In Praise of the Nanny State
And we can do better still.
The so-called nanny state, or social welfare polity, has come in for much unfair criticism of late. Die-hard conservatives and rogue individuals have mounted a shameless and benighted campaign against the strenuous efforts of Western governments to guarantee the security and well-being of their citizens. It is depressing to observe, for example, how the troglodytes of the Right have objected to legislative actions and proposals intended to avert the imminence of global warming, such as the imposition of carbon taxes, the exploitation of biofuels, the switchover to mercury-filled light bulbs, the regulation of interior thermostats, and a tariff on air travel.
These objectors cite the obviously ephemeral “fact” that we have been enjoying a period of global cooling since 1995 and that many prognostications indicate this trend will continue into the indefinite future. They have not realized that there is a crucial distinction between weather and climate and that, although the weather may be growing colder, the climate is definitely heating up. Additionally, they like to raise the bugaboo of a looming velvet totalitarianism, claiming that we are well on the way to establishing a kind of bananny republic in which individual liberties are gradually being phased out and the cherished autonomy of the person is being surrendered to the overriding care of the paternal state.
All this, of course, is the worst sort of nonsense, an infallible sign of retrograde sensibilities that cannot come to terms with the undoubted progress of social enlightenment in an otherwise darkening world. They are blind to the merits of the new dispensation which has only the happiness of its constituents at heart and the laudable intention to protect them from themselves. They condemn the intrusion of experts, bureaucrats, policymakers, and the constabulary into the private lives of citizens, but fail utterly to understand the benign purpose of the state and its various local jurisdictions to manage the vicissitudes of existence and provide comfort to all and sundry.
Let us consider a few representative instances of the new disposition at work.
Anti-smoking decrees have undeniably been a great boon to public health, even though the number of furtive smokers in parking lots and doorways has leaped exponentially, the cigarette-smuggling trade has received an unanticipated boost, and many bars and restaurants have been forced to close their doors. But all good things come at a price. Gun control may have rendered law-abiding citizens yet more vulnerable to burglaries, house invasions, muggings, and unspecified threats from armed criminals, but it must be allowed that shooting mishaps in backyard sheds and rumpus rooms have markedly declined. Litigation in favor of people whose rights have been abused and who deserve remuneration for egregious suffering — such as those who spill scalding cups of McDonald’s coffee on their laps, get drunk at office parties and cripple themselves afterward, or desire sex-change operations defrayed from the public purse — is surely to be commended.
And it gets better still. Parents may be prosecuted for disciplining their moppets and reprimanded by the courts for “grounding” their teenagers. Outside the home, school children are increasingly shielded from the prospect of injury and humiliation. In many schools across the country, rubber mats are placed under slides and jungle gyms to cushion a rough landing. Ball games are frowned upon lest a child be struck by an errant projectile. The invidious game of tag has at long last been abolished in various primary institutions to spare the poor child’s feelings when he or she is designated as “it.” Just as importantly, teachers are reprimanded for speaking sternly or issuing failing grades. The blow to a young person’s self-esteem, it has been persuasively maintained, could well be terminal.
Such custodial measures are certainly preferable, for example, to the Gazan mode of upbringing and education in which kindergartners learn to fire Kalashnikovs before they can read. And our sheltering programs are clearly superior to the Taliban curriculum in which elementary school graduates acquire proficiency in the extravagant art of decapitation. Admittedly, our own young postulants are no match for their Gazan or Taliban counterparts and would immediately be routed in any future schoolyard scrum or alleyway donnybrook. Yet we may content ourselves in having projected an ideal model of comportment for a savage and indifferent world, despite the losses and casualties to be absorbed in later violent conflicts. Noblesse oblige.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books.
 |
 |
 |
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.
36 Comments
1. Ed Wallis:A nice take on the nanny state at the Andrew Klavan video “Why are conservatives so mean?”
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klavan_on_culture/_Why_Are_Conservatives_So_Mean%3F/1949/
Jun 1, 2009 - 3:43 am 2. Conservative1:Help me I am in hell.
Jun 1, 2009 - 4:19 am 3. Carl:Phooeeey…
Jun 1, 2009 - 4:43 am 4. Richard Cook:I wish you could find the air lock and return to your parallel yet different dimension.
Jun 1, 2009 - 5:13 am 5. allseeing:bound to happen. sissy state.
Jun 1, 2009 - 5:51 am 6. geokstr:Given that this is pretty close to what you will actually see and hear from our progressive citizens and politicians, perhaps you should have made it a little more over the top so that your readers would clearly understand that this is a PARODY.
I can’t wait to see “vivo” and “Pastor of Muppets” and “sheesh” chiming in with praise for this article’s reasonableness and enlightenment.
Jun 1, 2009 - 6:34 am 7. Middleman:First cigarettes, then alcohol, then soda, then you…
Jun 1, 2009 - 6:36 am 8. BackwardsBoy:I love the smell of snarkiness in the morning…
Jun 1, 2009 - 6:39 am 9. Fragmentarian:Nevermind behind the wheel! I’ve long advocated a 24 hour helmet law. If it’s logical when riding a bike, it’s just plain good sense, at all times! I’m against the idea of allowing them to be removed in the shower. Heck, that’s one of the most dangerous places of all.
