Enough about freedom, debate the issues

New president, same refrain.

The election of President Obama last year was a milestone in the history of race relations in our country and ushered in an era of big spending on domestic programs, a reshaping of America along liberal lines.

But if you close your eyes, it sometimes seems that not much has changed.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush and his team shifted resources and attention to national security, leading some to complain their freedoms were shrinking, like so many star systems slipping through the fingers of Grand Moff Tarkin.

I remember one all-American-looking guy who accused Bush at a 2004 presidential debate of taking away his rights.

Really?

More recently, I have heard similar echoes. At town hall meetings throughout the nation and at a "Rant Night" in Elgin last week, it was the same refrain: Americans have been asleep for too long. We need to wake up. Our freedoms are being eroded by the minute.

Huh.

The way these people talk, you'd think Bush was still in office. You might even think they're part of the American Civil Liberties Union (until they start talking about "Barack Hussein Obama.")

But I have to thank the "freedom fighters." Because they've set me on a torturous, five-year-long search to discover which of my freedoms have been taken away. So far, I haven't been able to figure out what I'm missing.

From what I recall, before Bush and Obama were elected, I could live wherever I wanted. I could apply to any college. I could enter any profession. I could marry whomever I desired. I could pursue my passions, cultivate my talents. I could read news from around the world. I could write pieces critical of presidents and Congressmen, judges and city councilmen.

The last time I checked, I can still do all those things.

Yeah, I know. The Bush-era complainers were talking about the rights of the accused; the contemporary complainers are talking about taxes, the free-market system and the right to make choices about your medical care.

But in framing the debate in terms of freedom, complainers across both eras have obscured the debate. In any democracy, there is a compromise between individual rights and the rights of the state.

What is unresolved is what that compromise entails. Clearly, there is much disagreement. But instead of talking vaguely about freedom, let's debate the real issues, let's dig into the meat and marrow of the policies.

What is the appropriate balance between security and freedom? Should governments mandate compassion? Would a government-run health care plan destroy private options? What would that mean for medical care, medical costs, taxes? Should the government intervene to soften an economic crisis? If so, to what degree?

I don't have the answers to any of these questions. But trying to answer them will be more productive than undisciplined talk of freedoms.