Here’s a link to the recently posted interview between me and the multitalented Joe Rositano at Electric Literature. We talk about If, the use of the term “choicefic” to describe books with branching narratives, skepticism, Burke, and what comes next.
Isaiah Berlin famously distinguished “negative” and “positive” liberty. In Berlin’s distinction, the former is the classical liberal ideal of freedom from government coercion, while the latter is the communitarian ideal of collective self-determination.
There is a related but even more basic distinction between two kinds of liberty that might be called “negative” and “positive”: negative freedom from government prohibition, and positive freedom to do something, to achieve some aim. A person who has no money is free in a negative sense to buy a loaf of bread, because there is no government prohibition on the buying of bread; but this person is not free in a positive sense to buy the loaf of bread, because he is not able to do so. He cannot choose to buy the bread. Likewise, we all have the negative freedom to become the CEO of Goldman Sachs, because no law prohibits us from doing so; but we lack the positive freedom, because we lack the practical ability to make the choice.
It is sometimes assumed that the American political tradition embraces only “negative” liberty from government coercion, and not the “positive” liberty to achieve one’s aims in life. But a case could be made that the ideal of “opportunity,” a central pillar of American political culture, implies a notion of positive freedom.
When the ideology of the Reagan era speaks of “freedom,” the response should be: freedom to do what?
If the 1960s called for negative freedom from social and cultural constraints, and the 1980s called in a confused way for negative freedom from economic constraints, then perhaps some coming decade can be the time when the positive freedom of Americans finally becomes the focus of our political life.