Why Prioritizing Freedom Erodes Trust in American Government
We remain free only so long as we, and our government, restrict our inner demons
My dear correspondent,
Your last letter reached me just as I was reading the essays of John Stuart Mill, who I found to be quite articulate about the notion of liberty.
Allow me to provide a quote that I had highlighted.
The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.
The American founders had enshrined this ideal of liberty into the Bill of Rights — the freedom to express one’s thoughts, assemble peacefully, and worship as one pleases.
However, the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Weimar Constitution of the Nazi regime guaranteed these freedoms as well. The passage of history has revealed to us what these declarations were: simply words on paper.
Then how does one actually ensure the protection of these famous provisions?
The framers of the Constitution answered this question by crafting the separation of powers: a democratically elected bicameral legislature, a separately elected chief executive, and an independent judiciary.
Many countries do not have bicameral legislatures, in which two elected bodies of equal power debate together to write laws. The federalists’ reasoning for this was to “control the violence of faction.”
Second, many countries have chief executives that are simply chosen by the majority party of the legislature. Laws can pass with swift action at the peril of minorities.
“One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one,” the framers reflected in the Federalist Papers.
Lastly, many countries not only enforce term limits on judges but also allow their dismissal. Those with the power of the purse and those with the power of the sword may compel judges to make decisions against their will or dismiss them for making unpopular ones.
Inspired by the system in Great Britain, the framers provided lifetime judicial appointments, for this would provide an “independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.”
Today, the court’s opinions are consistently inconsistent — ranging from 9–0 decisions to a wide mix of concurrences and dissents.
We must understand that these groundbreaking pillars of government were made precisely to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. With this in mind, permit me to reflect upon the story of my family: a Japanese American story.
We will see in my next letter that the American experiment, when strained under wartime hysteria, racial prejudice, and martial law, failed to live up to its fundamental principles.
Freedom, driven by passion and temper, went unchecked.
As inheritors of this wise constitution of government, it is our responsibility to uphold not just the platitude of individual liberty but to restrict our individual liberty for the benefit of all. Our branches work by actually restricting each other’s freedoms.
Their efficacy is not a given, however. Institutions are perpetually dying, which is why it is our common duty to hold them accountable to the jurisdictions and authorities set out in our constitution.
The more we accept this reality, the less we might complain about their dysfunction, and the more we might take responsibility for breathing life back into them. Such active citizenship grounded in decency and compromise is the only truly lasting solution to restoring trust in our government by the people, of the people, for the people.
In the meantime, I await your reply, my friend.
Godspeed to you,
Jarrod Zenjiro Suda
Follow Jarrod on Medium for short stories about political philosophy, Japan, the life-affirming people he meets on his travels, and other topics.
Jarrod is the co-host of the Makers on a Mission podcast.