I recently stumbled upon this essay, Taking Liberty, by the one-time Clinton official William Galston. He is trying to make the case that liberals and leftists should not abandon the words "freedom" and "liberty" (which he notes that they have done). A quote:
Liberals seldom talk about Social Security or other programs in terms of freedom. But they should. George W. Bush certainly does. In his second inaugural address, Bush accepted the validity of Roosevelt's concept of Four Freedoms. But he went on to contend that in today's circumstances, his brand of conservatism--his so-called "ownership society"--offers more effective means to traditional New Deal ends: "By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear." In essence, the president was saying that his solution to Social Security's fiscal problems would provide seniors with the freedom from want and fear they had come to expect, but with two additional liberties: freedom of choice, and freedom from government dependence.
I find his arguments highly debatable, particularly in the way in which he conflates personal freedoms (eg the option of retirement) with political freedom from state power and coercion. Read the whole thing.
