Freedom’s Ring Hard to Hear in Nanny State America
Obese people banned from restaurants? Mandated purchasing of heath care? Pam Meister suspects that the Founders are rolling in their graves.
“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
If some of the greats from American history, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln, were to magically appear before us today, I think they would be shocked at how the country they fought to shape and mold as a beacon of freedom and hope has turned out.
These men, along with their contemporaries, believed in a country where you had the freedom to use the abilities you were born with, bestowed upon you by a higher being, to choose your own destiny — be it where you live, how you earn your keep, and whom you associate with. They believed in a country where citizens are free of interference from government, except in cases where said government protects its citizens from foreign invasion, provides basic infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and deals with those who break laws intended to protect the basic rights of all citizens (e.g., punishing burglars, murderers, etc.).
For example, the very idea that government bureaucrats would dare to suggest that they be in charge of one of life’s most basic functions, eating, in order to “save” you from your own penchant for eating too much — causing you to become overweight and suffer from the health problems stemming from that physical state — would be absolutely foreign to our ancestors.
Yet such a case is unfolding in Mississippi, where legislation has been introduced which, if it were to become law, would forbid obese people from eating at restaurants. Of course, the man who introduced the law says his reasoning was not to actually pass such a law, but “to get people’s attention to study the proper motive of obesity which is a concern to all of us.”
The proper motive of obesity? It sounds like he’s been watching a little too much Dr. Phil.
Of course obesity should be of concern, but is it really the government’s business to tell you how and what to eat? Supposing the legislation goes through, will there be a bureaucrat assigned to all Mississippi eateries, ready to measure and/or weigh patrons and give them the heave ho if they don’t meet the approved standard? And who will set the standard? Moreover, who will pay for the new government employees needed to play Waffle House Gestapo?
If you are really struggling with obesity, it behooves you to do something about it yourself and not wait around for legislators to tell you that you can or cannot eat at your favorite restaurant. Because if you wait for them to do that, then you might as well wait for them to pass a law about what you can or cannot buy at the grocery store, and begin mandating how much exercise you should get each day.
Don’t believe me? New York City has already banned restaurants in that city from using trans-fats in their cooking, taking citizens completely out of the loop as far as what they can or cannot put in their mouths. What’s next? Banning certain restaurants altogether that don’t sport Mayor Mike “Nanny” Bloomberg’s seal of approval? No more pizzerias? No more Dunkin’ Donuts? No more (gasp) street corner hot dog and pretzel carts?
(This is different from the Department of Health closing down a restaurant that violates such health regulations as unclean kitchen conditions. It’s one thing to offer fattening foods with minimal health benefits; it’s clearly another to offer food that’s either spoiled or prepared in a kitchen overrun with rats and other vermin.)
Personal responsibility used to be this nation’s calling card. Now it’s become one of those quaint memories we talk about — like silent movies, ice boxes, and the Charleston.
Mississippi isn’t the only recent example of government gone haywire. Hillary Clinton, who wants to be president of the United States, has a mandatory health care plan in the works that would command you to purchase health care coverage whether you want to or not. According to one of Clinton’s senior advisors, Kiki McLean, there are consequences — er, outcomes — for those who fail to play the game as commanded:
CARLSON: [Clinton's] soft-selling the stick. She’s selling the carrot; she’s not talking about the stick, the punishment for not going along with her vision of the Brave New World.
MCLEAN: The reality is, that we’re going to have to bring everybody into the plan, and there’s going to have to be –
CARLSON: Punishment.
MCLEAN: Outcomes. There’s going to have to be an outcome for people who don’t participate because it all affects us. Remember, we are a community that lives here.
“Outcomes” here is Newspeak for consequences and/or punishment. Here, the consequence is if you don’t put your money into the common kitty, then that’s less money under government control. Therefore you must be punished for not paying “your share.” Isn’t that what it’s really all about?
We can see how well such a large amount of government control over health care is working out over in Britain, where there has been talk not only of denying certain health services to taxpayers who are old, overweight, smoke, or are otherwise unhealthy, but of forcing citizens to purchase a license to indulge in their private bad habits. Never mind that all Brits are forced to pay into the National Health System and that British smokers already pay a hefty tax for their ciggies. This is brought to you courtesy of the country that had the brilliant idea to charge a “license fee” for simply owning a television, whether you watch one hour a week or 20.
Let’s face it: government employ is the perfect haven for liberal know-it-all busybodies who believe that they know better than you do how you should live your life. This is how we end up with legislators who think they can tell fat people where and when they can eat. Our founders realized that humanity is not a “one size fits all” condition. Everyone has different needs, experiences, resources, and talents — and so cannot be categorized as neatly as the bean counters would like.