Jun 1, 2009 - 6:46 am 10. bob:Yes, Mr. Solway, today Canada! Tomorrow the world!
Brilliantly done. Too bad this type of work is so rare.
Jun 1, 2009 - 6:53 am 11. "gunner":i hope this is parody, but given the current political atmosphere i cannot be sure…
Jun 1, 2009 - 7:29 am 12. Delia:LOL! You crack me up, Mr. Solway. Thank you for the early Monday guffaw.
Too bad some people really believe thatttttta way though. *gulp*
Jun 1, 2009 - 7:53 am 13. steven:Ouch! I just sprained my middle finger… I’m holding it up in the air right now…rubber pads on keyboards! Mr Solway — you are great.
Jun 1, 2009 - 8:13 am 14. WhyamInotsurprised?:I hope you are writing this “tongue in cheek!”
Too bad that the 52% that voted for “Our Dear Leader” really do want the “n”th degree of risk, pain, discomfort, unpredictability removed from life.
Too bad they also don’t realize that law of diminishing returns to achieve that next “degree” of safety from the big bad world grows exponentially. But that requires something called intelligence and a willingness to view reality for what it is.
Jun 1, 2009 - 8:31 am 15. RE:I often wonder about the wisdom of INS (Interfering with Natural Selection) and especially the long term implications for the human race. It’s anti-Darwinism – the de-evolution of man.
Jun 1, 2009 - 8:52 am 16. The Historian:BEWARE OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
The Obama plan will ruin the best health care available in the world today.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/beware-of-socialized-medicine.html
Jun 1, 2009 - 9:18 am 17. Anonymous:Parody, but depressingly accurate. Save us from death by spinelessness!
Jun 1, 2009 - 10:43 am 18. fred:An even greater problem than the Nanny State are the people who want it and vote for it. That’s why we are in deep trouble.
Jun 1, 2009 - 10:52 am 19. rome:Following is a great read that tells us where we are heading.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm
Jun 1, 2009 - 11:27 am 20. Fragmentarian:A great read Rome. Thanks for shedding more light on the fanatics. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their busybodies.
Jun 1, 2009 - 12:22 pm 21. WR Jonas:Beware of underwear! Beware of outer wear! Beware of Anywhere ! Beware of tire wear! Beware of cooking ware.
Jun 1, 2009 - 1:22 pm 22. "progressive"watch:Just sorting out some (PSA’s) PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS for AM/FM radio spots.
Great parody David.
This was satire,not parody. Forty to fifty persent of the American public school educated human resource believe this garbage. Most of the political elite are willing to sell out to it. Sheeeesh! for double-meaning on this web site.
Jun 1, 2009 - 1:45 pm 23. shaui-jan:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Update-on-Recovery-Act-Lobbying-Rules-New-Limits-on-Special-Interest-Influence/
“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program”
i should be shocked..but i’m not.
Jun 1, 2009 - 2:50 pm 24. CorgiGirl:Wicked good, not much can make me laugh and cry at the same time. Well done !
Jun 1, 2009 - 3:25 pm 25. shaui-jan:19.rome.doubleplusgood!thanks.
Jun 1, 2009 - 3:55 pm 26. Moogie:Thanks for the funny parody. I love satire and sarcasm. Snarkiness is great too, but only when I wield it – not when Jon Stewart or Chris Matthews wield it.
For the record (please make a note of this statement): Moogie is one of the few dissenting conservative voices who said “Hallelujah and amen!” to the anti-smoking legislation here in Washington state. Moogie has serious sensitivities to cigarette smoke, and is now grateful that she can go out and karaoke without coughing up a black lung the next day. My right to breath trumps the smoker’s right to pollute. End of discussion. Don’t argue with me about this.
Jun 1, 2009 - 4:07 pm 27. Sean:“My right to breath trumps the smoker’s right to pollute. End of discussion. Don’t argue with me about this.”
A business owner’s right to his PRIVATE property trumps your “right” to enter his PRIVATE property. Can’t stand the smoke, stay out of his PRIVATE property.
Jun 2, 2009 - 5:07 am 28. Delia:27. Sean:
“A business owner’s right to his PRIVATE property trumps your “right” to enter his PRIVATE property. Can’t stand the smoke, stay out of his PRIVATE property.”
~
What about the children of ’smokers’ who have no say in all of that, Sean? As someone who was a child of a smoker who was extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke, dust and other allergens, I can tell you from personal experience that people who smoke and don’t give a flying f*ck about people around them who don’t smoke are a-holes. If I drink booze, you don’t have to be forced to drink it with me. My farts might stink if I eek one out in your presense but they won’t kill you or make you break out in hives. Get it, dumb-@ss?
Sorry, but, I’m with Moogster on this one, homey.
Jun 2, 2009 - 5:55 am 29. Delia:Also, along the same lines of doing something in someone else’s ‘presence’ that might be harmful or downright rude…
A. Don’t bleed on someone if you can help it
B. Don’t shoot your load in public at strangers
C. Don’t cough into the air, cough into your arm
D. Don’t spit at people
E. Don’t piss on someone
F. Don’t puke on someone
G. Don’t purposely fart on someone [unless it's a payback foo-foo]
Thanks.
