{"id":559,"date":"2020-06-23T15:09:52","date_gmt":"2020-06-23T15:09:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/"},"modified":"2020-06-23T15:09:52","modified_gmt":"2020-06-23T15:09:52","slug":"building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/","title":{"rendered":"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible"},"template":"","class_list":["post-559","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"This is part 2 in a multi-part series examining ways to build an inclusive democracy for the 21st century.","featured_image":null,"article_type":162,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"68\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":555}"],"related_issues":[109,417],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"Patrick Henry\u2019s immortal words, \u201cGive me liberty or give me death,\u201d captured the passion for individual freedom that fueled the American Revolution.\u00a0 That passion shaped the framework for democracy as embodied in the US Constitution and continues to influence policy debates today.\u00a0 Before describing the second human innovation that produced democracy, it is important to understand how the concept of liberty factors into the first innovation.\u00a0 If the first innovation<\/a> centers on the individual\u2019s new role in driving the direction and cohesion of society, individuals require some assistance in performing that role.\u00a0 The concept of liberty provides that assistance.\u00a0 Without it, a democracy remains unstable and unsustainable.\r\n\r\nThe best way to think about the relationship between freedom and democracy is in terms of \u201cnegative liberty\u201d and \u201cpositive liberty.\u201d\u00a0 Both are essential to democracy and inform any consideration of what makes democracies viable and vibrant.\r\n\r\nNegative Liberty<\/strong>\r\n\r\nNegative liberty is simply freedom from external restraint. Political and social philosopher Isaiah Berlin was one of the first to make a distinction between negative and positive liberty.\u00a0 In his 1958 lecture \u201cTwo Concepts of Liberty\u201d\u00a0 he stated, \u201cliberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question:\u00a0 \u2018What is the area within which the subject \u2013 a person or group of persons \u2013 is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons.\u2019\u201d\r\n\r\nAt its most fundamental level, individuals must have dominion over their own bodies to perform their role as an independent decision-maker.\u00a0 In a feudal society, most people existed as chattel.\u00a0 Mastered by other forces, they lacked this fundamental right, and as a result, the capacity to make independent judgments.\u00a0 The extension of the franchise in America largely tracked the ability of individuals to act autonomously as reflected in the legal system.\u00a0 The Founding Fathers restricted the franchise to white, male property owners.\u00a0 Within several decades, the franchise expanded to non-property owning white males.\u00a0 African-Americans gained the right to vote with ratification of the 15th<\/sup> Amendment after the Civil War (only to see it vanish in the South for nearly a century).\u00a0 Decades later, suffragettes helped secure the franchise for women only after the legal system recognized they were no longer considered the property of their husband.\u00a0 \u00a0In sum, individuals require freedom from the dominion of others so they can operate independently in a democracy.\r\n\r\nEven beyond restraint imposed by the legal system, individuals must have freedom from other forms of interference of others.\u00a0 Interference most often comes as a result of an individual\u2019s actions that offend others.\u00a0 This is particularly important to democracy because, as seen, it functions best when aggregating the rich, diverse opinions of its citizens as expressed in an election.\u00a0 It is important those opinions arise through individuals\u2019 access to a variety of ideas, associations and institutions.\u00a0 Any ability to intercede or restrain the relationship between the individual and these sources undermines the functioning of democracy.\r\n\r\nA Bill of Rights<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe debate surrounding the Bill of Rights shows the Founding Fathers understood such freedom was an important ingredient of their new creation.\u00a0 The Second Continental Congress produced the Articles of Confederation.\u00a0 This arrangement proved unworkable to resolve differences among the states.\u00a0 Following the end of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers convened in Philadelphia in 1787 to address the deficiencies of the Articles.\u00a0 Rather than amending the Articles, several Founders, including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, saw an opportunity to create a new government.\u00a0 Over the course of four months, they and others hammered out the US Constitution, which contemplated a new, more vigorous national government.\u00a0 Late in the convention, James Monroe and Elbridge Gerry (of \u201cGerrymander\u201d fame) proposed a bill of rights.\u00a0 They were unsuccessful in convincing those at the Constitutional Convention to add it.\r\n\r\nNo one disputed the significance of this concept.\u00a0 Many states had adopted such documents at the outset of the Revolution.\u00a0 Despite their failure to add a bill of rights to the draft Constitution, Monroe and Gerry touched off a political battle that defined American politics over the first few decades of this nation\u2019s existence.\u00a0 How powerful did the federal government need to be?\u00a0 At what point does a central government limit the ability of individuals to act independently?\r\n\r\nThose trying to address the dysfunction of the Articles of Confederation viewed a bill of rights as a distraction.\u00a0 Hamilton saw no need to declare such rights when the Constitution gave the federal government no power other than that explicitly conferred upon it.\u00a0 As he, Madison and John Jay endeavored to sell the Constitution to a new nation, Hamilton argued that a bill of rights could imply there was power when there was not. \u00a0In Federalist 84, he wrote \u201cWhy, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, which no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?\u00a0 I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.