The right talks about more freedom, but their actions result in less of it. Arbitrary power used to be much more concentrated in one particular race and one pa

The right talks about more freedom, but their actions result in less of it. Arbitrary power used to be much more concentrated in one particular race and one particular gender. The left has been trying to diffuse that power, the right is trying to re-concentrate it. Furthermore, there is the concentration of power that comes with having vastly more money than the median person, and the ability to use it politically. Or the power that comes from monopolistic control over an industry. The left generally seeks to curb these powers (e.g. the fight against Citizens United, or for more antitrust action). The Magna Carta is illustrative: it's a set of regulations aimed at reducing the exercise of absolute power. The lesson is: if you restrict the powerful, the net freedom of the population increases. A more modern example: the regulations that prohibit companies from firing their employees without cause are a reduction in freedom for the employer, true. But with them, the far more numerous employees are now more free to be and say things that upset the powerful within the company (in ways that are specifically unrelated to the performance of the work) without fearing retribution. Overall, an increase of freedom. The right wing, under the banner of "less regulations", have consistently lessened the protections of the weak against arbitrary power. They fight for the freedom of those with money, corporate power, and political influence to do as they please. That's a retrogression of overall freedom, and (IIRC) exactly what Atwood was talking about.