Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, International, Justice, Media, Politics, Society

Gallup Poll: Satisfaction With Their Freedoms Has Record Drop Among Americans

220px-Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_StatesWe have long discussed the erosion of civil liberties in the United States, including the attacks on privacy and other rights by the Obama Administration. It appears that we are not alone in those concerns. A new Gallup poll shows a record drop in the satisfaction of Americans over their freedoms. The massive drop is matched in such countries as Egypt, Pakistan, and Venezuela.

Seventy-nine percent of US residents are satisfied with their level of freedom. That is down from 91 percent in 2006 — a 12 point drop. We were once the highest country in the world on such polls. We have now dropped to 36th place.

That mirrors other studies showing the United States dropping to the same low levels on press freedoms, Internet speech, and other rights.

The White House has been adept in deflecting such criticism with a host of commentators and bloggers who deflect criticism with references to Republicans and the “red menace” or “things could be worse” spin or simply change the subject. However, the expansion of the internal security network in the United States and police powers is obviously having an impact on how Americans now view their rights. Years ago, I wrote a column entitled “10 Reasons Why The United States Is No Longer The Land of The Free.” Things have only grown worse since that column ran. The Obama Administration’s recent effort to strip citizens of privacy protections over their cellphones and records illustrates the extremism of some of these positions. That argument failed to secure a single vote on the Supreme Court for the Administration’s effort to blow a hole in American privacy protections.

The poll on the eve of the Fourth of July captures the dire condition of American civil liberties today. As I wrote years ago, Obama has been a disaster for the American civil liberties movement and the damage done under his tenure will be felt for decades. What is most distressing is that citizens see the decline but feel virtually powerless to do anything about it due to the duopoly of power in this country. Even with universal calls for change, the two parties are again recycling many of the same figures and same policies as prior years. Polls of this kind show a deep sense of dissatisfaction among Americans but also a complete lack of expression of those views through political channels. That is a dangerous situation for any political system when such widespread feelings are left unexpressed and unvented in politics. The political system seems to be operating in an increasingly unconnected and unresponsive fashion vis-a-vis the public at large. There is a sense among many that I speak to that there is a ruling elite and a vast body of the ruled — a modern equivalent to the helot class of ancient Sparta.

I am still amazed that we have come to this point of rapidly declining feelings of freedom and widespread dissociation with our political system. It is not the failure of our constitutional system and only partially the failure of our leaders. It is largely a failure in ourselves that we have become such grumbling drones — powerless, passive, and frankly a bit pathetic. Our government is openly trying to strip away core privacy protections and increase police powers at every level. Yet, we have fallen victim to the “blue state” and “red state” mentality — allowing politicians to constantly deflect criticism by referring to the other side as the greater evil. The result is predictable and, as with this poll, incredibly depressing.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0701/Land-of-the-free-Not-so-much.-Americans-sense-of-freedom-drops-poll-finds

277 thoughts on “Gallup Poll: Satisfaction With Their Freedoms Has Record Drop Among Americans”

  2. To precious poster:

    Corporations make money.

    People work for corporations.

    Parasites demand free money from corporations and people who work.

    Corporations don’t pay taxes.

    Customers of corporations pay taxes for corporations.

    People who work pay taxes.

    No one gives money to corporations or people who work.

    Power hungry collectivists give money to parasites who don’t work.

    De Tocqueville told us that one man, one vote democracy would “endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    That bribe is now approaching $20 Trillion.

    Oops!

  3. Saucy, My former US Senator, Russ Feingold, is VERY liberal, he is also a libertarian. Some folks just can’t wrap their feeble minds around that very basic fact.

  4. Paul Schulte:

    In my view, the evidence of war crimes by both the Bush and Obama administrations is overwhelming. There is nothing that Putin and the KGB could add to the equation. Besides, the old Soviets are already back in power.

    1. Mike – I would agree that the old Soviets are back in and operating along the same lines as they did during the Cold War. Part of the Bush/Cheney meme is straight from the Kremlin.

