Sean Hannity\'s Let Freedom Ring

Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring aims to condemn the liberal mindset by assigning responsibility for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on what Hannity believes to be liberal policies. To Hannity, winning "the war on terror" must be done at all costs, as to preserve the "blessings of liberty" handed down by our forefathers (Hannity 3). Essentially, the book uses the events of September 11 to justify conservative views while condemning liberal ideals. His argument is not a straightforward and strict argument in the logical sense; instead, he seems to take the opportunity to discuss, in depth, many other political matters utterly unrelated to his overall point. Defense of the United States from terrorists is his primary topic, however he often strays into lengthy discourses concerning abortion and tax breaks. If nothing else, this book provides an insight into the conservative frame of mind -- where he places his priorities, his philosophy, his anger -- and illustrates the underlying premises conservatives stand upon; which are fundamentally different from liberals.

From the onset Hannity reveals where his philosophical foundations rest: "I believe in the American dream, the American ideal, the unique American culture, and traditional American values. Indeed, my core political beliefs -- my conservative ideals -- are grounded in my respect for the traditions that make up America's foundation." (Hannity 2). Obviously, many people would take issue with these core beliefs possessed by Hannity; specifically, many people feel that the idea of the American dream is a complete fallacy in today's world, and in fact, that many upward obstacles are deliberately in place within the American infrastructure; yet, Hannity grants these notions no credence. Additionally, Hannity's preference for the founding and pervading traditions within American culture cause him to reach many conclusions that someone more open to newer and more varied traditions would never accept. Basically, by identifying these central values and doing little to justify them, Hannity reveals his particular conservative ideology: he believes Americans are free because he does, and he believes in the preservation of traditional values because they were here first. Logically, the first premise is completely invalid, and the second is highly questionable. All together, if the reader happens to disagree with either one of these notions, they are in for a rough ride within the pages of Let Freedom Ring.

Hannity believes that the war on terror needs to be won "no matter what sacrifices it requires or how long it takes." (Hannity 7). This, of course, includes making sacrifices on our own freedoms -- apparently, to ensure the perpetuation of these freedoms. Consequently he argues that the war must be fought with everything the United States has at its disposal:

To win, we must fight with bullets, bombs, spy satellites, special ops, and the latest weapons in our high-tech, high intelligence arsenal. But we must understand that this is also a war of ideas: between good and evil; between right and wrong; between Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded and the violent nihilism of radical Islam." (Hannity 6).

This is a theme that runs throughout Let Freedom Ring: good is associated with Christianity and evil is associated with Islam. At no point in the book does Hannity acknowledge that many nations in the Middle East may, actually, have legitimate grievances towards the Untied States, nor does he separate such grievances from the religion he associates them with. The term "radical Islam" peppers his work, but at no point is the term defined; it is only given enough attention to be vaguely understood as a mentality that should be feared without question, or at least without any true comprehension.

It is also important to note that glaringly omitted from Hannity's list of weapons to fight terrorism is diplomacy. This illustrates his general belief that hated directed towards the United States is strongly tied to religious ideals and cannot be linked to any understandable or logical arguments. Based upon Hannity's explicit preference for Christian philosophy it should come as no surprise that he feels he can simply dismiss any peaceful agreements offhand; after all, the East cannot understand the West, just as Hannity cannot understand the East. Within his first paragraph he confides, "I was born combative," and his inclination towards violent resolutions reiterates this statement (Hannity 1).

The formal argument within this book begins with a discussion of how Hannity feels the Clinton administration set the stage for the terrorist attacks during the Bush administration. He writes, "The Clinton administration never truly focused on protecting the American people from terrorism in general and Osama Bin Laden in particular." (Hannity 5). First, Hannity identifies Clinton as a liberal, which is certainly debatable. Then he goes on to assert that liberals tend to be more concerned with environmental issues than they are with national defense. He uses the following reasoning to suggest why national defense should be granted priority over environmental concerns:

Protecting our air, land, and water from pollution is certainly important. But isn't electing leaders committed to a 'frenzied' -- that is, urgent -- effort to rebuild out military and protect our homeland security far more important? Which brings me to a point sure to be controversial. But it happens to be true. The views of the American Left -- and the policies that flow from them -- aren't just wrongheaded; they're reckless." (Hannity 11).

