A reader’s comment got me thinking about what it means to have individual freedom. It made me consider why I feel comfortable harshly criticizing the country I love so much. Here’s my reply, point-by-point. The main thrust of it is we can’t afford to think we’re on top of the world. We are a great country, but we got here through constant improvement, not arrogant complacency.
I love of our Constitution. I encourage everyone reading this column (if you haven't already done so) to also read the Federalist Papers; they will give you an appreciation of the thinking that went into our country's initial framework. You’ll find it full of language that strives for freedoms. Those papers tell us why we need a Constitution as well as a federal government.
The Bill of Rights is part of that. It tells every American their freedoms of speech, religion and assembly are inalienable. The Constitution, however, is not perfect — it's a document that has required constant amendments throughout history precisely because it did not previously afford the individual freedoms we all love (see, in pertinent part, the three-fifths compromise and amendments 13, 14, 15, 21, 23 and 24).
Moreover, the Bill of Rights, as former President James Madison put it in Federalist 48, is merely a “parchment barrier” to having those rights taken away. Rather, it is the difficulty with which government can take away the freedoms — the catches and stops in the political mechanism by dint of separation of powers and popular elections — that is the better protector. We must be careful not to love the Constitution’s promises so fondly as to blind ourselves to real-world threats to our freedom.
In short, the first 10 amendments will not stop a tyrant. There are better ways to prevent us from ending up like Russia, like education.
Public education is not provided for in the Constitution, nor is it uniquely American. In fact, America is behind many other countries in public education. It is much more ingrained in the cultures of other countries, like Cuba, to educate their children. Cuba’s literacy rate is higher than ours, and contrary to popular belief, Cuba is not a hellhole. There are teachers and students on the currency of Italy and not on ours.
This is why it is so hard to say America affords the best civic culture. But even saying we have the best individual “freedoms” is a bit misguided. Monopolizing the definition of the word “freedom” to mean “a constitutional guarantee I can do or say X” defines freedom too narrowly. This is why, way back in 1941, former President Franklin Roosevelt declared that every American should not only be free to speak and worship as they wish but also be free from want and free from fear.
The U.S. Constitution, while indeed the longest operating, is neither exceptional nor uniquely provides a basis for better culture. I’ll say it loud and proud. That doesn’t mean it isn’t great. That doesn’t mean I don’t love this country as much as any other American. It certainly doesn’t mean Russia or China or Cuba have a better culture than we do. It just means we should be careful before saying “We’re the best.”
Countries don’t exist on a spectrum from freer to less free. The choice isn’t between American culture or Shariah. Loving our country is about understanding that there is much work to be done, and, often, the smart thing to do is look to emulate the good examples in other cultures. The choice is between adapting or fading into the graveyard of once-great countries.
Stephan Chamberlin is a UF political science junior. His column comes out Tuesday and Thursday.
