The Civic Balance of Freedom and Responsibility

This week’s The Gowrie News reported the winners of the 26^th annual Fort Dodge Noon Sertoma “What Does Freedom Mean to Me?” essay contest. My family has been in a tizzy; we couldn’t be more delighted. The first prize was awarded to Jaiden Ackerson, our eighth-grade granddaughter. Dianna and her daughter, Erin Ackerson, were able to attend the presentation luncheon today (March 7). This week, Jaiden is being recognized as a winner and a hero and has been modestly enjoying her recognition.

Instead of starting with a dictionary definition of “freedom,” Jaiden led off by quoting Bob Dylan: “A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.” She went on to say:

Essay: Does conservatism inhibit active citizenship?

Information and comments on the essay:

Does conservatism inhibit active citizenship?

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKcFB6cXJwYkM0Rlk/edit?usp=sharing

#Democracy #Government

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

Does conservatism inhibit active citizenship?

It occurred to me a while back that the conservative ideal of “individual freedom,” taken to its logical end, promotes anarchy. If everybody does only what appeals to them as being in the best interests of themselves, their family, or their tribe, it prevents them from fully engaging in the interests of broader civic and societal responsibility. If you are primarily looking out for yourself, you aren’t being a good citizen.

Of course, it also occurred to me that the liberal ideal of “common good,” taken to its logical end, promotes totalitarianism communism… or maybe the kind of selfless love of neighbor that Jesus endorsed. None of these extremes seem practical for America at this point in history.

Isn’t there some balance, some moderate center ground where we can meet and agree to compromise if not find consensus? If you consider American political history during the last few decades, an interesting dynamic appears. It used to be that