Several weeks ago, I read an incredible speech by David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party and likely future prime minister. This speech was not incredible because it was the best oratory I’ve ever read, or because it contained new allegations against the ruling Labour Party, or because it included hateful comments—none of these were the case. No, what struck me was that this speech would not happen in America today.
Cameron declared, “We are in danger of living in a control state,” and proceeded to forcefully advocate for personal freedom, an end to the emerging surveillance state, and political accountability. In a passage particularly relevant for anyone looking to move the public discourse in a pro-freedom direction, he outlined the crucial role of information in politics:
The action we take to rein in Labour’s control state and confront Labour’s surveillance state will help rebalance power in one direction by enhancing personal freedom and limiting the state’s power over us.
But a radical redistribution of power also means increasing our power over the state, which means advancing political accountability. And just as information plays a massive part in the argument about personal freedom, as what I’ve said about Labour’s surveillance state databases demonstrates, so too is information central to the argument about political accountability.
Information is power – because information allows people to hold the powerful to account. This has never been more true than today, in the information age. The internet is an amazing pollinator, spreading ideas and information all over the globe in minutes. It turns lonely fights into mass campaigns; transforms moans into movements; excites the attention of hundreds, thousands, millions of people and stirs them to action. And constantly accelerating technology makes information infinitely more powerful.
It should be noted that Cameron is no libertarian or even small-government conservative. He acknowledged the task “to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest” as one of the British state’s legitimate functions. However, his emphasis on personal freedom, information, and constraining government provides a refreshing contrast to the Republicans.
In Washington, too many leaders in the America’s freedom movement, whether self-described as small government conservatives or libertarians, have given up on information. The Republican Party has generally not called President Obama’s transparency bluff, although House Minority Leader John Boehner recently attacked the administration’s failure to create an effective website for citizens to monitor stimulus spending. By and large, however, American conservative politicians seem to rely on information and ideas only when they want more spending and government control, such as in nation building or expanding homeland security. Even then, they prefer to keep most information about the government’s activities secret unless it helps their political cause. Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, the leader and sometimes only member of the GOP’s libertarian wing (or perhaps feather would more accurately convey its size), and his grassroots Campaign for Liberty had to fight for every co-sponsor to Paul’s “audit the Fed” bill (HR 1207), which would simply provide a full and open accounting of Federal Reserve activities for the first time in our central bank’s 96-year history. Only later did the Republican leadership get on board.
While the Conservative Party has not fought the advancing British State effectively and has instead adopted a compassionate conservative approach eerily reminiscent of President Bush’s own big government agenda, Cameron at least has the sense to speak up for personal freedom, something Republican leaders seem able to do only if the issue involves guns or Christianity in the public square. If Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney ever gave a serious address questioning the excesses of President Bush’s “war on terror” or calling for more openness from the Federal Reserve or anything empowering citizens at the expense of the State, I would at least seriously consider their claims on my limited government support. Until then, I guess I’ll just spend more time following the campaigns of their British friends.
