Nasty Nanny

"The more help a person has in his garden, the less it belongs to him."—William H. Davies, poet

This fable is plays on our worst childhood images—wicked stepmothers, scary witches, and helpless innocent children, and even a few ugly stepsisters. It features the worst elements of Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, and Snow White. Unfortunately, this myth looms beyond the next sunset, the evil is our own government, and you may not be the hero or the victim but one of feckless characters, whom we recognize as more bad than good, reminiscent of “the boy who cried wolf.”

In the real world, children must grow up or they will be retarded, handicapped in the strongest sense of the word. When a child fails to mature, wise parents usually seek professional help to correct the problem. On the other hand, some parents, well-meaning or themselves emotionally troubled, smother their children stunting their emotional growth or sparking rebellion. Most of us understand instinctively that healthy maturity, independence, and self-sufficiency are the signs of adulthood to be cultivated and not discouraged.

So it cannot be an indication of a healthy society when people seek perpetual dependence on, if not actual addiction to, government care. An increasing number of American citizens seem to prefer dependence on the government to independent self-sufficiency. Permanent childhood permits a person to remain naïve and ignorant, avoid responsibility, and allow others to do all the hard work and make the tough decisions. It sounds great, if you can trust those you allow to take charge of your life.

Ironically, most teenagers rush to be free of their parents’ authority, rules, and power although they often still want their resources. That desire for a “free ride” apparently transfers freely to the government, when that government is willing to trade taxpayer funded perks for votes. Many parents seem willing, for a time anyway, to continue allowances without other demands although some may expect passing grades in college. Governments are not such loving benefactors; they inevitably expect something in return and tie their generosity to limits of other kinds. Thus, we are seeing all manner of new laws and regulations to control trans fats, smoking, soft drinks, and even fast foods, all deemed appropriate in exchange for government provided benefits. Already a generation ago, most states passed laws requiring seatbelts, justified by Medicaid and disability provided by the state. Once government takes charge, it will limit anything it deems necessary.

I never had a nanny when I was a child; I am glad I had a Mom. Hiring a person to care for a child, so that the parents can live without parental responsibility, isn’t good parenting or loving care. Nevertheless, I am sure there are excellent, caring nannies, but that is one person in direct, daily contact with the child. The government as nanny has two of the worst characteristics of third-party caregivers; it is impersonal and authoritarian, and the quality of care is deficient. The wealthy will pay generously for quality care, but governments quickly find it necessary to limit resources. Regardless of common assumption, governments are not rich; governments have no money except what they take in taxes from generally reluctant citizens.

What amazes me is how easily people overlook the obvious facts. Nobody, who is dependent on government provided services, ever finds them exceptional. Instead, we hear stories of callous bureaucrats, excessive paperwork, incomprehensible communications, long waits, run down facilities, and less than adequate provision of necessary things. This is not what people expect from universal health care, but it is what they will receive. The proof is well-documented from other countries with government run medical care systems; our own government-postal service, state drivers licensing agencies, veterans’ facilities, and Social Security programs all demonstrate the inability for a government-run program to be efficient, cost-effective, and creative in meeting its mandates, whatever they may be.

Yet, our populace seems determined to move into more socialism despite the failure of every socialist experiment, anywhere in the world. I’m not using the word socialism for emotional effect, as some accuse; I use it because a “nanny state” is socialism. Looking to the government to take care of us trades freedom and excellence for minimal benefits; we will get a nanny, but this nanny isn’t even nice. This nanny is nasty.

You see in this “family,” there is no absent but wealthy parent paying for everything. In the real world, “nanny” takes from what one brother or sister earns mowing grass or delivering papers to provide for other siblings. Even in families where some of the children are sick or handicapped, this creates division and resentment, even more when the recipients are perfectly able to work and earn their own money, worse still if the neighbor children move in for a cut, and worst of all when “nanny” takes an even larger share for herself!

Walter Williams has said, “Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What's their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives. ." In other words, they are offering their services as the ultimate nanny, pretending they will make things better, when the truth is they can only make things worse. Indeed, much of what’s wrong know arises from the government’s meddling in the economy, medical care, retirement, and other domestic areas, generally beyond the scope of the Constitution’s limited delegation of authority.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” was to H.L. Mencken’s observation over 50 years ago. However, back then, the American people were much more sensitive to the dangers of communism and socialism. Today, many of us seem ready to take the path that Russia took, at a dreadful cost, even though our “revolution” will be much less bloody. If you want a dismal sense of the possibilities, check out Ayn Rand’s We the Living; it’s an interesting read, now that her insights have proven true. George Orwell’s Animal Farm is equally prophetic, and you should read it, if you have never done so.

Life comes with few guarantees. Government cannot change that. When it tries, it must take something away; that something is freedom. Allowing government to become a “nasty nanny” is not an acceptable trade-off: the illusion of health and safety at the price of freedom. We need to help our fellow citizens understand that before it’s too late.