We're more a "freedom from" country, in the sense that we put fewer obstacles in our way than most. But we're not particularly a "freedom to" country, in the sense of facilitating development and advancement.
The distinction is explored in Timothy Snyder's new book
On Freedom. Worth a look.
Ask yourself this: why do people form nations (or migrate to them)? Lots of reasons, of course, but mainly to be better off. Not so much to be left alone as to have opportunity for themselves and their families to have a better life. A healthy nation nurtures an environment that helps with that aim.
It's likely that we will soon be entering into a period where our country will do much less for its people. This will be good for some, but worse for most.
Why do people vote for a country to be worse for most?
In numerous conversations Ive had with immigrants, yes, it's to be better off, but it's also to make something of themselves with lower barriers. For example, freedom from a defined caste system where you can't get out of the economic class you're born in.
We're absolutely a "freedom to" country. Sure regulation, endless administrative burden hold people back (particularly in immigration and healthcare), but even in that environment, all people absolutely have the freedom to succeed.
Define "most." Obamacare made healthcare worse for most, to serve some (it didn't serve the poorest, they already had Medicaid, didn't help the working class, they had insurance through employees that was MUCH cheaper than it is now), but it DID give access to healthcare to those in tough situations. As socialized healthcare always does, it reduces quality for all to enable more access to some (I've lived in Europe, and I know this is NOT a direction we want to go).
America is NOT the most desired country for people to immigrate to because they want to come here and have everything handed to them, but because they want to come make a better life for themselves. Someone who decided to leave everything they've ever known for a chance at making a better life for themselves is more akin to an entrepreneur than a refugee. Keep in mind over 90% of "asylum seekers" don't qualify, because they aren't actually in immediate danger, not to mention they've often just traveled through Mexico from another country, which should be disqualifying in itself, as they should be seeking asylum in Mexico, or the first country they come to.
There are many socialist countries to go live in. None of them have the demand we have from immigrants, and none of them are as good as America. Feel free to disagree, and make any one of those countries your home. I've lived in Europe long enough to appreciate it for the great things it offers, but also long enough to appreciate what we have here in terms of making a permanent life for myself and my family.
So yes, the majority of Americans have absolutely voted for a candidate most likely to be better for most people, just as they should. In this election, a vote for a Democrat would have been a vote for a better life for some to the detriment of most.
I understand where a socialist/ANTIFA supporter might not see it that way, but at no point has the American dream or a strong nation been attractive to that crowd, so that's ok.