How is it that we’ve gotten so far away from our roots? Can you imagine the pioneers who crossed this nation in their covered wagons putting up with having to buy a license or an insurance policy before they set out on the Oregon Trail? Would it have occurred to the ill-fated Donner party to sue someone — anyone — for the fact that they decided to take an unproven shortcut and ended up stranded in the Sierra Nevada Mountains during one of the worst winters on record, ending in the deaths of nearly half of the entire group? Of course not. Back then, people accepted that they would have to take responsibility for their stupid or ill-informed decisions. Today, we have those who believe that we should allow government to make our stupid decisions for us, meaning no one is accountable — after all, how often does government own up to its mistakes?
Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, explains the difference between the modern conservative mindset and the modern liberal mindset:
“A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation, and moral integrity — as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal, and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character, and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do.”
Bottom line: faced with the choice of possibly making a bad decision or letting the nanny staters do my thinking for me, I’ll go with the chance of screwing up on my own — because at least then I’ll have a chance to learn from my mistakes and do things right the next time. But once a bad government policy takes root, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of.
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org (the opinions she expresses here are her own), and her work has also been featured on American Thinker.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. Valjean:Nice article Ms. Meister, but you certainly raise more questions than you answer. And I think many of your points taking a “evil liberal government taking away our responsibilities” tone is — while accurate — a bit misguided in this case.
Remember that we elect these government babysitters. Millions of Americans want this nannying, want a “government big enough to supply everything you need”. You finger the practitioners, but really need to ask why we want this, where this instinct comes from.
It’s a huge question, but I’ve gotten plenty of mileage out of digesting historical milestones like, for example, FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights” speech from 1944, in which the esteemed president calls for the right to a job, health care, housing, protection for businessmen from “unfair” competition, farmer subsidies, the whole liberal nine yards. Remember that this was a hugely popular president giving a major speech after nearly twelve years in office (that of course included the Great Depression and WW2). And consider that millions of adoring Americans nodded and agreed with these sentiments.
The nanny state has a long, ugly history that seeps back into its early socialist roots and long predates current advocates like Mrs. Clinton. Again, thanks for showing us the weed, but next time please make reference to its very thick and deep roots. After all, we planted it.
Feb 28, 2008 - 11:10 am 2. Steve Bohn:This “we planted it” stuff is bogus; nobody elected, voted for, those busy bodies in New York so that they would ban trans-fats. They decided to do that, all on their own, sitting around in their little cloister and patting each other on the back. And unfortunately, now that they have exposed themselves as food fascists, and nanny-staters, there is no easy way to get rid of them.
Now, the truth in what you say is this: That more and more people want someone to mother them; the poor fatty who says “Gosh, I don’t have any will power… if only someone would stop me from eating too much.” The broke senior who says “Gosh… I can’t control my spending and I have no retirement savings; somebody should pay for me.”
Sadly, those people are allowed to vote, and sadly, this culture, embodied in the leftist-dominated media and Hollywood, encourages them to think this way.
It will ruin the country.
Feb 28, 2008 - 12:20 pm 3. Fat Jolly Penguin:So being fat is a choice? Isn’t that counter to nearly everything liberals believe in — that we are too stupid to help ourselves or make our own decisions?
Anyway, I think the Founders stopped rolling a long time ago. They’ve been spinning like dervishes for about seventy years (thank you FDR).
I have a theory as to why there are so many liberals in the government, and it’s directly related to the “nanny-state” mentality. The whole reason that mentality exists is that liberals like to control others, often (apparently) for the sole purpose of control. Conservatives, though, believe in leaving people to their own devices, and generally aren’t desirous of vast amounts of control over others. Unfortunately, changing the nanny state means getting involved in it, which means to some extent controlling people. This is why liberals are attracted to these jobs and conservatives aren’t.
Maybe I’m just regurgitating common sense here, but that’s the conclusion I came to while I was reading this article. Thanks Pam!
Feb 28, 2008 - 12:20 pm 4. Reverse_Vampyr:Great post, as usual!
The closer we get to 2009, the more worried I am for what remains of the America I remember. It’s hard for me to believe how many fellow citizens swallow fascistic doctrine and the promise of something for nothing (well, something at taxpayer expense).
If I didn’t know better, I’d say that George Orwell was writing the screenplay for our modern politics.
Feb 28, 2008 - 12:31 pm 5. Morgan K Freeberg:…faced with the choice of possibly making a bad decision or letting the nanny staters do my thinking for me, I’ll go with the chance of screwing up on my own…
Yet here is a paradox for you. If you conduct a poll, most people will claim to agree with you in this personal choice. And yet the years go in, the years go out, and off to the nanny state we keep drifting…each generation more like veal calves than the generation that came before.
