By Travis Klavohn, Co-founder and Executive Leader
The entirety of American political thought might be described as a struggle between two moral principles. Those principles are individual liberty tempered by duties citizens have to one another.
The struggle between liberty and duty is manifest today in the national debate over immigration. Supporters of open borders claim that freedom of movement is a natural right and is universally held by all humans regardless of nationality. Opponents of open borders claim that since duties are imposed on current citizens to pay for social benefits, it is reasonable to take measures to ensure those social benefits accrue only to fellow citizens and not citizens of other nations. Between these two opposing views are many more positions which synthesize a broad array of factors including competitiveness of US corporations, national security, affects of immigration on elections, and the economic interests of US workers.
Perhaps the most interesting perspectives on immigration come from new citizens. These individuals have chosen to become Americans and endured rigorous legal burdens to do so. Their perspectives are informed by cultures quite different than America. Some of those cultures have their own intellectual traditions on the relationship between the individual and society which often parallel American thought – a similar tree from separate roots.
The struggle between liberty and duty is also manifest in the national debate over criminal justice reform. Imprisonment is a necessary and just power of government to limit the liberty of certain individuals to protect the life, liberty, and property of others engaged in peaceful activities. Yet, society also has an interest to ensure that criminals who have served their debt and no longer pose a threat to others are able to reenter society and contribute to it. Furthermore, imprisonment for victimless crimes poses a moral crisis for our justice system. That crisis can be summarized by the following query. Is it right to curtail individual liberty when there is no consequential benefit to society?
The essence of a Metro Republican is the recognition that each individual perceives the world through the lens of his or her own experiences. What we perceive is consequentially subject to bias. It is only through listening and understanding diverse perceptions through rational discourse that we can free our minds from our own biases and uncover what is true. That is the great promise of diversity. And, as the faces of Metro Atlanta are changing, so are the perceptions which define Atlanta as well as American culture at large.
By listening to our fellow Americans, we can build a better Georgia and nation for every citizen in every community. We might just learn a thing or two along the way.