Doubtlessly, most Americans -- at this point in history anyway -- would tend to agree with the statement that national security should come first and environmental concerns should come second. However, the justification Hannity uses to support this idea could easily be turned around. Put more bluntly, it is also reckless to pay no heed to long-term -- and potentially disastrous -- problems while seeking immediate security. The troubles facing the world environmentally threaten to claim more lives worldwide and endanger human survival for thousands of years to come, as opposed to national defense which affects fewer people, more immediately. In addition, the environmental crisis can only be solved with immediate action; continuing the policy of putting off any serious action until it is explicitly demanded is, by the very definition of the word, reckless. This outlook on the position of America -- to maintain our way of life first, and address future problems second -- is at the heart of Hannity's conservative philosophy, and rears its head a number of times in Let Freedom Ring.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that the Clinton-Gore administration did little to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States and that they also failed to apprehend Osama Bin Laden when they had the chance. Hannity argues, "Liberals told us that global warming and gays in the military were top priorities, well above securing our nation, September 11 and subsequent revelations have proven them wrong." (Hannity 21). Once again, Hannity supplies a logical error. Although his argument that Clinton considered global warming a higher priority than terrorism is convincing, what is not convincing is; first, that Clinton's actions -- and not Bush's -- led to terrorist attacks, and second, that global warming is still not a larger problem. Naturally, this second notion sounds ridiculous to most Americans; after all, three thousand people died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and no one, as of yet, has died as a result of global warming. However, ensuring the suffering of future generations by promising the safety of the present generation is not clearly a sound policy. The logical conclusion that terrorism is a greater threat to humanity cannot be supported by a single terrorist act.

Furthermore, the conclusion that it was entirely liberal negligence that led to the attacks on September 11 is highly questionable. To begin with, Bush had been in office for a year and a half, with a Congress dominated by republicans; surely, this should have provided him with ample time and muscle to reverse any problems concerning national security that he had inherited. but, Hannity only mentions this is passing, implying that Bush was helpless to stop the forces of "evil" that had already been set into motion.

The central argument that Hannity attempts to put forward is based upon the notion that liberals tend to decrease defense spending while conservatives tend to increase it, and the recent terrorist attacks have proven that the conservatives had the right idea. He uses a quote from Robert Baer -- a former CIA operative -- that clearly states his point-of-view: "Now that such horrendous neglect has come home to roost in such misery-provoking ways, I take no such pleasure whatsoever in having been right." (Hannity 40). The future is never clear, and certainly had previous administrations been fully aware of the terrorist threat the CIA is likely to have been granted more power and personnel. Yet, automatically concluding that a CIA with better resources could have prevented terrorist attacks is not a straightforward deduction; it is unclear, even in hindsight, that the CIA could have stopped the events of September 11. So, the rightness of the claim that the CIA needed more money cannot be supported by the fruition of terrorist attacks.

Hannity moves on into a discussion regarding immigration and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service -- or INS. Essentially, Hannity feels that the Immigration Act of 1965 makes it entirely too easy for illegal immigrants to exploit loopholes in the present legislation. In particular, he mentions how illegal immigrants are able to overstay their visits here in the United States and to obtain legal certifications like drivers' licenses in the process. Hannity believes that the INS is altogether too soft on illegal immigration and that this softness, created by the Clinton administration, has resulted in numerous social problems and contributed to the terrorist threat. He states:

This system that absolutely must be fixed before terrorists use such loopholes to strike us again. Illegal aliens must be incarcerated, not allowed to roam freely in the United States. If they're known terrorists, criminals, or drug cartel leaders, they should be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned upon conviction. Even if they are otherwise law-abiding citizens from countries that are merely poorer than the United States, they nevertheless must be deported." (Hannity 57).