\u201d\r\n\r\nFor those haunted by the \u201ctrain of abuses\u201d experienced under British Rule, a bill of rights became a rallying cry that grew more intense as states debated ratification of the new Constitution.\u00a0 They believed a strong national government required explicit limits around the sphere of individual liberty. \u00a0While Madison, Hamilton and John Jay elaborated in The Federalist Papers<\/u> on the benefits afforded by the new Constitution, other founders countered.\u00a0 Elbridge Gerry wrote one of the more popular anti-federalist tracts: \u201cOught not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights?\u00a0 It certainly ought.\u00a0 So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are willfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.\u201d\r\n\r\nDespite the acrimonious ratification debates by the states, enough signed onto the Constitution to reach a three-fourths majority and replace the Articles of Confederation.\u00a0 New York ratified the Constitution after this milestone was achieved but threatened to invoke a procedure that would potentially reopen another Convention to consider amendments to the Constitution.\u00a0 By this time, many of the founders embarked on campaigns for the first Congress.\u00a0 Madison, who had opposed a bill of rights, found himself running against James Monroe in a specially drawn, \u201cgerrymandered\u201d anti-federalist district in Virginia.\u00a0 Madison won the race, in part, by pledging to support a bill of rights.\r\n\r\nBy the time the first Congress convened, its newly elected members faced a changing landscape from that at the Constitutional Convention.\u00a0 With a new central, national government replacing a foreign, English one, America\u2019s first lawmakers realized more explicit protection from external restraint was necessary.\u00a0 George Washington foreshadowed the coming amendments in his inaugural address.\u00a0 He cautioned against amendments \u201cwhich might endanger the benefits of a united and effective government.\u201d\u00a0 He wisely counseled that such amendments must balance \u201ca reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen\u201d against \u201ca regard for public harmony\u201d that must \u201cbe safely and advantageously promoted.\u201d\r\n\r\nDelivering on his campaign promise, Madison introduced a bill of rights in the House of Representatives.\u00a0 The initial proposal incorporated the amendments into the text of the Constitution rather than a stand-alone document at the end.\u00a0 Madison drew mostly from the bill of rights adopted by a number of states at the outset of the revolution.\u00a0 Historical precedents such as the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights also informed Madison\u2019s thinking.\u00a0 Once introduced, the amendments went through many revisions in the House and Senate before a conference committee reduced the amendments to 12.\u00a0 The ratification process finally whittled the Bill of Rights to ten.\r\n\r\nThe final document deals with a range of issues.\u00a0 Most relate to civil liberties such as unreasonable search and seizure, quartering of troops and due process.\u00a0 A cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, however, can be found in the first amendment. \u00a0It says:\u00a0 \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\u201d\u00a0 These acts identified by the first amendment as inviolate from government intrusion go to the heart of democracy.\r\n\r\nIf democracy relies on individuals\u2019 ability to make independent and decentralized decisions, then no third party can interfere or intrude upon those sources from which an individual draws inspiration, information and analysis.\u00a0 Not coincidentally, individuals formulate their decisions as citizens largely through interaction with sources protected by the first amendment: \u00a0religious institutions, the media, speech by others and membership in civic and other associations.\u00a0 In this way, negative liberty provides a protective buffer around individuals and the relationships that make them effective participants in democracy.\r\n\r\nPositive Liberty<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn contrast to freedom from external restraint, positive liberty relates to freedom from internal restraint.\u00a0 In other words, it speaks to an individual\u2019s capacity to act upon one\u2019s free will.\u00a0 It recognizes that a number of circumstances, including economic, psychological, social and health, can prevent someone from acting freely.\u00a0 The Founding Fathers understood the concept of negative liberty based on direct personal experience.\u00a0 They encountered external restraint in a myriad of ways under English rule.\u00a0 Positive liberty is harder to grasp.\u00a0 It evolved later as democracy matured.\u00a0 Nevertheless, positive liberty also supports the first innovation that sparked democracy.\u00a0 In particular, this concept helps explain how democracies function and what makes them strong and sustainable.\r\n\r\nAs discussed, a democratic system requires that individuals act independently with a diversity of opinion and in a decentralized manner.\u00a0 They cannot perform this function if they are controlled by others.\u00a0 But in addition to freedom from external restraint, individuals require something more.\u00a0 They must have the capacity to act with self-determination.\r\n\r\nSelf-determination thrives when individuals are free from basic needs such as food, housing and other types of material insecurities.\u00a0 For example, there is a strong correlation between democracy and per capita income.\u00a0 Once per capita income reaches a level that can sustain a middle class, individuals have the security to retain a level of autonomy.\u00a0 They are no longer as susceptible to the outside influences that promise protection in return for the relinquishment of independence.\u00a0 When individuals achieve this level of positive liberty, a democracy can stabilize and flourish.\r\n\r\nFareed Zakaria documents this correlation in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad<\/u>.\u00a0 He cites social scientist, Seyour Martin Lipset who wrote: \u00a0\u201cthe more well-to-do the nation, the greater its chances to sustain democracy.\u201d\u00a0 A later and more comprehensive study by Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi examined every country in the world between 1950 and 1990.\u00a0 They concluded that democracies in countries with per capita income above $6000 (in 2003 dollars) were \u201chighly resilient.