  5. Saucy, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Let me start W/ THE BASICS. There are libertarians who cover A WIDE SWATH of people and beliefs. Then there is the Libertarian party that has a codified set of beliefs that MANY libertarians do not abide. Your lack of knowledge is profound, starting w/ the basics. Jonathan Turley and Barry Goldwater are/were BOTH libertarians. They are quite different in many beliefs. More than anything Saucy, you seem to be a contrarian. I can abide contrarians, as long as they aren’t “contrary” to something they DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

  6. Paul C. Schulte: “there is a new story coming out of the East that says that claiming that Bush/Cheney, et al are war criminals is all part of the continuation of the old Soviet disinformation campaign. Putin has never forgotten his KGB roots and many of the old Soviets are just retooling to get back in power.”

    Translation:

    Paul C. Schulte: [steps up to blackboard] “Ahem. OK, here’s what we’ve got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people — under the supervision of the reverse vampires — are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. [sotto voce] We’re through the looking glass, here, people…”

    1. Bob, Esq. – the video clip is cute but it really does not show that you are up to date on global diplomacy or the ins and outs of the Kremlin in the new Cold War or even the old one. I cannot spell the author’s name, but the book is available on Gutenburg. It is called Red Horizons. The author is the highest ranking defector from the Romania during the Cold War and give great insight into what was happening then and what it took to bring down the former Soviet state. However, like good Marxists, Marx is their god and there shall be no other god before him. Putin is the new face of the old Soviets.

  7. Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
    “When most people hear the word `fascism’ they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ’30s as “corporatism,” that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler.

    So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day…

    So-called “corporatism”… stands in stark contrast to the classical liberal idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its “just powers” only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state.

    Mussolini viewed these liberal ideas (in the European sense of the word “liberal”) as the antithesis of fascism: “The Fascist conception of life,” Mussolini wrote, “stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.” Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans.” “If classical liberalism spells individualism,” Mussolini continued, “Fascism spells government.”

    Another result of the close “collaboration” between business and government in Italy was `a continual interchange of personnel between the. . . civil service and private business.’ Because of this `revolving door’ between business and government, Mussolini had `created a state within the state to serve private interests which are not always in harmony with the general interests of the nation.’ Mussolini’s `revolving door’ swung far and wide…

    The whole idea behind collectivism in general and fascism in particular is to make citizens subservient to the state and to place power over resource allocation in the hands of a small elite… Such decisions should be made by a “dominant class” he labeled “the elite.”

    Thomas J. DiLorenzo

  8. A random Paul wrote “Would be ok if I said Democrats believe in giving money to people that don’t work. or Republicans believe in taking money from the poor and giving to the rich.”

    Yes to both. And both parties believe in giving large amounts of money to corporations with no strings attached. And both parties believe in accepting large bribes a/k/a campaign contributions.

    “So how many bankers did our illustrious leader Mr O and his law enforcer in chief Mr H put behind bars?”

    The exact number that Bush the Younger did: 0. I’m not an Obamaphile. Or a Bushophile.

    “Don’t tell me what I believe.”

    You are Paul #2. Paul C. Schulte is Paul #1. Unless you want to suffer hurt feelings for no reason, attach a differentiator to your name.

    P.S. The official Libertarian Party platform includes this gem: “Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.”

    Governments are certainly responsible for environmental disasters, e.g. Rocky Flats and Hanford, but private businesses have an equally sordid history. Research “1948 Donora smog,” “Love Canal,” “Valley of the Drums,” and “Superfund.”

  10. I should have posted this earlier today. Freedom is a simple concept that is easy to understand and the hardest goal to protect. It seems like people that are not free want to be free but many that are free want government control and support.

    My grandparents came to America from Italy to be free and had no benefits other than the power of freedom. If someone was sick at Ellis Island they were turned back. People had to rely on relatives not the government. Freedom and ability to succeed was all they wanted. All indications are that once people are free they want government to take care of them and the government power is difficult if not impossible to reverse.

