FDR’s Four Freedoms: Diminished and Defiled…


Common Dreams

 If asked why we live in a great country, an American is likely to respond: “Because we are free.” Fortunately for the respondent, explanation is rarely required. Freedom is difficult to define, and today it seems to exist more in our minds than in reality.

In a 1941 Message to Congress Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to explain what it means to be free. He outlined the “four essential human freedoms”:

The first is freedom of speech and expression…
The second is freedom of every person to worship…
The third is freedom from want…
The fourth is freedom from fear.

The 2013 version shows how our freedoms have been diminished, or corrupted into totally different forms.

Freedom from Want? Poverty Keeps Getting Worse.

For every three people in poverty in the year 2000, there are now four. Almost 50 million people were impoverished in 2011. Over 20 percent of our children live in poverty, including almost half of young black children. Among industrialized countries only Romania has a higher child poverty rate than the United States.

It goes well beyond economics. Not long after the FDR era, in 1960, the U.S. ranked near the top among 34 OECD countries in Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality. By 2008 we were close to the bottom. A 2007 UNICEF report ranked us last among 21 OECD nations in an assessment of child health and safety.

Freedom from Want has been least attainable for people of color. For every $100 owned by a white family, a black family has $2. For every $100 owned by a single white woman, a single black or Hispanic woman has 25 cents.

Freedom from Fear? The New Jim Crow.

In the decades before FDR young black men were under constant threat of arrest for ‘vagrancy,’ and the resulting slave-like conditions of forced labor. Today vagrancy has been replaced by petty drug offenses. In “The New Jim Crow,” Michelle Alexander documents the explosion of the prison population for drug offenses, with blacks and Hispanics the main targets even though they use drugs at about the same — or lesserrate as white Americans. In Colorado and Washington and New York City and Seattle the patterns are disturbingly similar: minority arrests are vastly out of proportion to their percentages of the population.

Freedom of Worship? Distorted by Visions of The Rapture.

In 2005 Bill Moyers wrote about the far-right evangelical beliefs that dominate much of conservative American thinking, and which impact social and environmental policies. He repeats a theology professor’s summary of the Rapture credo: “The world cannot be saved.” Believers are not responsible for the environment, and should focus only on personal salvation. Droughts and floods, which have been occurring with greater regularity as the earth warms, are simply signs of the apocalypse as foretold in the Bible, and thus should be welcomed.

With this attitude, freedom of worship is twisted into a radical dogma that threatens the health and safety of our entire population. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), like many on the conservative right, favors the Bible over science. “My point is,” notes Inhofe with reference to a verse from Genesis, “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Also to be welcomed by extremists is war with Islam in the Middle East, for it is an “essential conflagration on the road to redemption.” At a Florida conference on “Biblical Prophecy about End Times,” diatribes poured forth with a vengeance: “Islam is an intolerant religion…Islam is a Satanic religion.” A reporter came away convinced that “A terrible, final war in the [Middle East] is inevitable.”

Freedom of Speech? No, Surveillance and Harassment.

In De Jonge v. Oregon, 1937, the Supreme Court decided that the right of peaceable assembly is “cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.”

Recently released FBI documents reveal that the agency repeatedly monitored Occupy Wall Street activities, viewing them as possible terrorism.

Peaceable assembly and free speech might also describe the act of young men gathering on the streets of New York City. But their First Amendment rights, along with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search, are constantly violated by Stop & Frisk abuses by the police, which at times border on sexual assault.

In addition, our freedom of expression is increasingly compromised by advanced surveillance technologies. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act gives the government license to spy on us. New techniques such as Iris Scans, License Plate Recognition, GPS devices in pharmaceutical products, and Facial Recognition Technology invade our privacy. Drones are flying over our homes. The National Security Agency is building a data center big enough to store every email, text, phone call, web search, and video in the United States. With the Electronic Communications Privacy Act on its side, government is authorized to take anything it can get.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security.” As inequality destroys our economic security, and the prison population grows, and religion continues to impact public policy, and our privacy is invaded, our precious freedoms become more and more a failed American dream.


Under an adversarial, profit driven system such as ours there can be no individual freedom from anything. Under this system you can buy privilege, but not freedom. All this freedom discussion is just silly and irrelevant to personal lives. After a change that has power vested at the bottom, a bottom up vs. top down, then we can start talking about freedom. Until then we are just fooling ourselves into believing that the privileges that we buy or inherit are examples of freedom. Just silly.

In the thirties in the US there was the threat of power from below. This was beaten back with violence and bribery. The purpose of the “reforms” (that have been nearly totally erased from government policy today) was to protect the system of economic oppression from righteous anger at the bottom. Now we wonder why we are so confused.


    Absolutely right on. And, in addition to the catalog of freedoms, of course, are the corollary “birth rights”: right to lifetime shelter, health care, education, and a culturally enriched/enriching life (this puts the arts at the top, and technology, per se, in its place at the service of all the foregoing).

Thank you Albert, but I grow increasingly worried as more people agree with me. Personally, I would like the technological idealist progressives to be right. But then I have always had a soft spot for science fiction. That said, I believe firmly that for anyone to get anywhere they have to understand where they actually currently are as they set out to make intentions realities. This world that has grown up around me over the last sixty seven years seems characterized primarily by the degree of confusion everyone experiences about where they actually are.

In a “free” country we are not, but then few in the world can even claim to be free in degrees, much less in the absolute terms that folks are usually claiming are existent here. In moments of deep trust and candor people I speak with are usually horrified by the obvious consequences of a libertarian vision of “freedom.” We, as real people, know and understand a limited number of others well enough to understands the need for restraint on freedoms. When approached as a question of freedom of action for this well known circle of actual friends, family, and neighbors, everyone I have spoken to about this is certain that some members of this well known group should not be allowed to exercise freedom of action for the persons own sake as well as the protection of others. Real issues of freedom of action are messy for everyone and always obscured by devotion to ideology.

When that presidential scion of privilege who negotiated a truce between capital and labor, between ownership and being, conflated the issue of basic human need with “freedom from” he struck a wonderful blow for the cause of privilege. No one ever is free of the requirement of having their basic needs met. The homeless person is in as much need for a sanitary place to defecate as she who lives in one of many palatial homes, like so many of our national corrupt politicians. The freedom to take a decent dump, a freedom of action, is not equal. In fact, as long as basic needs are not being met there can be only a state of war between those denied and those accommodated by the political system. In war no one is free, ever. To be in a state of war, hot, cold or class, is to be totally constrained all the time.

In this system one is never free to assert a “right,” One is merely an owner of a privilege by right of purchase or birth. A system that works to meet the basic needs (say as defined by Maslow’s hierarchy) of everyone in that system can be conceived of as a unity, and not at war with itself. Other systems that relegate some residents of the territory under its control to conditions of denial of basic needs, like ours, are in a perpetual state of class warfare carried out by many means, economic, educational, discriminatory, in addition to direct physical violence by the state. It is all part of a package that comes when dreams of privilege overcome common sense, when docile obedience buys privilege dressed up as “rights.”