Jun 2, 2009 - 6:02 am 30. syn:Delia
Just wait until you find out that those who hate smoking as much as you end up dying from lung cancer anyway.
My father hated smokers yet ended up dying from lung cancer at the age of 68 even after eating all the right foods, maintaining his weight just under normal, meditating, being moderate wine drinker, getting bi-yearly health check-ups, exercising daily, believed he would live to 110, took daily vitamins….he did all the correct things for ‘healthy living’ yet ended up being diagnosed with stage four terminal lung and died within three months.
Opera singer Beverly Sills died from lung cancer too!
There is a high possibility that most terminal disease is genetic but because of your stupid idea that ‘healthy living’ will prevent disease and death we are never going to find cures for those diseases which are genetically determined.
Now because my father died of lung cancer even though he hated smokers I am most likely going to die from a genetic- produced lung cancer; in other words, I will be killed by righteous hypochondriac health-nut freaks who are anti-science.
Jun 2, 2009 - 8:04 am 31. Delia:30. syn:
“There is a high possibility that most terminal disease is genetic but because of your stupid idea that ‘healthy living’ will prevent disease”
~
Have you ever seen tar-lung? HAVE YOU? Have you seen the walls of smokers? One of our renters has tar practically dripping off of her walls. -And, being happy and having a sense of humor will probably help, along with not having belly fat, getting enough exercise and eating healthy.
Just because I don’t want to smoke with you against my will doesn’t mean I want to control your life but when you blow smoke that other people have to breathe then you are taking away the choice of people around you who don’t WANT TO. How hard is that to comprehend?
-And, a child’s growing lungs don’t need chokey smoke tarring up in ‘em just because a selfish jerk of a parent wants to smoke their cancer stick [and yes, nimwad, cigarettes DO cause cancer whether your tiny, little pea brain wants to accept that FACT or not]. I ‘get’ that some people will ‘light up’ even if there is a skull and cross-bones on a black pack of cigs and that’s fine if you want to smoke with other smokers or people who really aren’t bothered by cig smoke. Drink all you want too until you fall down drunk…just please, don’t drive if ya do.
Thanks.
Jun 2, 2009 - 11:38 am 32. Delia:P.S. @ Syn [30]:
I’m all for science and finding cures for cancer but there’s a saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” and just because you ‘might’ be genetically prone to certain cancers doesn’t mean everyone should ‘light up’ and pass around cigs. That’s about as mentally retarded as telling people to have all the bed partners they want because the rare person who has their first ‘lover’ might have herpes anyhow.
I have breast cancer and uterine cancer the maternal side of my family and my paternal grandfather died of ‘blood cancer’, so I’m well aware of ‘cancer’ and genetics. Mm-kay?
Jun 2, 2009 - 11:47 am 33. imaCapitalist2:this is cracked since they’re going to euthanize unproducers anyway. why nanny when you can let stupidity slaughter itself? seems more cost effective. TORTURE: paying Congress to raise taxes & write stupid laws.
Jun 2, 2009 - 12:05 pm 34. Roderick Reilly:I love elegant, subtle satire, it’s the best kind, and has served us well since the publication of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”
Perhaps the best use of stealth satire is the socio-political equivalent of the “long-con,” where progressive readers in position of influence take certain “modest proposals” seriously and try to implement them. Anything that would sabotage nanny-staters through their own actions constitute the best form of succesfull rebellion.
Jun 2, 2009 - 3:49 pm 35. Sean:Delia-
You completely missed what I said. I am not defending the smoker’s rights. I am defending the business owner’s property rights. No one is forcing you to enter the business owner’s PRIVATE property. No one is forcing you to bring your kids. You choose whether to enter a business that allows smoking. It should be the business owner’s right to allow smoking or not on his PRIVATE property.
If you were trying to imply that smoking should flat out be illegal, you are a supporter of tyranny and there is no point in discussing Liberty with you. Have a nice day.
Jun 3, 2009 - 10:14 am 36. Caestal:Fair enough. I hate to further the digression into anti/pro smoking rights and responsibilities, but I will anyways.
Smoking should absolutely not be allowed where people are forced to be, like schools, or where people have to go through lack of choices, like airports. Saying that in and of itself, smoking endangers everyone in the world anytime a cigarette is lit within 1000 yards is self-parody at its finest.
Jun 4, 2009 - 3:22 amGo to the Norita airport and walk by the smoking lounge and you won’t be able to smell the smoke unless you walk through the door… technology is a wonderful thing. Walk through the average busy parking ramp and you will be exposed to far more toxins from the entrapped exhaust fumes than you will ever be exposed to by smokers sitting at an isolated picnic table 100 yards from anyone else… yet most businesses dare not provide such a thing where I live, lest they be fined out of existence.
I used to smoke, and haven’t for years, but it is insane to say that my desire not to smoke should prevent others from enjoying tobacco wherever it is reasonable to do so.