On January 6, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt presented his State of the Union Address to Congress. War was raging in Europe but official U.S. policy was against American involvement “over there.”
The President talked about security, the economy, his legislative agenda; the usual stuff of State of the Union Addresses. One memorable line—“As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone”—advanced his belief that holding the right values and governing according to the will of the people were powerful tools to motivate opposition to tyranny, as important as armies.
The most memorable section of the speech, however, has been celebrated in most books about U.S. history and used as advertisement about the values at the core of America (even meriting a Norman Rockwell painting!). Roosevelt committed himself to the goal of ensuring basic freedoms worldwide.
People of a Certain Age, your U.S. History course likely included reference to the Four Freedoms speech. Can any of us name all four without checking Google? Perhaps you, like me, have heard FDR’s distinctive voice and unique emphases as he laid out his vision, which he believed was America’s, too.
Roosevelt was on safe ground with Americans of all political persuasions with his first two freedoms: “Freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.” And, “Freedom to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world.” After all, he merely took parts of the Bill of Rights and wished that all humankind could enjoy those freedoms.
The fourth freedom he listed qualifies as a pie-in-the-sky wish that flies in the face of the history of human beings. But it is a nice wish. FDR wanted “freedom from fear which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor anywhere in the world.”
Today, there are already too many nations possessing nuclear weapons. Several more aspire to have them, believing that, with a nuke comes respect. Ironically, the relative decline of declared wars between nations since World War Two might be the fruit of widespread nuclear armament among nations not currently disposed to use them, yet not willing to give them up.
FDR was not alone in wishing for arms reduction. Some reductions have occurred through treaties, to be sure. But, a lot of hearts and minds around the world would need to change before the world got to the state envisioned by Roosevelt.
The third freedom is within reach, given certain conditions and the will of people to achieve it. Roosevelt called for “freedom from want, which translated into the world means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants everywhere in the world.”
The conditions? First, that we find agreement among nations about what constitutes a “healthy peacetime life.” Second, that nations pursue public policies that advance the possibility of every inhabitant everywhere in the world having such a life.
Neither condition will be easy to fulfill.
Steven Pinker, in his book, Enlightenment Now, got us thinking, during our lanai reading time, about the idea of “enough.” Pinker argues, in brief, that public opinion surveys reveal that people are willing to put up with economic inequality as long as they feel that the economic system is fair and that they can secure enough for themselves and their families
We were startled by that finding. Then we wondered, what is “enough?” Surely people who have enough can pursue a “healthy peacetime life.” But can we agree on what is “enough?”
What kinds of public policies would advance the cause of securing for every person in the world a “healthy peacetime life?” Would that line of inquiry lead one beyond the noise of tariffs, redistribution of assets and direct payments to people to explore what might be done so that every person in the world has the opportunity to pursue the benefits of a world in which, as Pinker points out, the collective wealth in the world is continuously expanding?
“Enough” is complicated. Is “enough” merely secure housing, food, jobs, access to education, transportation and a little money left over each month to be able to go to the movies now and then? Does “enough” now have to include computing capacity at home to access online resources? Or a phone that stores information, takes great photos and, on occasional take phone calls?
Does access to education mean free post-secondary work? Does a secure job mean guaranteed lifetime employment? Does “enough” mean eating the same fruit all year long, seasons notwithstanding?
One can easily move from the simple to the complex trying to define “enough.” Most steps along the way cost money that would have to come from somewhere.
Some time ago, in my work with Ed.D. students at the University of Hawaii, I suggested that just society would include for all people equal access to the opportunities available in that society. In this way, individuals have a stake in achieving enough, and society has the obligation to ensure equal access to the opportunities.
Freedom from want—having enough—is doable if we can figure out what is enough.
Daniel E. White
September 2, 2019