spin machine is so good at dismissing them. (This, despite the fact that they have plenty of Harvard professors who also publish in the New York Times.) But Orlando Patterson's take on W's "freedom" speech is really quite wonderful. Let me share two of its nuggets of insight:

"In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version... most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries. But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds, freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance... Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way."

He then notes:

"It is not that Americans have rejected the formal model of freedom--ask any American if he believes in democracy and a free press and he will genuinely endorse both. Rather it is that such abstract notions of freedom are far removed from their notion of what freedom means and how it is experienced."

Patterson's distinction not only helps make sense of W's innaugural address, but also of the strange way that the neocons trample on freedoms (#1) in order to grant freedoms (#2).

I was surprised by one part of Pattersons's analysis, however. Who would have thought that civil liberties and political participation are "abstract" values? What could be more central to the experience of freedom than the experience of your liberties being encroached upon?