In Late Capitalism, if Freedom is Deregulation, then Justice is Authoritarian, but the Invisible Hand is Still a Bitchslap

There is a very weird perception that goes on in critiques of the left concerning how its goal is "less freedom" and ultimately authoritarian.  This is not true.  The fluffy construction of a notion of freedom that usually frames these critiques sets the stage for the cookie cutter argument that simply sustains the status quo, while pretending to "take back" a nation that has lost its "moral" moorings. 
Since when did prudent stewardship of our environment become a notion to scoff at?  Only when inserted into the value system of a profit oriented free market does this negative distinction make sense.  Since when did investment in strong public education warrant accusations of indoctrination and wasteful spending? The same can be said for the critiques of welfare, minimum wage increase, bank regulation, corporate tax increase, graduated income tax, demilitarization, universal health care etc... The right is not stupid.  Their ideology is so thoroughly enmeshed with the virtues of the free market (that happens to be currently cannibalizing not only the poor but also the middle class now) that they cannot reconcile an America outside of the parameters of capitalism. What I am getting at here is not a critique of the economic violence or failings of capitalism.  I am attempting to examine it's ideological hold on conservative America in the light of its psychological appeal to the "traditional" American ethics grounded largely in Christianity and individualism.  Max Weber elaborates on this in different fashions in "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".  A psychologically symbiotic relationship seems to exist between the traditional religious American right, and the value set of free market economics.
These values seem to relieve the population of what Erich Fromm would refer to as the "burdens of freedom" in his work: "Escape from Freedom".  In submitting to the ideals of capitalism, one can be assured that his labor exploitation is only temporary, because of the promise of upward mobility, reassured by his envy of the upper echelons of society that await him.  And in addition one can also be comforted by the fact that one's labor exploitation places them in a position morally superior to those unemployed or exploited more intensely than himself, (unfortunate groups guaranteed in vast numbers in a free market society).  I do not intend to admonish those who feel this way, but simply to identify the logical agreement, the intersection of values between "traditional" America and the values of the free market. 
From this perspective we can answer the initial question of this article.  It is easily understood how a government attempting to counteract the inevitable injustices of the system, they identify with on a social and psychological level, would be considered an enemy of freedom and authoritarian.  By blaming its injustices on the moral failings of individuals, they are not only freed of their burden of societal responsibility, any value set that would seek to bring justice to disenfranchised, marginalized individuals can be identified as immoral, authoritarian, and against "freedom".  In this sense "freedom" can be defined as the smooth functioning of the system, because any deviation is a breach of unhindered operation of things.  It is from this paradigm that the ideals of the left are authoritarian. 

Re-thinking How We Engage Ignorant Ideologies and Their Champions

We are awash in political debate in the era of an ever increasing connectivity to the cyber-world.  While most of us can generally accept the majority of political debate as juvenile and superfluous at best, those of us seeking out alternate forms of journalism and dialogue, (myself included) almost inevitably indulge also, in news about the opposing ideology for comic relief.  This kind of reporting/humor can run a gamut from sharp satire productively re examining a depressing reality ( in the tradition of Voltaire, Twain etc..) to cheap and easy bashing of ideologies so ignorant and dismissible that nothing can be gleaned from paying them any mind but a sense of self righteousness and superiority like that of a human to an oyster.  There is a difference between holding powerful leaders accountable for their actions, and cynically highlighting the ignorance of cultures so isolated and caricaturized that they bear no significance to any edifying debate.  Do we not dull our own sense of social resolve and critical acuity when we are inundated with the political equivalent of  the Jerry Springer effect in articles, tv shows, blogs, memes, and conversation more focused on the surface stupidity of "the other guys" than a real critique of their actions, maybe even a response to the problem?
Now, we can't be impartial observers, interacting with our society in an emotionless vacuum, however we can certainly take another look at how we approach the opposition, internally as well as externally, because both are connected. While the unfortunate phenomenon outlined earlier can leave an observer in a mental stasis, ironically unsuited to the critique the mental stasis they identify in opposing ideologies, simply ignoring sardonic mockery  is not going to re frame societal perceptions.
One can engage the opposition, even from a revolutionary standpoint with our common humanity not only in mind, but the foundation of our philosophical and communicative approach.  Losing sight of this integral part of societal conception, we limit not only the potentialities of our ideological opponents, but also those of our own minds.  I do not refer to semantic nonsense like: "agreeing to disagree", or "don't hate the player, hate the game".  But I do find a succinct expression of the kind of approach I'm trying to articulate in the language of Dr. Cornel West when he says, as he often does: "we love oligarchs, but we hate oligarchy"  This is a more revolutionary response, because it recognizes not only the revolutionary burden to overthrow the current system, but also to exercise human love within the parameters of those constraints, while holding those in power accountable, to the highest degree, for their actions within the corrupt system they organize and perpetuate.  In referring to even his most heinous opponents as brother and sister, he directs his approach from an affirmation of our commonality, a reminder of the intrinsic value of that humanity we hold in common, and a warning not to lose touch with the reality that we are, like our species, at times evil and at times good.  We cannot dehumanize evil people, just as we cannot elevate ourselves to an untouchable superior position.  Both of these approaches redraw reality to make it fit our fantasy.  If we want any chance of understanding and positive motion toward a better society, we need to reject not only the fanatasies of those that oppose us, but also those fantasies we are tempted to create in our own minds.  Our approach must be from a grounded mind, aware of its stature in the project of humanity.