WORKING PAPER
Sussman
A Contemporary Vision of the Freedom vs. Order Dichotomy:
An Observation of the 2012 Presidential Election
IDC conference on the Presidential Election of 2012
Stephen Sussman, Ph.D.
Barry University
Miami Shores, FL
January 6-7, 2013
I.
If you ask the average voter (Democrat or Republican) to name the two most important
domestic issues of the 2012 presidential campaign, the average person would most likely name
healthcare and abortion as the prevailing issues. I give the Democrats credit for steering the
campaign toward issues that were designed and argued to be emotive, but certainly not designed
to elect the best candidate. This type of campaigning is not new, and will be addressed shortly.
Winston Churchill is credited with this quote. “The best argument against democracy is a fiveminute conversation with the average voter.” (Churchill). On a purely visceral level, one could
argue that Obama was elected partially because so many believed that Romney was going to
send women back to the dark ages. I heard this over and over from seemingly intelligent people.
One could also argue that Obama was elected because so many believed that Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), commonly known as Obamacare, was the only
solution to the healthcare woes of the country. We were told to overlook the fact that no one read
it before it was passed. Forget the fact that The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) mandate to purchase healthcare was in
violation of the Commerce Clause, after the government argued that the mandate legitimately
falls under the scope of the Commerce Clause. Perhaps the conservatives looked at the election
through Rabbi Pruzansky’s eyes. On his blog, he wrote, “The simplest reason why Romney lost
1
WORKING PAPER
Sussman
was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.” (Pruzansky, 2012). Let me be clear.
This election is no different than many other presidential elections of the past 60 years.
II.
Like the 2012 campaign, the 1952 presidential campaign was the first to use television.
As a result, the so called 30-second president was invented. This was illustrated in the 1984
program, The 30 Second President (A Walk Through the 20th Century with Bill Moyers). This
film examines the role of advertising in presidential campaigns. Advertising executive Rosser
Reeves discusses his television spots for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, and media specialist
Tony Schwartz (The Daisy commercial) discusses how electoral politics have changed with
increased use of television advertising. Rosser Reeves explains that he went to an Eisenhower
rally in Philadelphia. He heard Eisenhower ramble on about too many issues. When he polled the
attendees, most people could not recall anything Eisenhower said. With Reeves’ help, the
campaign platform was reduced to three issues. In the general election, Eisenhower campaigned
by attacking the conflict in Korea, Communism and corruption in government. In a major
speech, he announced that if he won the election he would go to Korea to see if he could end the
war. (However, as Bill Moyer points out, he never explained what he would do when he got
there). This and his enormous popularity as a World War II General made him the leader
throughout the campaign. During the campaign, the Republicans blamed the Democrats for the
military's failures in Korea. Using Senator McCarthy’s agenda, they accused the Democrats of
having Communist spies within the federal government. Additionally, they accused the Truman
administration for having too many officials who had been accused of various crimes. The
Democrats criticized Senator McCarthy and other right-wing Republicans as "fear mongers" who
were recklessly treading on the civil liberties of government employees. (Sussman, 2008) These
issues played well on television and evoked emotions. Rosser Reeves noted that he marketed
2
WORKING PAPER
Sussman
Eisenhower in the same way he marketed consumer products. For those old enough to remember,
Reeves created the Anacin commercials, Bic pen, and M&M commercials. He recalled that his
biggest product was “The General.” Reeves said that advertising is very simple. You need only
to find one or two issues that resonate with the consumer, and then spend the money. It is
disturbing that sixty years later, political campaigns still do the same thing. Now, only better.
III.
In the court battle over Obamacare, the government argued that the individual mandate
was constitutional because the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate
interstate commerce. The government argued that without the mandate, Obamacare would not
survive, and because not having health insurance substantially affects the health insurance
market (i.e., it affects interstate commerce), government had a legitimate right to levy a fine for
not buying insurance. Of course the other side argued that the mandate was not really regulating
commerce, but forcing people to engage in it. At the end of the day, Chief Justice John Roberts,
and the majority of the court, despite voting to uphold the individual mandate as a tax, agreed
with the conservative argument.
IV.
Can you be a proponent of universal healthcare, but not want the federal government to
manage it? Can state governments manage these issues better than the federal government?
During the campaign, I argued that the overriding issue we faced (the direction of the country)
was the same broad issue we debated between 1787 and 1789. Then, the country was divided
into two groups: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. In broad terms, The Anti-Federalists, in
1789, argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the
expense of the state governments. The Federalists wanted a stronger central government. Today
we call them Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, states-rights advocates and
strong central government advocates, etc. Different labels, but the same theme.