    As a senior citizen I have had an opportunity to see positive changes to fix discrimination and increase equal rights to allow people to succeed. That should have been done 200 years ago. This has allowed so much advancement by previously discriminated groups that most fail to see the success.
    But I have also seen more government involvement into areas that complicates freedom. As one example, abortion and birth control is legal today. That is a freedom. But it is easy to understand why religious groups are against both. It is the ACA that causes the complication in the Hobby Lobby case. To cover a small percentage of the population, the government decided to impact every member of society. This causes significant complication that is hard to justify. We then create a new web of laws to compensate for the issues. Before the ACA, the wealthy were already ok, the poor had emergency care but now the middle class pays the price of forced insurance not freedom to choose.

    In a free society, the smartest or best at a skill will generally succeed without regard to birth rights be they rich or poor, male or female, black or white. Families should help the less skilled. The best baseball player or soccer player becomes a professional and is rewarded. The smartest students will succeed in their profession.

    We are losing sight of what our founding fathers debated and created. A free society with limited government and maximum rights.

    All of our freedoms are like the freedom of speech – it’s not allowing speech that we agree with – it’s allowing speech that we don’t agree with.

    We can have a free society or an equal society. I am unable to see how we can have both. We all may differ on what freedom and rights that we are willing to give up but in the end we will all lose.

  11. SWM,
    Women’s rights are not being taken away. Taking women’s right away, means that all birth control would be banned, abortion would be illegal, and no woman would be able to get a job at a decent wage.
    As it is, women run the majority of the households in this country, they receive more college degrees than men, many women make as much and more than their husbands/boyfriends, and today, all professions are opened to women.

    Women can purchase birth control for under $10.00 a month, that’s about 33 cents a day. Before Obamacare, the majority of insurances covered the cost of birth control. Women can get an abortion (because they carelessly didn’t use the contraceptives or say no), and the cost is minimal.

    Hobby Lobby STILL covers contraceptives, in fact they offer around 16 different types of contraceptives. THEY ALWAYS DID COVER CONTRACEPTIVES, EVEN BEFORE OBAMACARE! They wanted to opt out of the abortion portion of the insurance, due to their religious beliefs..

    Your an intelligent person, so why do you keep skirting around issues to cover up the evidence in order to make your party look better than it is. You know the truth, or are you in denial?

  12. The Founders UNDERSTOOD and it was lost in transmission that,

    The Preamble is not only binding, it is the essential American context. The Constitution provides for governance within the parameters of the Preamble.

    Government is limited to security and infrastructure – Justice, Tranquility, Defence and General Welfare.

    All endeavors, businesses and industries shall be conducted by citizens in the free markets of the private sector without governmental interference as the “blessings of liberty” secured for ourselves and our posterity.

    The right to private property and to the “blessings of liberty” preclude redistribution of wealth. As General Welfare was included, the funding of individual welfare was deliberately and intentionally excluded.

    Freedom is self-reliance.

    That is all.

    This page was intentionally left blank by the Founders.

    1. Noam Chomsky is so far to the left he is on a different planet.

  15. War criminal? We have not had a declared war since WWII. A President could be a war criminal merely for sending troops into harms way. A President who goes to war without a declaration of war is like a dude that walks into a cathouse without a condom. He reeps what he sows. So Obama and Bush need to go to jail for sending troops into harms way without seeking a declaration of war.

  16. Beth M, we have a tendency to point fingers at everyone but ourselves. I didn’t read where you blamed one Democrat for anything, only Beohner (Republican) and Congress (majority Republican). The entire Washington government is in a shambles for goodness sake. Then you blame the wealthy corporations, but no mention of Democratic run unions, media, and Hollywood. It’s everyone and everything. STOP the bashing of one side of the issues and defending your side. It’s all sides! It’s everyone! It’s you, me, and everyone who lives in this country! I LOVE this country and want to contribute to making it a strong functional country for all. We need our government, but it MUST be limited and it must adhere to the constitution. Period.!