\u201d\u00a0 At that level of economic development, the chances democracy would die drops to 1 in 500.\u00a0 Nations that have achieved and maintained per capita income of at least $9000 have enjoyed a stable democracy.\u00a0 In contrast, more than half of those democracies with a lower per capital income have faltered.\r\n\r\nBut it is not wealth alone that sustains democracy.\u00a0 Wealth is a marker.\u00a0\u00a0Robert Putnam\u2019s seminal study, Making Democracy Work:\u00a0 Civic Traditions in Modern Italy<\/u>, underscores this point.\u00a0 Putnam examined the democratic performance in Italy following the establishment of regional governments in the 1970s.\u00a0 By measuring \u201cthe civic community\u201d \u2013 marked by \u201can active, public-spirited citizenry, by egalitarian political relations and a social fabric of trust and cooperation\u201d \u2013 Putnam compared different regions of Italy based on these qualities.\u00a0 He measured participation in associations such as sports clubs, newspaper readership, and voter turnout.\u00a0 Putnam concludes that northern Italy has more durable and robust democratic institutions than southern Italy -- not just because of its wealth but because it has developed a strong civic tradition.\u00a0 This tradition encourages individuals to act independently and free from control of other forces.\u00a0 In Southern Italy, individuals are more inclined to enter into dependent relationships, seeking protection in return for autonomy.\r\n\r\nOne of the great observers of American society, came to a similar conclusion more than a century before Putnam\u2019s study.\u00a0 Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in 1831 to examine the prison system for the French government.\u00a0 Several years later he wrote Democracy in America<\/u>, one of the great works explaining why American democracy succeeded when so many others had failed.\u00a0 He observed:\r\n
\"Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations.\u00a0 There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types \u2013 religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute ... Nothing, in my view deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America.\"<\/blockquote>\r\nThese associations formed the basis of a vibrant civic life in America, strengthening our democracy.\u00a0 De Tocqueville noted \u201cfeelings and ideas are renewed, the heart enlarged, and the understanding developed only by the reciprocal action of men one upon another.\u201d\u00a0 Just as Putnam concluded, a strong civic tradition \u2013 now often referred to as social capital \u2013 makes democracy stronger because it breaks down internal restraints.\u00a0 It is no surprise that studies of political psychology conclude strong community bonds insulate individuals from extremist groups that tend to target those who are isolated.\u00a0 Thus, positive liberty is also essential to the strength and sustainability of democracy.\r\n\r\nIn sum, the effectiveness of democracy as a human adaptation rests on the ability of individuals to gather information and make independent judgments.\u00a0 The effectiveness of decisions aggregated across society require individuals who can make intelligent, decentralized, self-interested expressions of their viewpoint through voting.\u00a0 External restraints that prevent individuals from exposure to wide ranging influences are anathema to democracy.\u00a0 Our Founding Fathers understood this principle and ultimately put a stake in the ground with the Bill of Rights.\u00a0 As we have had an opportunity to observe democracies in action, we can see that freedom from internal restraints also performs a stabilizing role.\u00a0 Those who lack basic material necessities and strong community bonds can destabilize a democracy.\u00a0 In this way, the concept of liberty or freedom is essential to the first innovation that produced democracy.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nMack Paul is a member of the state advisory board of Common Cause NC and a founding partner of Morningstar Law Group.<\/em>\r\n\r\nParts in this series:\r\n\r\nIntroduction: Building Democracy 2.0<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 1: What Is Democracy and Why Is It Important?<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 2: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 3: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 4: The Rise and Function of Political Parties \u2013 Setting the Record Straight<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 5: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 6: Parties and the Challenge of Voter Engagement<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 7: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 8: Rousseau and \u2018the Will of the People\u2019<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 9: The Dark Secret of Majority\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 10: The Promise of Proportional\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 11: Majorities, Minorities and Innovation in Electoral\u00a0Design<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 12: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 13: Building Democracy 2.0: The Uses and Abuses of Redistricting in American Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\n "}}]},"yoast_head":"\nBuilding Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible - Common Cause North Carolina<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause North Carolina\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/\",\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible - Common Cause North Carolina\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-23T15:09:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause North Carolina\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible - Common Cause North Carolina","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/","name":"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible - Common Cause North Carolina","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-06-23T15:09:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-the-idea-of-freedom-makes-the-first-innovation-possible\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Building Democracy 2.0: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/","name":"Common Cause North Carolina","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}