Presently, there are approximately nine million illegal immigrants residing in the United States (Hannity 54). To Hannity, the best way to deal with this problem is to forcibly remove them all. He neglects to estimate the cost of such a policy, but as he already mentioned, national security must be obtained at all costs. However, it should not come as a surprise that no president ever has adopted such a policy -- it would cost billions of dollars. The hard fact is that illegal aliens can enter this country, no matter what the laws, and no matter how many border patrols are hired. Illegal aliens in the United States are a reality and will continue to be so. Actions restricting the number of people that can become legal aliens only increase the pool of illegal aliens. Hannity's proposals are destined for failure.

Yet, the very real threat of illegal immigrants cannot be denied. Primarily, they are a threat to the American workforce; they are employed by companies that can pay them less than the American minimum wage because they are not Americans. This makes them an attractive workforce for corporations, while simultaneously crippling the American working class. However, Hannity views the threat posed by illegal immigration in another light:

It is abundantly clear that the Clinton-Gore administration understood the real and increasing risks of not cracking down on illegal immigration. It knew how incompetent the INS was. Yet the administration did little, if anything, to make America safer from Middle Eastern terrorists who were using huge loopholes to gain access to our country." (Hannity 60).

This outrage Hannity possesses over illegal immigration stems from the notion that illegal immigrants are somehow greater threats as terrorists than legal immigrants. This, however, goes unsubstantiated within Let Freedom Ring. Why specifically this subset of individuals living in the United States should be feared above others is at no point justified. He offers a half-hearted explanation for why immigrants should be focused upon when he writes, "Are all immigrants dangerous? Of course not. Are all immigrants who overstay their visits terrorists? No. But do we have any idea which are and which aren't? Apparently not." (Hannity 62). Seemingly, since we do not know which immigrants might be terrorists, we should "crack down" on all of them. This is another serious logical error. The same exact argument can be applied to any group of people: since we have no idea which reactionary conservatives might be the next Timothy McVeigh, we should tighten our grip on all conservative Americans. It does not immediately follow that conservatives are substantially more likely than liberals to be terrorists simply because McVeigh committed a single terrorist act; accordingly, it does not follow that cracking down on this subset of people will make non-terrorists any more safe. Overall, Hannity's assertion that liberal immigration policies make the United States more open to terrorism fails.

Following his discussion of immigration, Hannity goes into detail regarding the defense spending of the Clinton-Gore administration vs. The spending of the Reagan-Bush era. He lists the numerous budget cuts under Clinton with the aim of illustrating his negligence. By and large, he attributes this to Clinton's liberal ideals and his inability to recognize the same "nature of evil," that his predecessors did (Hannity 69). Again, when it comes to cold hard facts, Hannity is quite capable. Clinton substantially reduced military spending despite the warnings of conservatives and military officials. To Hannity, the nation's safety can only be maintained with defense spending, and he uses a statement from Clinton to reveal what he believes to be liberal moral confusion:

He stated that the gap between the rich and poor must be reduced to make the world safer. If not another apology for terrorism, what was his point? As a leftist, he simply can't escape viewing the world from the myopic lenses of economic determinism. There will always be poor in the world, but poverty is hardly the cause of terrorism, more than the Crusades or American slavery are." (Hannity 97).

This is the closest Hannity actually comes to discussing the cause of terrorism; to him, the cause is not as important as prevention; irreconcilable differences persist between the East and the West which have less basis on economics than religion. Clinton, on the other hand, by supposing that the roots are economic takes one of his few truly leftist stances. Hannity dismisses this notion with a series of statements that are at the very least debatable, and at the most, completely false.

