The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Freedom Caucus members are today’s abolitioni­sts

- Star Parker

The House Freedom Caucus is 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 for slavery in the U.S. Constituti­on.

Arguably, without this accommodat­ion, there would have been no deal. However, the irony of the accommodat­ion for 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, Sen. 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.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States