Defining Freedom: Positive Freedom vs. Negative Freedom

"Freedom" is perhaps the most iconic word in the American vocabulary. Outside of other iconic words, such as "liberty" and "opportunity," no competitor likely captures the idea of American values as well as "freedom." The United States has long been called "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" as well. With such a prominent use of the word, it would only make sense that freedom is well-understood, right?

Of course, the reality is not quite that simple. Freedom has vastly different interpretations depending on who you ask. These stark differences in interpretations are especially pronounced in the political realm. To give an example, the stances taken by liberals and conservatives on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) are perfect manifestations of this divide.

When former President Obama pushed the ACA through Congress, his administration consistently promoted the idea that it would allow American consumers to enjoy more healthcare freedoms. One of his Press Secretary's releases states, "The Affordable Care Act ends the worst insurance company abuses and gives Americans more freedom and control over their health care choices."

On the other side of the aisle, the former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has said that Obamacare is an infringement on freedom.

Both statements appeal to Americans' value of freedom, but their interpretations of that freedom couldn't be more diametrically opposed. So naturally, the question becomes which of them is closer to what freedom actually means? However, the answer to this question is not a simple one. Before answering it, we need to explore exactly what freedom means.

Freedom can be best understood by dividing it into two categories: positive freedom and negative freedom. Negative freedom is the traditional sort of libertarian understanding of freedom. It is the absence of external authority, primarily the government, from infringing on a particular course of action. For example, the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, such as those to free speech and a free press, are representative of what concerns negative freedoms.

Positive freedom, the lesser understood of the two, is about enabling society's participants to achieve better outcomes. Programs like Social Security are emblematic of this philosophy. Before the existence of Social Security, over half of the United States' elderly population lived in poverty. By 1995, that figure had tumbled to 10%. The guiding principle of Social Security, as well as similar laws such as Medicaid and Medicare, is to provide better access to fundamental societal resources.

Returning to the contrasting views on the Affordable Care Act, the differing perspectives between Democrats and Republicans become far clearer. Conservatives view the ACA as an infringement on an individual's right to choose their healthcare options free of government interference. Liberals understand the ACA as a program that advances affordable healthcare for average Americans, reducing barriers to attaining desirable health outcomes.

The political trajectory of the United States over the last few decades has focused on maximizing negative freedoms. Former President Ronald Reagan famously quipped at his first inaugural address, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This understanding of government not only shaped Republican politics, but it also influenced Democratic politicians. As Former President Bill Clinton himself said in his 1996 State of the Union Address, "The era of big government is over. [...] I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way..."

While the Democratic Party has experienced a resurgence of a more proactive government in recent years, the idea of an America defined by maximizing negative freedoms in most areas of life still permeates both political parties. Arguably, America's past legacy of embracing ideas oriented in positive freedom has been shirked and left to the wayside. However, it is worth mentioning the merits of positive freedom, even in contrast to negative freedom, to reconsider its merits in society.

As a thought experiment, consider a scenario where most environmental regulations on businesses are removed. This would be done in the name of maximizing negative freedoms, and many pundits and influencers already advocate for such positions. Within the framework of maximizing negative freedom, the concern for these individuals is that such regulations stifle productivity and overburden companies in bureaucratic processes.

This scenario needs little imagination, however, as there was a time when environmental concerns for businesses were secondary to productivity and results. Before the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and accompanying legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, regulating industrial output was a low priority. Consequently, environmental accidents were also more frequent. For example, Cleveland, Ohio, which had become a major industrial center during the Civil War, saw its industrial pollution lead to the Cuyahoga River catching fire a dozen times over the rough span of a century. These are just the commonly agreed-upon instances, too.

In Cleveland's case, the 1969 fire was the spark that triggered a greater national discussion of environmental protection. Although the 1952 fire was more economically destructive, most agreed that the conditions of the Cuyahoga River needed to be addressed, even though Cleveland's industrial capacity began to decline around this time. Since the significant intervention of local authorities to clean up the river and the passage of broader frameworks, the river is almost entirely unrecognizable a mere 50 years later.

Restoration efforts of the Cuyahoga River have notably cleared several critical thresholds in recent times. The Ohio EPA declared that fish from the river were safe for consumption in 2019, and recreational activity is now possible, with the most recent announcement on that front coming in 2024. Still, the river requires further efforts to address habitat loss, the presence of large-scale contaminated sediment, and other environmental issues.

What makes the Cuyahoga River such a pertinent example is that even though the last major incident was over 50 years ago, it has required a multi-generational effort to undo the damage caused by previous negligence. Prior to that, Clevelanders grew up with the river's pollution as a fact of life. The justification that pollution meant industry was booming left the river nearly biologically dead and may have eventually found its way into Lake Erie, a source of water for millions of Americans. The case to restore the river was undoubtedly one of positive freedom, too.

As another example of this clash, reflect upon the history of cigarettes. In the past, cigarette companies had few regulations and used this leeway to make many misleading statements about cigarettes and associated products. One of the most infamous is how, from 1952 to 1957, Kent Cigarettes advertised a Micronite filter to make smoking "safer," even though the product used asbestos, a highly carcinogenic agent. The landmark 1964 Surgeon General's report on the effects of tobacco verified previous findings on its downsides. The regulation that manifested from this allowed for a more informed public and a responsible tobacco industry.

These examples are not intended to assert the absolute supremacy of positive freedoms. Negative freedoms are essential in society, too. Positive freedom isn’t about bigger government for its own sake, though. It asks an important question: "What good is the freedom to choose a doctor, a job, or a home if you can’t afford any of them?"

America shouldn't abandon its love of liberty. But if we want freedom to mean something more than survival, it might be time to remember what freedom for looks like, not just freedom from.