    1. Dredd – Chomsky is neither a scholar or an intellectual, however he is an activist.

  18. Saucy says…”I do not understand this myself, but libertarians somehow believe that corporations will “do the right thing…””

    Would be ok if I said Democrats believe in giving money to people that don’t work. or Republicans believe in taking money from the poor and giving to the rich.

    I consider myself a libertarian which means I believe in the rule of law as defined by our Constitution. When a corporation doesn’t do the right thing (as our major banks did not do in 2006-2009), I say prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

    So how many bankers did our illustrious leader Mr O and his law enforcer in chief Mr H put behind bars?

    Don’t tell me what I believe.

  19. Too many politicians serve the interests of their party or themselves first on the promise of helping ordinary citizens. It is often that they solidify this hold on appealing to single issues that stir up passions to either blindly support them on theirs side while the opposition drums up fear of the other. The problem is general and structural.

    I think Professor Turley addressed this quite well actually. Individuals can be dismissive of the significance of the poll shown here but such a drop in confidence of this nature should be recognized as significant.

    1. Darren I quite agree with your assessment that such a drop is of concern, but I think it is a good thing for the reason that more people are now aware of government impinging on our freedoms. I disagree with Prof Turley in that we have not come close to any tipping point compared to our past. Just one instance that all should know is the Palmer raids which resulted in tens of thousands of US citizens being imprisoned for political crimes of dissent. Many were simply deported illegally and most lost jobs, homes, liberty, etc.. THAT had a major effect in destroying many leftist publications and organizations because most Americans were afraid of going to prison. Now if we are at such another tipping point, you have to answer he question, how many people are in prison now with all this increased surveillance? How many Americans have been murdered by the Obama administration for simply expressing themselves on politics?

      I have mentioned LOTS of US citizens who HAVE been murdered by previous administrations, though without admitting it. The one that really reeks is the FACT that the US journalists who were the victims of the CIA bombing of the Pastora press conference, were denied any day in court for their injuries under the Reagan administration which approved that bombing. Killing journalists and civil engineers who are working in conflict areas is a FAR different thing than killing US citizens who are participating in armed combat and terrorism against the USA. Most rational people can see the BIG difference. So I and most people have no problem with Obama’s role in that. In fact, it is good that such lists are published since those accused have a chance to turn themselves in to US authorities, and get their day in court.

      If you think the current SCOTUS is bad, the previous ones have endorsed private kidnapping of their enemies and trying them in rigged courts. The kidnapping of the leaders of the Western Federation of Miners by criminals hired by the mine owners, and brought back to Idaho and THEN indicted and tried is a gross example of this. The SCOTUS said it was of no concern that Haywood, Moyers, etc.. were unlawfully kidnapped, so their subsequent indictment was valid as were the verdicts. The editor of the Appeal to Reason was arrested, imprisoned, and denied a speedy trial for over TWO years, so that the government could drain the paper of funds. His “crime” was sending a flyer through the mail advertising a reward of $1000 for any person who would bring back former Gov. Taylor who had murdered one of his socialist opponents. The state of Kentucky had a $100,000 reward on his head and an indictment since the Gov had fled to Indiana to avoid trial. The editor was convicted in Federal court and went to prison, and Taylor got a pardon from the new Governor of Kentucky and avoided trial all together. So just HOW is our past better than now? Is imprisoning tens of thousands of Americans for political though, NOT a pretty good tipping point. In fact, during the McCarthy era, I would bet that most Americans would say the US had lots of freedom, when in FACT, we had little or NONE! If you agree with the regime, you are perfectly free in all dictatorships, and in fact, can make a good profit too. So I put little faith in people’s perception of liberty, I prefer facts to demonstrate such things. When the US starts putting people in prison as a result of all this intelligence gathering, THEN we will have the reality of dictatorship, fear, and peoples perception will be accurate, IF they have the guts to express themselves under such a regime.

      2. Randy,

        You bring up good points about the past administrations and from my understanding of those they are accurate. The problem is presently these types of abuses need to stop today and too often there are those who look the other way because in doing so either aligns with the ultimate political goals or is instigated by those they support.

