Freedom Is a Tricky Thing

 

“The Republican Party is broken,” writes Brandi Love, a self-identified “Conservative PornStar who writes for the Federalist,” according to her Twitter bio. Brandi was an attendee of Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit. A conservative gathering for the young, hip, and constitutionally-minded designed to galvanize future conservative leaders. The summit features many of the stars of the conservative movement from the Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles to Dr. Ben Carson.

According to the TPUSA website:

Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit is an invite-only event primarily intended for students between the ages of 15 and 26. If you are an adult wishing to attend, we have a limited number of adult tickets available.

Brandi Love was the holder of one of those limited adult tickets.

She publicized that she would be going live from her hotel at the conference on her website onlybrandi.com. She added she would be doing so, “behind the paywall of my OnlyFans (So we don’t offend the low T white nationalist religious zealots.)”

She later had her invitation revoked, and the chasm between what Brandi defines as “conservatives” and “social conservatives” was revealed.

She accused Twitter commenters who disagreed with her of “once again mixing Social Conservatism and Conservatism.”

The question arises, is there a viable conservative movement that precludes social conservatism?

You can spot a TPUSA student from a mile away in their “Big Gov Sucks” masks and hip t-shirts with slogans like “save the bees and the republic.” Self-described, TPUSA is the “community organizers of the right.” The end goal, according to their mission, is the promotion of freedom.

Freedom is a tricky thing. It is seen as both a means and an end. Freedom is a prerequisite for a moral society, and simultaneously it is impossible to maintain freedom without a moral populace.

The question to wrestle with is why be free? If freedom itself is the aim, then it feels disingenuous to exclude Brandi Love from the TPUSA event. In the most basic meaning of the word, shouldn’t she be free to attend? This is the hypocrisy Brandi has taken to Twitter to point out.

Perhaps, we as conservatives have made a mistake in our messaging– inviting more into the fold and expanding the conservative base at the risk of losing the soul of what we set out to do.

What did we set out to do?

Win elections? By all means, bring in as many people as possible. It’s a numbers game and we need them all.

Beat the Democrats? Again, a numbers game. Bring them all on.

Restore human decency, order, and alignment with creation? We have slipped off track.

Freedom itself is not an end; it’s a doorway. There are many things I do not want the freedom to do:

The freedom to take a life.

The freedom to abuse a child.

The freedom to buy and sell my sexuality and the sexuality of others.

As our founders knew, to pursue the highest life, we needed freedom. But what good is freedom if it is used to justify baseness?

The natural end of the libertarian leanings of the conservative movement is virtueless anarchy–a world where we not only allow, but accommodate and support that which we know to be destructive.

There is a balance to strike between supporting the freedom of others, while not allowing what they do with their freedom to define the entire movement. There is the possibility for nuance. That is, as long as we are honest about our aims.

I aim for a high-minded society (that is, a society working to create heaven on earth) full of healthy people working in conjunction with creation and the creator. Freedom is a wonderful vehicle for that aim.

The totalitarian Soviet Union denied their citizens freedom which prevented them from achieving a higher ideal. In that case, freedom was still a doorway, and once it shut, the people were hard-pressed to rise above depravity.

But freedom is a doorway, nonetheless, on the way to something bigger than even freedom itself. There lies the rallying call of the conservative movement. It is a call to restore order–a call to connect to higher ideals.

Perhaps the message isn’t simply “come as you are,” but rather, “come as you are and then get better.” We can ask each other to enter the doorway of freedom and then keep walking. In that way, the movement is not a fold that holds as many sheep as possible, but rather a launching pad to a more meaningful life.

The religious world is also stuck in the doorway, grappling with the same problem as the conservative movement. The youth in the faith have had enough of “coffee house Christianity” and the like. They see through the baseless and easygoing self-help teachings and are begging to move past the elementary — to be pushed, to expand their knowledge, and to aim higher.

The modern church thought it would bring in more people if the church more resembled everywhere else. In doing so, they have destroyed the sanctity of the Holy Spaces and reduced the pursuit of faith to Chicken Soup for the Soul. (A book I loved as a young girl, by the way, but no substitute for in-depth spiritual studies.)

The conservative movement, like the church, has attempted to behave like the audience they want to reach in an effort to grow the base. In doing so, the members they recruit are denied any opportunities for growth, challenge, and pursuit of higher ideals.

Comfort and weak-minded inclusion of all ideas is the best friend who justifies your drinking problem. She expresses friendship but ensures you never overcome your addiction.

This is, of course, a more ideological than political discussion. Many conservatives embrace the big tent philosophy to win elections. But the conservative movement does not end (or even begin) at the ballot box.

This is not an argument to avoid allyship. As the common saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I believe that wholeheartedly. I love to see the unexpected alliances rising to defeat damaging Marxist ideas and their various manifestations. I pursue these allyships, as we all should. But if our movement is unable to be inclusive while simultaneously holding our standards, then what good do we offer the people we are including anyway?

