Freedom, Liberty and Tolerance

So many politicians these days love to metaphorically wrap themselves in the American flag, tout Constitutional principles and yet find new and innovative ways to alienate the 50% (+/- 5%) that chose not to vote for them. Our country is at a scary crossroads. We have borrowed to the hilt. Our entitlement programs are on the verge of insolvency. And the rhetoric is creating a greater schism in our already divided political divide. We argue the virtues of increasing taxes for the wealthy. We argue the virtues of reducing entitlements.

On the social side of the equation, we have majorities persecuting minorities, and minorities persecuting majorities. We argue the definition of marriage and debate limiting marriage to a defined majority. We argue whether companies owned by a certain gender or certain ethnicities get to win work over companies owned by the other gender or another ethnicity. And by doing so, we only create animosity.

And so, we have these schisms. We are socially divided, economically divided and because of that, I see a future of 50/50 split vote elections followed by gridlock and minimal change. We have on the one hand, a side seeking the vote of the economic freedom seekers and social conservatives. On the other hand, a side seeking the vote of government solution fans and social freedom advocates. And with both hands full of these two parties, I feel empty and without a viable choice that seeks all Freedom, all Liberty and unwavering Tolerance.

Critics of democracies often cite that the fall of democracy comes when the majority determines that they can "vote away" the rights of the minority. My fear is that the critics of democracy are about to be proven right. But in writing these words, I have to remind myself that we are not living in a democracy, per se. We are living in a Democratic Constitutional Republic. And the premise (although all too frequently forgotten) is that elections are democratic, but law and policy are to be Constitutional. And at its core, our Constitution is about protecting each and every individual from persecution, persecution from the government and from majorities that want to take away freedoms, liberties and property.

So, I question the integrity of our two large party platforms. Aren't parties by their very nature collectivist? And isn't collectivist thought the antithesis of our Constitution? We have created a classic we/they, us/them type of environment that our forefathers sought to prevent. Our elected leaders took oaths to uphold the Constitution, yet I feel it is the very parties that these elected leaders represent that have held the Constitution in such low regard.

When I hear someone say that only people who are born with an attraction to the opposite sex ought to be legally allowed to marry, I mourn for those who aren't born that way. When I hear people say that we should persecute the higher wage earners, thereby punishing the very people they employ, I mourn for those who hear that message and become disincented to succeed. When I hear people say that we should allow pat downs, wiretapping and search and seizure without warrant in the name of homeland security, I mourn for those who will never know the very freedoms and liberties we are claiming these activities preserve.

The question, in my mind, is rather simple. Are you, or are you not for freedom and liberty? If you are, then tolerance needs to be the third part of the equation. One is a hypocrite if they are for economic freedoms yet choose to persecute others for their social beliefs. And similarly, those who seek social freedoms yet want to force the economically successful to pay for things they don't support are as hypocritical as their aforementioned competition.

I have a novel concept. How about we defend the beliefs, liberties, freedoms and properties of every individual? Whether they be social liberties or economic ones. Whether it be earned property or inherited. Whether they be common beliefs or rare ones. Let's defend them all. Let's advocate for the individual.

Whenever one of our country's majorities turns its power against a minority, and worse, does so within the framework of unconstitutional law, we are heading for disaster. The question of whether to raise taxes on the wealthy is a moot one if we adhere to the principle of protecting every individual's property equally. The question of whether or not to legalize gay marriage is a moot one if we adhere to the principle of allowing every person the same rights as every one else. The question of wiretapping and search/seizure without a warrant is a moot one if we adhere to the principle of freedom and presumed innocence.

Is our country better when majorities persecute minorities? History has proven it is not.

I would venture to guess that most persons get most upset and angry when they feel their rights are being disrespected. And I would venture to guess that many in this country are upset and angry at today's state of affairs. Perhaps it is because a particular right that is most important to them is being challenged. Some may be most upset about their blocked right to marry. Some may be most upset about being forced to buy something against their will. Others may be most upset about inconsistent tax rates that punish the successful in a disproportionate way, and force them to pay for things they don't support. And still others may be most upset about the inability to smoke a plant they grew in their own home. The list can go on and on. Perhaps, just perhaps, a solution to the angst, the passion and divisiveness in our country is tolerance.

Some have referred to this philosophy as "Live and Let Live". Any chance of our country living by that concept any time soon?