It’s like all the nobodies all not reading the National Enquirer, except to take a peek at the cover when the groceries are being rung-up. SOMEBODY is buying the damn things. And SOMEBODY is wanting to be fed and clothed and sheltered like a veal calf. They never get called out (unless a camera happens to capture their face in the crowd at an Obama rally).
So if no one has the balls to admit that YES, they want rules rules and more rules until life is nothing but an endless guarantee…then what invisible force keeps pushing us off in this direction?
I think it’s that people who manage their own lives have no ill will to bear against people who want to be suckled. But people who want to be suckled, have this unexplainable anger toward people who manage their own lives. So the folks in the middle, who don’t really care that much one way or t’other, tend to do whatever won’t tick off anyone else, so they just become veal-calfish in order to get along with everybody.
Pam, this is a great, wonderful article. Congratulations.
Feb 28, 2008 - 2:15 pm 6. Valjean:Mr. Bohn,
Bogus, sir? The commissars in NYC who actually shoved through the trans-fat ban might not have been directly elected, but their biggest cheerleader — namely Hizzoner Bloomberg — surely was. (That is, when he can spare a moment from chasing down smokers and other misguided souls.) Last I checked New Yorkers love him.
My larger point was that identifying a government’s nannying idiocies is fine as far as it goes — but let’s both find out why this is going on (I’m rather skeptical that “cultural encouragement” does the trick) and better do something about it, e.g., at least vote the SOBs out.
On that score, your sadness that “those people are allowed to vote” strikes a rather authoritarian note. Can we not agree that convincing them to vote along more libertarian lines might be preferable?
Feb 28, 2008 - 3:49 pm 7. progressoverpeace:Excellent article.
This all boils down to two issues – trust and control. Liberals just don’t trust people, in any way, and have some deep penchant to control everyone but themselves. Ov course, this is perfectly understandable, since liberals tend to be guilt-ridden, self-haters who don’t trust themselves (as we all see everytime a liberal wants to force us all to pay higher taxes, but never voluntarily pays the higher taxes himself) and losers who used to get picked last for teams on the playground, who want nothing less than to dictate the actions of all those around him (which we see in the insane smoking bans). It is a toxic combination that will kill all of us and destroy this country – which is the ultimate goal of the self-hating left.
Feb 28, 2008 - 10:11 pm 8. Just Someone:
Feb 28, 2008 - 11:13 pm 9. Rubicon:Why do we have the “nanny state” that we now have the extremely excessive one that has been proposed
Feb 29, 2008 - 9:01 amby a number of our Presidential candidates? We have it because we have been busy trying to keep up with the costs of living, keep up with the difficulties of living our lives. We have been busy trying to meet the current nanny state bureaucratic rules & regulations.
If we did not have to deal with half of the stuff imposed on us already, we may have time to fight off the more nanny statism some intend to impose on us.
But we also buy into bull fed to us by an all to complicit media who also seem to buy into these ideal’s.
Why do the media permit & push the lie that 47 million Americans are uninsured? This is simply NOT true.
At least 17 million & perhaps up to 25 million of the uninsured are illegal aliens. Those are facts, not propaganda. Why should we insure them or their children? In addition, there actually are 10 to 15 million who are either between jobs or who simply do not want insurance for one reason or another.
I understand making insurance portable between jobs or for those who work at home. Perhaps all insurance should be portable & not job dependent. But that does not mean we need a federal bureaucracy to impose a system on us.
Every government program we start is always supposed to cost this much. Once in place, we are told there was an error & it will cost twenty percent more. Then once it is in place for two or more years, the costs begin rising & do so at alarming rates, with no end in sight.
No federal bureaucracy has been implemented & is operating at an inexpensive cost. None. None are operating anywhere close to original estimates. All now cost extremely more than any anticipated or were willing to tell us until they got it in place.
No federal bureaucracy goes away. All grow, but never come to an end. And once in place they all cost a fortune. We need a sunset commission to end many federal departments or to force them to downsize.
Look at DHS. Combined it was to save money, increase efficiency, eliminate redundancy, & reduce the size of government.
Yeah, right! It was, is now & will always be the largest, most expensive, and least efficient dept in our government for the rest of this nations existence. If private business got this big, the feds would demand they break up their monopoly on whatever it was they were doing!
We do not need more government as some candidates say. We need more efficient government & no one is saying that. If we elect a candidate who promises federal health plans, we can expect a huge bureaucracy that dictates to us how to live & eventually they will also decide who lives & who dies by rationing health care! They are already discussing this in England & their national plan already rations care. What they have is what some politicians want for us!
Think before you vote folks. Think real hard. We may end up with no America if we vote for those seeking to make us harmonize with the rest of the world.