We believe the world and domestic situations today demand that we renew our understanding of the Four Freedoms and the role of our government and political system in ensuring their preservation. The Constitution of the United States contains the political philosophy and a system of checks and balances necessary for the operation of a democratic state to serve all its people. Have we lost the understanding of our individual and collective responsibilities required to make it work? It is time to renew our understanding of what is important to us as individuals and to the future of our country.

 

This series is supported in part by Sandy and Scott Clark

In January 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s extraordinary State of the Union Address proclaimed his intention to secure and expand democracy at home and promote democracy everywhere in a world then threatened by fascism and imperialist aggression. The Four Freedoms FDR defined in that speech—Freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, and Freedom from fear—quickly became philosophical and rhetorical foundations for extending his domestic New Deal and using American power to promote global democratic development. They also became justifications for making the United States a global “super power “ that required a massive standing army, navy, and air forces; a worldwide network of military bases, a permanent military-industrial-university complex, and an ever-growing arsenal of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, all of which diverted resources and brainpower away from domestic democratic reforms while promoting fear of communism abroad and at home. This lecture includes discussion of these complications, as well as a review of the sources of FDR ideas about human rights and liberal internationalism, and a look at contemporary public responses to the Four Freedoms speech.

When Senator Edward Kennedy sponsored the Refugee Act of 1980, he urged his congressional colleagues to pass a bill that would “welcome homeless refugees to our shores” and “give statutory meaning to our national commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns.” The Refugee Act has transformed the United States over the past 45 years. However, the U.S. refugee and asylum system has never entirely lived up to the lofty goals that Senator Kennedy articulated, and the federal government now appears to be abandoning them entirely. In this lecture, Professor Rosenbloom will assess both the achievements of the Refugee Act and its shortcomings, and examine how immigrant communities are organizing to demand a better future.

America’s best idea, the separation of church and state, is under attack by those who espouse Christian nationalism, which seeks to conflate religion and the state by means of religious symbols and taxpayer support for religious education. This is both bad theology and bad history. Jesus himself declared that his kingdom “was not of this world,” and the nation’s founders emphatically were not, as David Barton and other Christian nationalists argue, evangelical Christians. Painfully aware of the wars of religion in Europe and England, the founders wanted to avoid the entanglement of church and state while guaranteeing freedom of religion. In so doing, they were drawing on the ideas of Roger Williams, a former Puritan who founded the Baptist tradition in America. Williams wanted to separate the “garden of the church” from the “wilderness of the world” by means of a wall of separation – in large measure because he wanted to protect the integrity of the faith from interference by the state. The First Amendment has worked remarkably well throughout American history, and those who would seek to abrogate the separation of church and state are actually working against their own interests.

In his famous “Four Freedoms” speech, the third of FDR’s “four essential human freedoms” was “freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.” 89 years after FDR spoke these words, here in 2025 are Americans enjoying freedom from want? Does the answer to this question depend on one’s life station on important dimensions such as educational attainment? And, either way, are current U.S. economic policies reducing want or expanding it—both here in the United States and around the world? On the one hand, generative artificial intelligence is being heralded as a historic new foundational technology that will unleash innovation across all industries and thus usher in rising standards of living. On the other hand, the economic walls that America is building against the rest of the world—most vividly with the “Liberation Day” tariffs announced in early April, the breadth and scale of which have not been seen since the Great Depression—have sparked widespread consternation at home and condemnation abroad. This talk will examine important economic forces and policies to understand what all this means for American workers, families, and communities.

The many current threats to free speech include: “cancel culture,” which penalizes those who question prevailing orthodoxies; rampant self-censorship about “sensitive” topics; Big Tech wielding unprecedented power to restrict and chill expression; government officials pressuring Big Tech to suppress even more material; campus assaults on academic freedom; state laws that bar the teaching of “divisive” concepts; federal and state laws (including President Trump’s executive orders) that have some positive and some negative implications for free speech, including on campus; federal and state laws that restrict minors’ access to sexually oriented online expression; public officials’ (including the President’s) initiation of defamation lawsuits against their critics; and weak public support for free speech, the media, and universities, according to polls. This presentation will discuss the pros and cons of free speech and censorship, addressing legal principles and policy considerations.

The concept of freedom has evolved over the course of American history from the founding ideas in the Bill of Rights that citizens should be able to live their lives without government interference to the 20th century concept that people should be able to fulfill their potential--if necessary, with the help of government. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms spoke to the contemporary version, although want and fear do not appear in the Constitution. Two obstacles have prevented the full realization of FDR’s vision and hinder those who advocate for it today, however: the persistence of 18th century beliefs with respect to property rights; and the structure of American political institutions. The U.S. system of checks and balances was designed to restrain the elected legislature, which the Framers understood from history would be susceptible to demagogues and mob rule. By dividing the legislature and empowering state governments, they inadvertently impeded Congress’ ability to act during times of emergency. Frustrated lawmakers and citizens turned to the presidency to lead. When crises passed, Congress typically would reassert its powers, aided by our state-oriented parties and independent judiciary. The parties today, however, have nationalized and are deeply polarized, and the Supreme Court has begun to empower the person of the president, while disempowering the executive branch. The essence of the American experiment for nearly 250 years has been preserving the best of our constitutional system, while adapting to the current needs of citizens and communities. The way forward is contentious and uncertain, but it must start with restoration of Congress and a more balanced exercise of power.