Essential Liberty

The authorship is in doubt, but the sentiment is rarely challenged:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The faith vs. reason battle between Bush and Kerry has been overtly exposed of late, in a swath of articles ranging from Ellen Goodman's easily overlooked but brilliant summation of the denial-based foreign policy to Ron Suskind's now-famous demolition of their empire-based community, which can supposedly change reality on a whim. (I, too, believe in the power of will to change reality, but understand that it's "hard work," as our President puts it.)

In my fiction writing, however, I try to keep in mind the difference between theme and plot, and I see more and more evidence that the war between denial and sanity is more of a theme for this election than the meat of it. And while Bush throws lots of coded red meat to his base, ranging from cultures of life to Dred Scott (code for overturning Roe v. Wade), his entire appeal to the center is "Kerry can't save you."

Ignoring the total deceit of that conceit for the moment, let us pretend for a moment that George W. Bush would actually keep us marginally safer than John F. Kerry. (I know, it's a really big stretch, but some people believe this.) For these people, the vote is between the guy who will keep Americans "safe from terra" and the guy who will recognize basic truths and the limits of Constitutional law. Even then, they're still on the wrong side of the debate -- because they're advocating the temporary security candidate over the essential liberty candidate:

The largest and most important [reason to elect Kerry] is the protection of American democracy. It is always difficult while enjoying the comforts and privileges of taken-for-granted liberties to imagine that they could be lost; but the elements of Bush's misrule have plainly converged to form this threat.

...

The Democratic Party generally wants to defend civil liberties and does so when it dares; the Republicans, with honorable exceptions, apparently would sweep them aside. The Democrats prefer social justice, however weakly they fight for it; the Republicans would give every dollar they can find to the rich. The Democrats are inclined to limit corporate power; the Republicans are corporate power.

I believe that this is the fundamental plot of the election. Kerry is finally, at last, out in front, but even in the most wildly optimistic landslide scenario for our side, we're not likely to win more than 55% of the popular vote. Think about that.

Forty-five percent of the people who will vote are willing to give up essential liberty for temporary security. At least. And at least forty percent are so disconnected that they don't see the danger, or the difference between the candidates, or just don't care. Either way, they won't bother to get involved.

Ben would be so proud.

(/) Roland X
Kerry/Edwards 2004: Vote While You Still Can