Liberty, Equality, and Justice Are American Political Values
Describe how foundational values of liberty, equality, and justice influence the U.S. system of government
The essential documents of the American Founding—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—proclaimed a set of principles about the purposes of the new Republic: liberty, equality, and justice. (See these documents in the appendix.) The practice of democracy—or the participation of ordinary people, as was just discussed in the previous section—is essential to how these values (liberty, equality, justice) are debated and made manifest. Most citizens still affirm these values, which form our political culture.
While liberty, equality, and justice anchor the American political system, these core values have not been equally applied over time. Despite the influence of the Founding principles on the practice of government, certain undemocratic traditions—nativism, racism, and sexism—have also been influential. Examining the impact of these traditions on American political culture allows a deeper understanding of how far this nation has come and the challenges that still lie ahead.
Liberty Means Freedom
Liberty is one of America’s central political values. The Declaration of Independence identified three “unalienable” rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Constitution likewise identified the need “to secure the Blessings of Liberty.” For Americans, liberty means both personal freedom and economic freedom. Both are closely linked to the idea of limited government.
The Constitution’s first 10 amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, delineate individual personal liberties and rights. In fact, the word liberty has come to mean many of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech and the press, the right to assemble freely, and the right to practice religious beliefs without interference from the government.
Throughout American history, the scope of personal liberties has expanded as laws have become more tolerant and individuals have successfully used the courts to challenge restrictions on their personal freedoms. Far fewer restrictions exist today on the press, political speech, and individual behavior than in the nation’s early years. Even so, conflicts emerge when personal liberties violate a community’s accepted standards of behavior. For example, a number of cities have passed “sit-lie” ordinances, which limit the freedom of individuals to sit or lie down on sidewalks. Designed to limit the presence of people who are homeless and to make city streets more attractive to pedestrians, the ordinances have also been denounced as restrictions on individual liberties.
Liberty also extends into the realm of economics. The American concept of economic freedom supports capitalism, free markets (including open competition and unrestricted movement of goods), and the protection of private property.42 During the nation’s first century, support for capitalism often meant support for the principle of laissez-faire (French for “allow to do”). Laissez-faire capitalism allowed the national government very little power to regulate commerce or restrict the use of private property. Today, however, federal and state governments impose many regulations to protect the public in such areas as health and safety, the environment, and the workplace.
Equality Means Treating People Fairly
The Declaration of Independence declares as its first “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal.” However, equality has been an even less well-defined ideal than liberty, because people interpret it in such different ways. Few Americans have wholeheartedly embraced the ideal of full equality of results (that everyone deserves equal wealth and power), but most share the ideal of equality of opportunity (that all people deserve a fair chance to go as far as their talents will allow). Yet it’s hard to agree on what constitutes equality of opportunity. Furthermore, in contrast to liberty, which requires limits on the role of government, equality implies an obligation of the government to the people.43 But how far does this obligation extend? Must a group’s past inequalities be redressed to ensure equal opportunity in the present? Should legal, political, and economic inequalities all be given the same weight?
Americans do make clear distinctions between social or economic equality and political equality, the right of a community’s members to participate in politics on equal terms. Though America started with a very restricted definition of political community, which included only White men who owned a certain amount of property, the nation has moved much closer to an ideal of political equality that can be summed up as “one person, one vote.” Most Americans agree that all citizens should have an equal right to participate and that government should enforce that right.
Many Americans see economic inequality as largely the result of individual choices, so they tend to be more skeptical of government action to reduce it (compared to government action to reduce political inequality). Income inequality rose on the political agenda during the coronavirus pandemic. The economic slowdown most affected lower-income workers without employee benefits, including those in the restaurant, retail, and gig economy sectors. As Congress deliberated economic stimulus measures and policy changes during the Covid-19 pandemic, debates about the role of government reemerged. Should greater resources be directed at helping workers or employers? Would increased unemployment benefits lead to better jobs for workers or disincentivize returning to work? Such debates appear even under the toughest economic circumstances.44
The Fight for $15—a nationwide effort to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour—first gained traction in 2013, increasing public awareness of income inequality in the United States. By 2022 many states had increased their minimum wage above the federal minimum wage, but few had reached the $15 threshold that workers had protested for.
Justice Is an Unfinished Project
Justice is the first of five political objectives highlighted in the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” However, as with liberty and equality, what constitutes justice is contested and has been debated over time.
While the Founders valued the concept of justice, the practice of justice was more complicated. Numerous aspects of the Founding period were unjust, such as the taking of land from Native nations, the enslavement of Black people, and the absence of voting rights for women and other groups.
Some of the most intense battles over the meaning of justice have occurred through the judicial branch. In the Founders’ view, the judicial branch would have the responsibility of ensuring that justice is carried out. Justice was, and is, closely linked to the principle of fairness.45 Ensuring a fair process is key to how we get to a just outcome. In order for the judicial branch to do its job, courts must apply the law fairly. Today, many disputes over the meaning of justice are decided in the Supreme Court. For example, in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage represented a grave injustice and that fairness required its legalization.46
Justice is one of America’s most important political values. In fact, justice is so central to the mission of the Supreme Court of the United States that engraved in marble on its building is the famous phrase “Equal Justice Under Law.”
But justice is not exclusively determined by judges, nor does it always necessitate a change in laws. Conceptions of justice arise from the people, and efforts to realize those visions can take many different forms. Over time, organized groups of Americans have used the language of justice—especially social justice—to advocate for change.47 Examples include the disability justice, environmental justice, and criminal justice reform movements. Sometimes the change being sought is about present challenges, and other times it is focused on redressing past wrongs. The movement for racial justice inspired over 20 million people to take to the streets during spring 2020 to draw attention to persistent racism directed at Black people.48 Protesters sought the transformation of policing, housing, and the economic system. In response, in many cases police reforms were instituted, cities provided help to families that needed housing, and corporations pledged resources to help improve race relations.49 And as with other protests advocating for change, those who disagreed with the calls for racial justice held counterdemonstrations.
