No. Neither political party actually has defined, nor adheres to principles of a unique normalization of freedom that separates one party from the other. I know this because I asked members of the Senate and Congress precisely that question, in person. Both parties frequently talk about freedom, a hollow pipe dream if we do not define what constitutes such freedom.
Our 240-something-year-old Constitution rightfully points out freedom is crucial to the evolution of humanity. A brilliant observation left glaringly undefined and unsubstantiated. Surely our forefathers were way ahead of their time, and made lofty references to the need for freedom, yet left us to fill in the blanks of the very definition and implementation of freedom. Especially now that our operational canvas is increasingly global, and the diversity of sovereignty requires a broader purview of freedom.
Our man-made systems (financial systems, political systems, etc.) are in blatant violation of the most rudimentary principles of freedom, the reason why ever-narrowing oligarchies proliferate extreme subversion to the rat-race for wealth not at all in the interest of the longevity of humanity.
The point is, the only freedom to successfully encircle the world is one that maps to the innate relativity of humanity. A version of freedom that unleashes the monism of freedom we sell to the world as the end-all-be-all and instead implements a relativity of freedom to each his own.
And one ought not to expect to yield the benefits of free-markets without having first defined what its definition and principles are.