3
WORKING PAPER
V.
Sussman
Healthcare reform was the cornerstone of President Obama’s 2008 campaign. With the
backing of a Democrat controlled congress, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of
2010 (PPACA) was signed into law. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Governor Romney
stated that, if elected, he would undo Obamacare. The Obama campaign argued that Obamacare
was based on Romney’s Massachusetts plan. This claim was consistently posited by political
pundits throughout the campaign, and was certainly a way to discredit Romney’s argument that
Obamacare was an overreach of the federal government. Perhaps Obamacare is based on
Romneycare. Simply… so what! As a presumed state-rights advocate and governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Romney’s universe ended at the border of the
Commonwealth. It is true that Romney is a supporter of some aspects of Obamacare, such as
coverage for pre-existing conditions. I suggest that Romney could be s a supporter of a universal
healthcare plan. However, the implementation would be left to the states. They would be tasked
with developing an appropriate plan to fits their needs. As such, I believe Romney could have
fared better if he argued for universal healthcare, but requiring states to develop their own plans,
rather than Romney’s rant about dismantling Obamacare. Yes, the average voter only heard
Obama healthcare, Romney no healthcare.
VI.
Regardless of the campaign rhetoric, the argument was essentially Federalist vs Anti-
Federalist. Did we want the federal government to grab for power, or should power reside within
the states? Or, should there be a compromise. Madsion, in Federalist 45/46, perhaps tried to
soften the blow of Federalist 44 by explaining that the powers of the federal government under
the proposed constitution would not threaten the powers reserved to the states. In Federalist 44,
Madison justifies those sections of the Federalist Papers which limit State powers, and
establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. So, how much freedom are we
4
WORKING PAPER
Sussman
willing to surrender for order? Using the Healthcare debate as a model, I argue for a
compromise; a win/win situation. As I stated previously, the federal government could mandate
that each state develop its own universal healthcare, using the federal government’s toolbox of
resources. In 1787, the Anti-Federalists argued against the ratification of the Constitution. In a
general sense, they argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the national
government, and less power to the states. Additionally, they argued that the Necessary and
Proper Clause (Art 1, sec 8, clause 18) provided Congress with too much power. The Federalists
argued that the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the
people. Because all three branches are equal, no one branch would control. It became evident
that ratification would be more difficult than anticipated. As such, the Federalists agreed that
when Congress convened it would draft a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights essentially placed
restrictions on the federal government and guaranteed certain liberties. Perhaps the Founders
(the Federalists and Antifederalists) considered this a win/win. The current healthcare debate
could also be a win/win if the rhetoric stopped and compromise ensued. As an aside, the dual
federalism of 1789 and 1791 is certainly not the federalism we have today.
VII.
Freedom vs Order is often referred to as the original dilemma of government. How much
freedom do citizens relinquish to government? This dilemma is centuries old, and was certainly
part of the discussion in 1787 and should have been part of the discussion in 2012. As citizens,
do we want our government to allow complete freedom, or one that enforces many restrictions?
Or perhaps a middle ground. Obamacare provides an excellent example of the freedom vs order
dichotomy. All governments require its citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain benefits.
Freedom is certainly not absolute. Justice Holmes famously stated, “The most stringent
protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre…”
5
WORKING PAPER
Sussman
(Schenck v. United States, 1919). In addition to maintaining order and promoting equality (a
modern dilemma), the federal government’s role is to provide benefits that are not likely to be
produced by the states. Since his first campaign, President Obama has argued that the high
number of uninsured and underinsured citizens necessitate the federal government’s
involvement. However, Americans differ on how vigorously they want their federal government
to maintain order, provide public goods, and promote equality. As already stated, this usually
involves compromise. Frankly, I am not sure the average voter understands the concept of
freedom vs order. Perhaps they got hung up on the “free stuff.”
I was not able to find to find the original source, but it still seems appropriate to end with this…
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you
have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we
need a majority!”
Works Cited
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (U.S. Supreme Court 1919).
Churchill, S. (n.d.). Sir Winston Churchill Quotes. Retrieved from Quotes.net:
http://www.quotes.net/quote/42113
Pruzansky, R. (2012, October). Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog- The Decline and Fall of The American
Empire. Retrieved from Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog:
http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/11/07/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire/
Sussman, S. (2008). Presidential Election of 1952. In Encyclopedia of U.S Campaigns, Elections,
and Electoral Behavior. Sage.
6