On writing for freedom


As the election approaches, I’d like to offer an unpopular idea: There’s too much focus on the candidates. If you care about human freedom, it should be obvious that Trump and Harris are both inimical to it (thought Trump is far worse). However, they’re just symptoms. Whether we’re looking at sending the military into every neighborhood to expel people from the country or instituting price controls and handouts to create winners and losers, the underlying premise is the premise that a central authority should decide how things should be. This idea has gained in popularity in spite of all the evidence that it’s harmful. The Republicans have almost completely abandoned the free-market principles that once formed an inconsistent part of their platform. The Democrats have believed in a managed economy and growth in federal power and spending ever since Franklin Roosevelt, and they haven’t changed on fundamentals.

As the election approaches, writers spend many words on the candidates as people. News sites, no longer pretending to give news, jump on any little thing that makes their preferred candidates look good or their opponents look bad. Their goal is proxy power. People on social media do the same, often with even less regard for the facts and less of a reason. Their main line of argument is “I’m smart, anyone who disagrees with me is dumb, and if you’re smart like me you see that, right?”

If you write on current controversies and value human freedom, you can do something different. You can set a better standard. If enough authors and journalists do it, it can make a difference, pushing the national discourse in a better direction. It wouldn’t take much to make it less awful.

Focus on principles rather than personalities. What candidates say about someone’s genitalia isn’t as important as what they intend to do. What they intend in specific cases isn’t as important as the principles they’re acting on. Lay out their driving ideas and show the threat or promise they offer, and you’re dealing with lasting concerns. Show that a proposal arises from brain-dead economic theories or heavily distorted facts, and you stand a chance of convincing people it’s bad.

Respect your audience. You don’t persuade readers by calling them absolute morons. Present your case in terms they should be able to understand, but don’t talk down. Finding the right level of explanation can be tricky. Consider their context; they might not know everything that’s relevant.

Check your facts. Any news source will be wrong or misleading some of the time. Get as close to primary sources as you can find. If a bill or law is at issue, look at its text, not just what others claim it says. Don’t assume words in quotation marks are what someone actually said. Look for an independent source to confirm essential facts.

Be consistent. The basic principles you hold should apply, regardless of what the issue is. If your views on something might seem inconsistent with what you’ve said before, think about whether there’s a legitimate difference. If there is, perhaps you should explain it. If there isn’t, reconsider your thinking.

Be passionate. Don’t let all these caveats keep you from delivering a strong message. If you don’t make it clear you care, no one reading your words will care. William Lloyd Garrison wrote, “I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — and I will be heard.” It took more than three decades after those words, but slavery fell.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *