Molecules of Freedom
Last week, the Department of Energy issued a press release announcing that Freeport LNG, an exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), is now authorized to send even more of that sweet, sweet nectar all across the globe. The DOE offered the always-popular “job creation” and “economic growth” as justifications for its decision, though I’m not sure why they bothered; they could have said “Because we felt like it you idiots, fuck off,” and we’d go along with it anyway.
So, even though anyone who reads press releases from the Department of Energy probably doesn’t need the sales pitch, the DOE made an effort to polish up this turd of a decision. Alas, they dramatically overshot the mark: “Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy,” said U.S. Undersecretary of Energy Mark Menezes.
“Freedom gas.” These words have embedded themselves deep in my skull, and it seems unlikely I’ll ever get them out. Freedom gas. Fucking freedom gas. The press release inexplicably goes on, as though the unironic use of the phrase “freedom gas” could ever be topped.
But where the average person sees an unsurpassable achievement, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg saw an opportunity. “I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world,” Winberg said.
Molecules of freedom.
Molecules. of Freedom.
𝐦ỖŁＥ𝔠Ⓤl€ｓ Ｏғ ғℝ𝓔ᗴ∂𝓞м.
Just attempting to process this phrase has turned my brain to slurry. I feel like an old “Looney Tunes” character who’s so bewildered by what’s happening that they start hitting themselves in the head with a comically oversized hammer. I want this phrase etched on my gravestone: “ASHES TO ASHES, MOLECULES OF FREEDOM TO MOLECULES OF FREEDOM.”
This phrase is all the proof you need that we are living in the dumbest possible time in human history. The nonsensical flag-waving; the idea that “freedom” 1) exists on a molecular level, and 2) evidently counts towards our GDP; the apparent belief that the only reason the whole dang solar system doesn’t have freedom is because of the pencil-pushers upstairs United States keep dragging their feet. I can see someone on Fox & Friends arguing that liberty can be delivered in the form of a gas and telling viewers to “Take a look at China – they wear masks all the time, and that blocks the freedom from entering their lungs!” It’s just so perfectly stupid.
Patriotic fervor just oozes from every pore of this press release. It’s honestly shocking they haven’t changed the logo of every government agency to a picture of a bald eagle wearing tactical sunglasses, driving a pickup truck that’s towing a trailer full of steak and bacon. It would be laughable, if not for the fact that it’s a press release about a government agency announcing its intention to ramp up the destruction of the planet. We just don’t notice it because we’re distracted by the absurd display of unwarranted, chest-beating jingoism, which is precisely the point.
Phrases like “freedom gas” and “liberty molecules” and “aerosolized democracy” are easy to dismiss as the ramblings of a deeply stupid individual. In some cases, they are; sometimes, though, they’re delivered by smart people, ones who know that by sounding sufficiently moronic, the public will assume they’re incompetent and will stop paying attention. And these cunning bastards thrive when public attention is focused elsewhere.
Beyond reassuring people that you’re too stupid to do any real damage, grunting “FREEDOM” into the nearest microphone serves as a neat little way to gussy up an action that would otherwise be unpalatable to the general public. More importantly, it alters the framework for the debate, which is tremendously useful for someone who knows they can’t win on the merits of their position. Thus, is increased profit a sufficient justification for the continued destruction of the planet? turns into does the definition of “liberty” include the freedom to destroy the planet if we so choose?
Historically, America has always been a tad high-strung whenever the concept of freedom is brought up. Given the circumstances under which the nation was founded, that reaction was understandable in the country’s early years, but America hasn’t been in danger of falling under foreign rule since at least 1898. In fact, you could argue that the United States has been a global superpower for the majority of its existence.
Nevertheless, the specter of King George continues to haunt our national psyche. When it comes to foreign policy, America believes it’s the one true defender of freedom, even though the United States almost exclusively engages in military action as a means of amassing more power for itself. The lone exception is World War II, though the United States’ refusal to get involved until after the attack on Pearl Harbor undercuts the argument that we were Fighting For What’s Right, as does the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war. Sure, we (begrudgingly) fought the Nazis, but we also killed some 150,000-200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did they not deserve liberty?
Our domestic obsession with “freedom” as we currently know it began on or around September 11th, 2001. In an address to Congress shortly after 9/11, George W. Bush insisted that America was attacked because the terrorists “hate our freedoms.” Which was nonsense: there are countless other nations whose citizens enjoy the same individual liberties as Americans. We were attacked because Osama Bin Laden believed that America’s foreign policy amounted to a “clear proclamation of war against God, his messenger and Muslims.”
In fact, the main reason Bin Laden became powerful enough to attack the United States in the first place was because of the Soviet-Afghan War, during which the U.S. secretly provided support for the Afghan mujahideen in their fight against the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, America cut off Afghanistan’s support and economic aid, effectively confirming that we didn’t care about “spreading democracy” or whatever to Afghanistan – we used them to fight a war we didn’t want to get involved in ourselves. This, of course, engendered a lot of anti-American sentiment, which might have been avoided had we helped the Afghans rebuild their war-torn country. We didn’t; with Afghanistan in disarray, the Taliban rose to power, eventually forming an alliance with Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda that led to 9/11.
But instead of acknowledging America’s role in provoking the ire of Islamic extremists, Bush claimed the whole thing was about freedom, just as the war that followed (now in its sixteenth year) was about freedom. We lapped it up, and the moment we did, “freedom” took on an entirely different meaning.
The Bush era taught politicians (and, by extension, the rest of us) that Americans people will tolerate any number of injustices as long as they’re performed in the name of “freedom.” It’s an effective way to end an argument, a useful shorthand that says I will not tolerate any dissent on this issue. Spying on American citizens? Gotta do it to preserve our freedom. Extrajudicial killing of civilians in a foreign country? That’s just how it goes when you’re out here defending freedom. Torturing enemy combatants? Should’ve called it the Freedom Conventions instead of the Geneva Conventions – maybe then we’d give a shit. Declining to bring terrorist charges against (white) far-right extremists whose crimes meet the definition of terrorism? Well, we don’t want to tread on anyone’s freedom.
The same politicians who insist it is our duty to spread freedom to the world through CO2 emissions and/or the invasion of foreign nations will, in the very next breath, inveigh against the assaults on American freedom, coming from within our borders and growing more numerous by the day. (A nation whose citizens are perpetually on the brink of losing their individual liberties would seem a poor candidate to deliver freedom to other countries, but what do I know.)
A perfect example is the Medicare For All debate, itself a warmed-over version of the fracas about the Affordable Care Act. There should really only be two sides in this fight: insurance companies –and those who have a financial interest in the continued existence of insurance companies – and everyone else, for whom insurance companies are, at best, a necessary evil. Even if you love your insurance company (which is weird, you shouldn’t do that), you have to know their goal is to make a profit; i.e., take in as much money as they can while paying out as little as they can.
No company should be able to monetize a person’s medical problems because on a long-enough timeline, it will have to decide between profits and the physical well-being of its customers. And as we’ve seen time and again, companies always choose the former. That’s capitalism: in order to maximize profits, someone has to be exploited. Therefore, the ideal solution would be to eliminate profit-seeking behavior from the American healthcare system. Medicare for All doesn’t go quite that far, but it would at least make it so that any private insurer who prioritizes their profits over their customers does so at the risk of losing both.
It seems reasonable to expect that the richest country on the planet should have universal health coverage for its citizens so they aren’t reduced to setting up GoFundMes to raise enough money to pay for their fucking insulin (and dying when they can’t raise enough). I suspect any decent human being would agree.
Yet a full 38% of the voting population opposes Medicare for All. Presumably not all of that 38% is comprised of black-hearted ghouls who say things like “Healthcare is a privilege, not a right”; in fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say that most of that 38% are likely decent human beings. They don’t think poor people deserve to die. But those who do believe that have gained the support of decent people by working the concept of freedom into the equation.
These 38% have been hoodwinked into thinking that no less than their freedom is at stake. And it is: The freedom to choose their (in-network) doctor; freedom to have their claim for mental health care bogged down in red tape; freedom to have their claim for a legitimate and widely-used cancer treatment deemed “experimental” and denied outright. Freedom to stay at a soul-crushing job because they need the health insurance. Freedom to die because they lose their job anyway, and with it the ability to pay for the medicine that would keep them alive. All these freedoms hang in the balance.
Representatives of the government are working tirelessly to prevent the passage of policies that the majority of their own constituents support (like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal). And if it isn’t bad enough that they’re hindering our ability to make meaningful and necessary changes to our society, they have the audacity to do so while warning the American public of the innumerable threats to our liberty. Those threats do exist — from the same people who claim to value freedom above all else. They’re lying to us, and I propose we stop letting them get away with it.
After all, if you believe that the preservation of the status quo – even a harmful one – is necessary to ensure your freedom, that any potential deviation from the norm represents an existential threat to your freedom, then are you really free?