HOW TO
Debate Respectfully
April Lawson, the director of debates for Better Angels
Government by the people functions best when individuals discuss ideas, share their preferences, and talk about what government is doing. But political discussion and debate can be uncomfortable, particularly among people who disagree or when politics is polarized, as it is in the current era. In order to have a productive discussion, it is important that people are respectful of others from different backgrounds, who might hold different political views.
To learn how to engage others and to debate respectfully, we spoke with April Lawson, the director of debates for Better Angels, a national organization that works with individuals from across the political spectrum to “combat polarization and restore civil dialogue across America.” She offers these tips for successful and civil political conversations:
1
The most important thing is the presumption of good faith. If someone says something you can’t stand, know that the other person is trying, just like you are, to address hard questions. Assume that the other person is smart and that they are moral.
2
Say what you actually believe. Genuineness and sincerity are crucial. You could debate either by making a case no one could disagree with or by sharing what you really feel about the issue. The latter will make for a more productive exchange of ideas.
3
How can you launch such a conversation and set the tone? A good technique is to start with a question of genuine curiosity for the other person, which reassures them that you want to know what they believe. Another tip is to paraphrase what they have said before you respond, to make sure the other person feels heard.
4
When you respond, it helps if you express some doubt or nuance in your own argument, or mention that you agree with some aspect of the other person’s position. You do not need to agree with everything they have said, but you can pick something reasonable the other person said and affirm, “You said X, which makes sense because of Y.”
5
Know that you may need to be the bigger person in the conversation. In order to be an ambassador of civility, you may need the patience to ask several genuine questions of curiosity before the other person believes that you are actually interested in what they have to say. And you need to control your own emotions and triggers, to manage your activation, because you know these rules for civil engagement, and they may not.
6
Finally, realize that you have agency. Prepare yourself for these tough conversations by telling yourself, “I will probably have feelings about this. But I can be patient and manage them.” Remember, you’re not trapped. You can take a break. You can change topics. Or you may want to have a conversational exit in mind. If it’s Thanksgiving and you’re speaking with your combative uncle, you might pivot to the football game.
Debating respectfully requires coming to the table with a posture of openness and helping the other person feel heard. In America, at the talking-point level, which is a surface level, we don’t agree at all. But if you can go down even one level to political values, or even one more level to moral values, then there’s a lot of common ground. With these conversations, we’re not trying to change how you see the issue; we’re trying to change how you see the other person.
Another recent example of a social justice movement is the landback movement led by Native nations.50 Landback leaders point to centuries of land dispossession by the U.S. government and assert that justice will be achieved when government and private land are returned to the stewardship of Native Americans. However, because some of the land is now privately owned or part of national parks, detractors argue that the movement’s goal is unfair to current landowners and to the public.
These examples show that despite Americans’ reverence for justice, its meaning and practice are often deeply contested.51 Some people understand it as closely related to liberty and requiring limitations from government intrusion. For others, it overlaps more closely with equality and requires government to intercede on behalf of citizens to address deep-seated inequalities. Just as we can say that the concept of justice is not static, we can consider all of American politics to be an unfinished project: the Founders established lofty guiding principles such as liberty, equality, and justice, but it has been the responsibility of successive generations of Americans to realize these ideals more fully.
broadly shared values, beliefs, and attitudes about how the government should function; American political culture emphasizes the values of liberty, equality, and justice
an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit with minimal or no government interference
the just allocation of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society
Endnotes
Herbert McClosky and John Zaller, The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 19. Return to reference 42
J. R. Pole, The Pursuit of Equality in American History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 3. Return to reference 43
Dan Murphy, “Economic Impact Payments,” The Brookings Institution, February 2021, www.brookings.edu/research/economic-impact-payments-uses-payment-methods-and-costs-to-recipients/ (accessed 10/5/21); Kevin Hassett and Matthew Jensen, “Here’s How Much the COVID-19 Stimulus Will Cost You,” National Review, March 18, 2021, www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/heres-how-much-covid-19-stimulus-cost-you/ (accessed 10/5/21); Allison Prang and Veronica Dagher, “Debate Over Paid Family Leave Is Louder Than Ever,” Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2021, www.wsj.com/articles/debate-over-paid-family-leave-is-louder-than-ever-11635564747 (accessed 10/5/21).
John Rawls, “Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical,” Equality and Liberty (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1991), 145–73; Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971). Return to reference 45
Martha Craven Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2006). Return to reference 47
L. Buchanan, Q. Bui, and J. K. Patel, “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History,” New York Times, July 3, 2020, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html (accessed 10/7/21). Return to reference 48
Barbara Ransby, Making All Black Lives Matter: Reimagining Freedom in the Twenty-First Century (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018); Deva Woodley, Reckoning: Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Necessity of Social Movements (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2021); Amna Akbar, “The Left Is Remaking the World,” New York Times, July 11, 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/07/11/opinion/sunday/defund-police-cancel-rent.html (accessed 10/5/21).
Harmeet Kaur, “Indigenous People across the US Want Their Land Back—and the Movement Is Gaining Momentum,” CNN, November 26, 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/us/indigenous-people-reclaiming-their-lands-trnd/index.html (accessed 10/7/21); Claire Elise Thompson, “Returning the Land,” Grist, November 25, 2020, https://grist.org/fix/indigenous-landback-movement-can-it-help-climate/ (accessed 10/7/21). Return to reference 50
Rawls, A Theory of Justice; Michael J. Sandel and T. Anne, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011). Return to reference 51
