I would recommend One Market Under God for anyone interested in an insightful smackdown of free market utopians like Lawrence Kudlow and that DOW 36,000 Glasser dude over at Techcentral. I used to listen to Larry Elder for laughs on occasion, but a couple of months after everyone knew without question that Enron was corrupt and the energy companies had royally ripped off California, Elder was still defending Enron and Ken Lay. The sheer repetitive nonsense got to be too much.

Then I checked in during a commercial break on Pacifica a couple of months ago, and I hear Curtis Sliwa, filling in for Larry, describing Richard Nixon as a socialist. That's their typical frame, accusing liberals and even moderate Dems of being leftists and socialists. If Nixon was a socialist then Eisenhower and his national highway system was also a socialist.

As far as the intersection between free market utopians and the religious right, there is a tectonic flaw between these two groups. There is a large bloc of populist religious conservatives who are very anti-corporate welfare and extremely distrustful of large corporations. Bush's success has to a large degree been a result of his and Rove's ability to paper over the differences between the Wall Street Republicans and religiouns conservatives.

Another interesting correlation is between the apocalyptic beliefs of relgious conservatives and the apocalyptic vison of neo-conservatives. They both share the same dark, paranoid perspective on communism in the past and Islam extremists today.

Many Christian democrats would say that while they believe that Christ is the only way to heavon, they believe that others are welcome to their own opinion.  That doesn't mean that they reject they basic idea that one way of thinking may be superior though, in fact the fact that subscribe to a religion teaches that one worldview is ultimately correct may very well incourage them to see other areas of the world the same way.  One example of this, I believe, is the idea that "our" form of democracy is superior to other forms.  I find it is very easy to fall into the trap of believing that American style democracy and freedom will automatically work for all people.  I think that is the bigest difference.  Conservatives see American ideas of democracy as inherently better than other ways of thinking about democracy and freedom, while liberals are more likely to accept other forms of democracy.

Two additional comments need to be made.  First, I am speaking mainly about democracy because, as far as I can tell, that is the best, if not the only, way to guarantee freedom.  Second, I am a Christian, so if any one interprets this comment as criticism of the Christian or any other faith, please don't.  I'm mainly speaking out of my own experience.

Liberals favor freedom, but it has to be a freedom in which all people can participate equally.

Likewise, liberal community must be one in which all people are valued equally, and all have an equal say in defining the rights and obligations that constitute that community.

Thus, liberalism must also be committed to directly attacking economic, social, and political inequalities.

It is a basic law of international politics that no country does anything for free. There is always something to gain, and as a result, usually others who lose. Every nation seeks to strengthen its economic and military power base while expanding its influence over others, at their expense. There is simply no such thing as true philanthropy on a geopolitical level.

Which is why when I hear a politician use the word "freedom" or "hope" or "compassion" or other such rhetoric, I begin to exam just what does America have to gain from pursuing this course of action? Because assuredly, there is ALWAYS something, and it can usually be quantified in dollars.

YEAH....

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

It's all about me...

Not you or we..

ME

And f*** you, by the way....

;)

(just kidding, everybody, trying to make a point..)

Those who do the latter are what we call "libertarians" or "Ayndy Randyans," not "conservatives." The words "liberal" and "conservative" encompass a whole wonderful rainbox of ideologies and only some of them are corporatist/market-in-everything types.

As for the perceived slight against FR, exactly how much time have you spent reading comments there?

Libertarians and "freepers" believe in "negative" freedom; that is, non-interference from others. No one has to a right "to" anything, all rights are viewed in the context of freedom from interference.

There are several problems with this view. First of all and most importantly, it makes no provisions for the rights of the person and of survival. For no one would have a right "to" life, but they would have a right not to have their life, if it is currently in their possession, taken away from them without their consent. Likewise, no one has a right "to" health care, education, food, water, shelter... and here's the biggie, air. In fact, government action to procure these necessities would be an infraction on the freedom of its citizens; and here's why air is the clincher. Public domains are inconsistent with libertarian philosophy, and even leaving aside environmental regulations and the like which imply government ownership of air, there is still the fact that the mere barring of businesses from "buying" domains of air constitutes governmental tyranny. Therefore, under "negative rights" ideology, true freedom will only exist when people need to pay for the air they breath (and guess how the poor are expected to pay for this).

The "air" argument is the big one, but there's another problem with positive rights themselves being implied in the negative re-definition. The right to a fair trial is the most obvious of these. (Given the libertarian position on tort reform, it's clear they don't actually believe in the right to a fair trial, but they must always put on that they do, and that's all that matters.) The best the negative freedom-er can do is state that "your trial (as an abstract possession) should not be taken from you without your consent", but this doesn't answer why a trial of any sort has to take place to begin with. Same with privacy. Why is it that no one can infringe upon "your" privacy? Where did you come upon this possession? If this "possession" belongs to each person from the outset, then by definition it is a positive right. This view of rights is only compatible with regards to tax policy (and it is really only used as an argument against it, so it is fitting), because one could make the case that your money is your property because you earned it. But no one earns privacy or a fair trial.

So negative rights in this extreme sense ends up being an untenable position. At best, the libertarian can say "rights are not rights when they ask others to sacrifice for your benefit", ie welfare. Again, the right to a fair trial misses this mark as well. And to a lesser extent, privacy misses this reset mark as well. Remember, if someone stalks you but doesn't actually hurt you, he hasn't violated your rights in any way. At best, he is indirectly threatening you; and of course, the problem with this is that it is so wide open. A person who dresses in ghetto garb in a suburb can be said to be indirectly threatening his neighbours.

I could go on, but you get the point. It will be a fine day for the virtues of honesty and clarity if all the libertarians ended this pseudo-philosophical chicanery and just said what they meant: "Let the rich do what they want, dammit!"

As for your elevator pitch definition of freedom, I won't be as good a help as others because I'm a leftist, not a liberal. All I can say is that freedom is just the ability to act on our choices and impulses. Every single ideology or political ism in the world is against freedom in certain respects, and with good reason. My advice is, be as vague or even downright dishonest as you like during 30 second pitches about freedom. The intricacies can come later.