You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myAJC.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myAJC.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myAJC.com.

Freedom Caucus conservatives are today’s abolitionists


The House Freedom Caucusis taking flak, with many saying they are responsible for the failure to pass the American Health Care Act.

With all other Republicans on board, the votes of the 29 Freedom Caucus members could have led to passing the legislation. But they refused to support it.

Should they be chastised as obstructionists? Are they childish idealists who don’t grasp that politics is about the “art of the deal”?

Some go beyond suggesting that these conservatives are naive. They accuse them of being sinister, opposing the AHCA to receive fundraising from right-wing zealots and ideologues.

I say not only is this is unfair criticism, but that the conservative stalwarts of the Freedom Caucus are American patriots deserving high praise.

Let’s first appreciate that dealmaking in business and dealmaking in politics and governing are not the same thing. Business deals are about one thing — money.

Certainly there are economic implications to a political deal, but they don’t define the essence of the exercise. The essence is about the nature and meaning of society.

There was a lot of dealmaking in the founding of the American republic and the construction of our Constitution. One of the most famous and consequential “deals” was the accommodation in the U.S. Constitution of slavery.

Arguably, without this accommodation, there would have been no deal. However, the irony of the accommodation of slavery in a nation founded on the ideals of human freedom speaks for itself.

It is clear that a dear moral and human price was paid for making this deal, culminating in a civil war in which 620,000 Americans died. And the repercussions of this deal are still felt today.

The accommodation of slavery in the founding states then lead to further deals — the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act — trying to find ways to accommodate slavery in new territories that entered the union.

All along, there were abolitionists. Those who refused to accept any “deal” that accommodated slavery in existing or new states entering the union.

Many viewed the abolitionists as extremists, fanatics who refused to accept compromise that would permit slavery in America.

One abolitionist, Senator Charles Sumner, was attacked with a cane and almost beaten to death on the floor of the U.S. Senate after he gave a fiery speech attacking slaveholders.

Abraham Lincoln started off as gradualist on slavery, but ultimately clarified his view that on slavery there was no “deal,” no compromise. In his famous “House Divided” speech, he said, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. … It will become all one thing or all the other.”

The Freedom Caucus members are today’s abolitionists. They see, rightly, how far America has drifted from its blueprint of freedom, and the grave consequences of this fiscally, morally and existentially.

Certainly, the American Health Care Act made improvements in Obamacare. But the core structural problems were left intact.

The legitimate point of the Freedom Caucus is that there is no deal on right and wrong, no compromises on our ideals of freedom.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: “March for Science” a vanity of the left

Do you have march fatigue yet? The left, apparently, does not, so we’re in for some street theater on Earth Day, April 22, with the so-called March for Science. It’s hard to think of a better way to undermine the public’s faith in science than to stage demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and around the country modeled on the Women&rsquo...
Opinion: The battle against sex trafficking of minors

PHOENIX — Three months ago, State Trooper Jonathan Otto, 33, of the Arizona Department of Public Safety pulled over a car that had caught his attention by traveling 104 miles per hour long after midnight, just south of Kingman. He smelled marijuana in the car. It was driven by a man with an adult female wearing only lingerie. Their passenger...
Opinion: Turns out Alex Jones was only pretending to be a madman

So it turns out Alex Jones was only kidding. That time the radio host and ringmaster of the “Infowars” website said the government brought Ebola into the country to terrorize us? That time he said a Beyonce video was created to start a new civil war, that time he wished gang rape on Jennifer Lopez, those times he suggested the Oklahoma...
Opinion: Why we see such violent suppression of speech at our colleges
Opinion: Why we see such violent suppression of speech at our colleges

Had you remained deceived about the ubiquity of open discourse on America’s college campuses, recent weeks should have set you right. At Claremont McKenna College in California, protesters two weeks ago physically blocked the entrance to a building where the conservative author Heather MacDonald was to speak. MacDonald has criticized what she...
Opinion: Refreshing outbreak of democracy in 6th district
Opinion: Refreshing outbreak of democracy in 6th district

Whatever the outcome of the 6th District race, democracy wins. Sadly, the June 20 race is kind of a unicorn. It’s the rarest of rare because it actually offers a choice between truly competing visions of America. Generally, congressional races feature contests only between moderates and the more feral extremes of their parties. This leads to...
More Stories