What good is a conservative movement that doesn’t address the whole of a human being–political, spiritual, economic, relational?

If conservatism doesn’t stand for the American family–an institution proven over and over again to benefit us and our neighbors, then why have a movement?

If conservatism can’t stand for the sacredness of human sexuality, then why have a movement?

If the conservative movement is just about electing the right people, or worse, a cloaked and seductive march towards anarchy, then why have a movement?

As we become wrapped up in the game of growth, the game of numbers, we have to stay connected to why we do what we do–to what end?

I argue that freedom alone is not a satisfying end.

Of course, our founders took for granted that freedom would provide the platform for the more important work of maintaining a moral society deserving of that freedom in the first place. The opinions of the faith were so commonplace they were considered self-evident. In fact, the faith of early Americans is what made freedom self-evident.

But freedom is a tricky thing, and what we do with it matters.

Mikayla Goetz is a renegade actress turned conservative storyteller. Since receiving her B.F.A. in Theatre Arts from Coastal Carolina University, Mikayla has worked as a story developer, writer, and consultant with armed service members, veterans, and Jewish-Ukrainian refugees. She has led the development of plays, film work, community initiatives, and an audio series. Mikayla is the Host of the SomethingBurger Podcast and a regular voice on AM 950-Orlando.

Published in Culture
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 167 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Actually “freedom is a tricky thing” sounds like something the left could pick up and use:  freedom is tricky, that’s why not everyone can be allowed to have it.

    • #151
  2. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ben Sears (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Ben Sears (View Comment):
    The slippery slope argument has it’s uses,

    It’s best when it’s used as an argument rather than as a fallacy.

    It takes some evidence. “Don’t shoot up. You’ll end up addicted.” That has some evidence to back it up. “Listen to jazz and you’ll end up a junky.” Not so much

    Probably the most common situations where “slippery slope” is an argument, not a fallacy, are when things don’t have to just “slip” down the “slippery slope,” they’re actually being PUSHED down the slope, especially by the left.

    One of the ways I apply slippery slope is by applying the exact logic used to justify one thing can be used to justify this other thing no one likes.

    • #152
  3. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Ben Sears (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Ben Sears (View Comment):
    The slippery slope argument has it’s uses,

    It’s best when it’s used as an argument rather than as a fallacy.

    It takes some evidence. “Don’t shoot up. You’ll end up addicted.” That has some evidence to back it up. “Listen to jazz and you’ll end up a junky.” Not so much

    Probably the most common situations where “slippery slope” is an argument, not a fallacy, are when things don’t have to just “slip” down the “slippery slope,” they’re actually being PUSHED down the slope, especially by the left.

    One of the ways I apply slippery slope is by applying the exact logic used to justify one thing can be used to justify this other thing no one likes.

    There are a lot of angles and examples. There is enough to say that @cliffordbrown could use the slippery slope as a theme of the month.

    • #153
  4. Mikayla Goetz Member
    Mikayla Goetz
    @Mikayla Goetz

    Ben Sears (View Comment):

    I read this after reading your intro this afternoon and as a long time lurker let me say welcome. You made some good points and I look forward to reading more. You can already sense the “but” can’t you? It’s a small one.

    I’m sure you could dig through my writing here and at other sites and catch me having used the slippery slope article because pretty much everyone does but I try to avoid it. Your claim the the natural end of libertarian leanings within the conservative movement leads to anarchy doesn’t hold up – my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

    I see the natural end of the libertarian leanings being a more libertarian government not unhitched from what we think of now as conservatism. Charles Cooke has an interesting take on the concept in his book The Conservitarian Manifesto. It’s a good read. But if we look at various political philosophies and see them as goals in themselves rather than a path to an absolutist ideology the slippery slope argument fails. Anarchy is not libertarianism. If it is legitimate that libertarian urges frighten traditional conservatives on the unproven assumption that such leads to anarchy, couldn’t big government progressives argue that small government conservatism leads to libertarianism leads to anarchy. This gives the totalitarian a-do-what-I say or it eventually leads to anarchy argument.

    Funnily enough, the US started with a pretty libertarian bent. If it led to anarchy we should have seen it. Instead we get a government that has employees who mandate tags on mattresses and how much water you get in your toilet.

    The slippery slope argument has it’s uses, but I think it gets deployed too often where it does no good and weakens a case. I think the natural end of advocacy for libertarian ideas is libertarianism. Pair the libertarian ideas with conservative ideas and I think you fall somewhere in-between, not anarchy. I’m making tomato sauce right now. The natural end of turning on the stovetop burners is hot pasta, not burning down the house. Sure, the house could burn, but it’s not enough of a worry not to pursue the delicious and edifying pinnacle of dining which is a well made tomato based concoction.

    Again, I look forward to reading more and congratulations on the new gig.

    I so appreciate this thoughtful comment. It has given me something to really think about.  I suppose I was also being a bit dramatic for effect. (I am from the Arts after all.) 