First, the supposition that poverty or economic inequalities was not the cause of the crusades is a severely naive viewpoint. One central cause of the crusades was the overabundance of landless nobles in Europe; being poor, but of high birth, these nobles wished to gain lands in whatever way possible. The pope, feeling pressure from these nobles, provided them with a grand quest in the name of God. Additionally, the Middle-East was far wealthier than Europe during the period of the Crusades; consequently, it was seen as an attractive chance to increase the wealth of the kings, the continent, and the papacy. Certainly, this was not the only cause of the crusades but it was positively a driving force.

Second, the claim that slavery was not determined by economic conditions is almost dismissible on its face. Although Hannity holds fast to the ideal that "all men are created equal," as did our founding fathers, economic conditions demanded that slavery not be abolished when our nation was established. Also, the poverty and lack of power of African civilizations facilitated African slavery in the Americas. If we were to create a world in which money and power were evenly distributed slavery would be an impossibility; consequently, Hannity's premise that slavery was an institution independent of the notion of monetary inequality can easily be refuted.

Third, the statement that there will always be poor in the world is based upon no evidence. The reader is supposed to accept this statement because it was stated. Hannity neglects to discuss why he believes that socialism is impossible, and therefore, why social equality is impossible. This is analogous to asserting that there will always be slavery in the world because there always has been. Slavery has been almost entirely eradicated from the developed world, and it is not obvious that poverty cannot also be.

Finally, Hannity uses these aforementioned premises to conclude that terrorism is not, in any way, caused by worldwide economic inequality. Since his premises can easily be rejected, so too can the conclusion. In fact, it is very likely that the roots of terrorism can be found to coincide with the roots of poverty, and not -- as Hannity would argue -- with radical religious views; views that warrant little discussion.

As Let Freedom Ring continues, Hannity identifies and critiques liberal political policies that inhibit the actions of conservatives, and therefore, make the United States more susceptible to attack. He mentions airborne attacks, sleeper cells, dirty nukes, and ballistic missiles as potential threats. A specific way that Hannity feels liberals are preventing conservatives from adequately defending the United States has to do with missile defense systems:

Moreover, why do liberals so bitterly resist building a missile defense shield in an age of such terrifying technology and radical regimes? Why do they cling to their willful blindness about these emerging catastrophic threats?" (Hannity 111).

Hannity discusses the multi-billion dollar proposal put forth by many conservatives to produce an all-encompassing defense to missile attack. Aside from the obvious burden this project would place upon American taxpayers, Hannity fails to mention that no such system has ever been demonstrated to be even somewhat effective. Perhaps it is more likely that democrats in Congress resist this plan because it is unrealistic from a scientific perspective. Instead, Hannity wishes to attribute this opposition to the liberal ideological failure to appreciate the importance of national defense strategies.

From this point on Let Freedom Ring takes on a more abstract attack on the liberal point-of-view. Hannity deviates from the central argument of his book -- which attests that liberals facilitated the terrorist attacks of September 11 -- to enumerate his many, many objections to liberal ideologies. Among these include: the liberals' philosophical objections to the Declaration of Independence; liberal education policies; liberal abortion stances; liberal environmental concerns; and liberal taxation policies. None of these points do much to support his primary intention, as declared at the beginning, but it does shed a blinding amount of light on the type of lens Hannity sees the world through.

He believes that the philosophy associated with liberalism is an outright rejection of absolute facts. Most importantly, these absolute facts include that all men are created equal, and that the facts are "fundamental truths about life, liberty, and the nature of man." (Hannity 137). Philosophically speaking, these statements hold no water. but, by accepting these truths as "self-evident" the authors of the Declaration of Independence developed a nation relying upon "faith." It requires a certain amount of blind faith to possess these beliefs -- no amount of deduction can bring you to these conclusions. Being Christian, Hannity has no problem accepting these notions and -- since the United States was founded upon Christian ideals -- he concludes that questioning absolute truths in un-American.