        One thing I would like to add is as you mention at the bottom of your comment, when people are being arrested based upon the intelligence gathering might be too late to stop it easily. I have maintained that if the apparatus of a surveillance state is created it only takes a matter of changes of goals in the political class to rapidly convert it to a increasingly authoritarian government.

        Prosecution based upon political opposition was quite prominent in the past especially during the Red Scare and the McCarthy disgrace. This is one reason that I believe the department of justice should remain outside of the president’s cabinet and be a separate entity, with of course some oversight.

        We can surely see this poll is not the only poll showing losses of freedom. We read here several months ago of how the World Press Freedom index, or something of similar name, shows a large drop in the United States’ ranking.

        One problem I see with many citizens here is they have been through various ways cajoled into believing politicians provide the solutions to everything in this country rather than the politicians serving the will of the citizens. Having this misconception only adds to the amount of freedom Americans are willing to give up.

        1. Darren, I agree that the extensive surveillance is bad, but by itself, it does not constitute a loss of freedom any more than a cop looking at me while I pass out anti-war leaflets is oppression. Now if as they used to do, the cop arrests me, THAT is oppression. Any system can be abused and establishing a system of mass surveillance CAN be used for ill, but it does not mean it necessarily will be. The fact is that when we did not have such things because technology did not exist, we did have an authoritarian police state back in our history during the McCarthy era. That happened despite the laws and the Constitution. The only reason McCarthy ended was because the whole endeavor was beginning to eat the rest of the system, such as the Army, FBi, and other politicians who did not like the fact that THEIR liberties were gone. It was not because the American people rose up and demanded an end to it. In fact, if a poll were taken back then and the question was is the US a free country, I would bêt the poll would show at least 99% saying yes. This despite the FACT that it was not even close. If you answered that question saying no, at the least most people knew they would lose their job, and at worst, wind up in prison. So the poll numbers do not concern me, and indeed show a healthy skepticism about the role of government. That I find rather encouraging, and in any group of people there will always be the nuts who say we have no freedom at all. At least NOW they are free to say that, unlike before.

          The good thing is that we are having a discussion as to how much the government has a right to know and crafting laws that hopefully will prevent the abuses of the past. I only object to the apocalyptic tenor of much of the discussion and the total ahistorical view of our present situation. We have people here who think that McCarthy and that era were a great time of freedom! An we have others who say that police even asking a question is oppression. I don’t hold that view, though back when the Houston cops WERE actually terrorizing people and me specifically, I DID view them asking a question as an affront.

          I understand the position of Prof Turley since as a lawyer that is his natural job to look for the worst case scenario and to try and limit government as much as possible in matters concerning security. I think that a balance needs to be struck. I doubt that making the AG a civil service position or limiting it is the answer. I do think that what has been done in giving the FBI director a defined term limit apart from Presidential terms is a good move. Thinking back to my civil rights days, if JFK had not appointed RFK as AG, we would have had a lot harder time than what we did. If Nixon had been elected, there would be a lot more dead bodies in the South with a person who he would have appointed. So I am loathe to divorce politics from the AG office completely. The only real guarantee of our liberties are the American people themselves and the people who we elect. When we elected bad people who were partisan political hacks, we lost our freedoms. Abe Lincoln had to do some tough things that restricted freedoms during the Civil War, yet we pulled though, and he did not become a dictator nor did he establish one for his successors. I am certain that if Prof Turley were alive back then, he would be leading the charge against the tyrant Lincoln too. I know it is poor law and governance to say trust to the person, but even without such laws as we have now, that is what it comes down to. Our Constitution did not prevent the destruction of freedom in the past, so I doubt that these current laws will do any worse. Anything can be abused, at least we are on guard against it now with the internet and mass communication that did not exist in our past. So any governmental malfeasance can be found out and reported and fought. The only thing left to do is to raise our voices when the system is abused, and not some half cocked the sky is falling cry at everything.

  20. Yep, Bob, Esq., it’s been a pattern for years: “Things could be worse.” With a fondness for the word “hyperbole.”

Comments are closed.