    I entered into conservativism defining myself as a libertarian. In the circles I ran in, “libertarian” wasn’t quite as dirty of a word.  In regards to certain morale issues, pornography being one, I found a differ from the more traditional libertarian ideas. 

     

    Perhaps I associate libertarianism with anarchy because in my age group libertarianism is more colloquially defined as “basically do whatever you want, just leave me alone.” Until recently when my generation became so totalitarian, this was the more common sentiment among my peers. 

     

    • #154
  5. Mikayla Goetz Member
    Mikayla Goetz
    @Mikayla Goetz

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Actually “freedom is a tricky thing” sounds like something the left could pick up and use: freedom is tricky, that’s why not everyone can be allowed to have it.

    I was thinking more along the lines of “Freedom is tricky” and we have to be it’s vigilant guards.

     

    • #155
  6. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This is what I think. 

    Everybody has to get on board with the Judge Learned Hand Spirit of Liberty speech, because that is the way the Constitution was written. The Founders even said that. If you don’t do that, you need a more authoritarian constitution. We have been going the wrong way since Woodrow Wilson.

    Actual “public goods” only. Look it up. Non-public goods add negative value to society. 

    The Federal Reserve stops pushing the economy around. It simply backs up the financial system in a punitive way. 

    In general, don’t start a government actuarial system. If you do, keep it 100% funded at all times. We sort of need Medicare and Social Security, but we are really screwing it up, obviously.

     

    In my opinion that is a pretty good basis of figuring out what is going right or wrong. You can call it conservative or you can call it libertarian, I’m not sure it matters.

     

    • #156
  7. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Also, the tax code doesn’t add a damn bit of value to society. It’s just Soviet central planning. It literally is that stupid.

    • #157
  8. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This is a nice summary of what is wrong with everything.

     

     

     

     

    • #158
  9. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    We sort of need Medicare and Social Security, but we are really screwing it up, obviously.

    We should fund it the way Singapore funds their equivalent.

    9. It is feasible for one generation to shift costs to subsequent ones. That is what national government debts and the U.S. social security system do (but not the social security system of Singapore).

    Excerpt from Thomas Sargent speech to Graduating Class, Cal-Berkely 2007

    • #159
  10. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Also, the tax code doesn’t add a damn bit of value to society. It’s just Soviet central planning. It literally is that stupid.

    Fair Tax or consumption tax. That way, even Billionaires would pay their fair share.

    • #160
  11. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This should have been done 30 years ago, but I think it would really help Republicans and libertarians if they had a deep understanding of how screwed up the Social Security and Medicare are and all of the lies around it. 

    • #161
  12. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Instugator (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    We sort of need Medicare and Social Security, but we are really screwing it up, obviously.

    We should fund it the way Singapore funds their equivalent.

    9. It is feasible for one generation to shift costs to subsequent ones. That is what national government debts and the U.S. social security system do (but not the social security system of Singapore).

    Excerpt from Thomas Sargent speech to Graduating Class, Cal-Berkely 2007

    Real Vision had a series of videos that said the same thing. If you don’t screw it up, it really saves a lot of money and capital. 

    • #162
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Instugator (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Also, the tax code doesn’t add a damn bit of value to society. It’s just Soviet central planning. It literally is that stupid.

    Fair Tax or consumption tax. That way, even Billionaires would pay their fair share.

    A flat-rate income tax would be unpopular since “the wealthy” would likely pay less than they do now.  A “consumption tax” would likely be unpopular too since “the wealthy” could do their consuming from other countries without being taxed.  As many of them do already for their yachts etc.

    • #163
  14. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Also, the tax code doesn’t add a damn bit of value to society. It’s just Soviet central planning. It literally is that stupid.

    Fair Tax or consumption tax. That way, even Billionaires would pay their fair share.

    A flat-rate income tax would be unpopular since “the wealthy” would likely pay less than they do now. A “consumption tax” would likely be unpopular too since “the wealthy” could do their consuming from other countries without being taxed. As many of them do already for their yachts etc.

    How about a flat tax, say 20% with a deduction for the first $50K.  Would have to be adjusted re: married vs. single; would probably take a third of the folks off the tax rolls, but  you could file your return on a postcard.  Same with corporations.  And get rid of half the IRS.  Probably too simple for the socialists to understand.  Lobbyists would go ape. But percentage of taxes paid by top 1% would probably from the 70 percentile to the 90s.  Like it was in 1918. Isn’t that a fair share?

    • #164
  15. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

     You will need a huge, intrusive bureaucracy to manage the exceptions. And there will be exceptions, unless you believe it doesn’t work only because it has never been tried. 

    • #165
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The only central planning you should be doing with the tax code is a deduction for procreating more tax payers. 

    • #166
  17. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    It reflects what is wrong with humanity and why the US was exceptional at the start but has been slowly returning to mankind’s normal, miserable existence. The 7 deadly sins are sins for a reason.

    • #167
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.