Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning America In

When did we lose our right to be lazy, unhealthy, and politically incorrect?

Move over Big Brother! An insidious new group has inserted itself into American politics. They are the nanniesnot the stroller-pushing set but an invasive band of do-gooders who are subtly and steadily stripping us of our liberties, robbing us of the inalienable right to make our own decisions, and turning America into a nation of children.

 

As you read this, countless busybodies across the nation are rolling up their sleeves to do the work of straightening out your life. Certain Massachusetts towns have banned school-yard tag. San Francisco has passed laws regulating the amount of water you should use in dog bowls. The mayor of New York City has french fries and doughnuts in his sights. In some parts of California, smoking is prohibited . . . outside.

The government, under pressure from the nanny minority, is twisting the publics arm into obedience. Playground police, food fascists, anti-porn crusaders whether they're legislating morality or wellbeingnannies are popping up all over America. In the name of health, safety, decency, andshuddergood intentions, these ever-vigilant politicians and social activists are dictating what we eat, where we smoke, what we watch and read, and whom we marry.

Why do bureaucrats think they know what's better for us than we do? And are they selectively legislating in the name of political expediency? For instance, why do we ban mini-motorbikes, responsible for five deaths each year, and not skiing, which accounts for fifty deaths each year? Why is medical marijuana, a substance yet to claim a single life, banned and not aspirin, which accounts for about 7,600 deaths?

Exhaustively researched, sharply observed, and refreshingly lucid, Nanny Sate looks at the myriad ways we are turning the United States into a soulless and staid nationeroding not only our personal freedoms but our national character.

"'Denver Post columnist Harsanyi's libertarian opus makes the case that government meddling in private lives demands our full attention. Whether bureaucrats are banning trans fats, trying to reduce drinking or legislating where citizens can smoke, Harsanyi objects. Such regulation, he believes, insults a freeborn citizenry. As he puts it: 'the five most frightening words in the English language: something needs to be done.' Aiming at predictable targets like New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, he finds no meddler too insignificant to escape his contempt, including a Dublin, Calif., councilwoman who tried to further tighten the city's antismoking law. Harsanyi also trashes the religious right for trying to legislate morality. But the book would have benefited from more anecdotes and original reporting, instead of incessantly naming overzealous do-gooders. Moreover, Harsanyi barely considers business's role, as these dangerous do-gooders fight fast food and tobacco companies armed with hundreds of millions of marketing dollars. There's not much new, but fellow libertarians may enjoy getting carried away by the flood of Harsanyi's outrage. (Sept.)' Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)" Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

"David Harsanyi begins his book, 'Nanny State,' with a libertarian fairy tale that goes like this: Once upon a time, Americans were free. We were allowed to abuse ourselves, take unreasonable risks and offend people. We enjoyed a glorious right 'to be unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, and politically incorrect.' But along came meddlesome politicians, bureaucrats and activists who put an end to all that.... Washington Post Book Review (read the entire Washington Post review) Self-righteous 'wardens of well-being' mistook free adults for helpless children. Beginning more than 20 years ago with mandatory-seat-belt laws designed 'to save citizens from their own self-destructive stupidity,' the 'nannies' next went after our booze and cigarettes. Lately, they have attempted to put the nation on a low-sugar, no-trans-fat, small-portion diet.

But Americans were never as free as Harsanyi imagines, and we are not now the 'children' he peevishly fears we have become. Harsanyi finds it 'inexplicable' that Americans have 'allowed ... worrywarts' to be their 'parents.' It seems to me, however, that Americans have historically accepted what he calls 'overreaching government' as often as we've rejected it. Certainly measures aimed at improving character or public health and safety are nothing new to American society.

It is true that in 1960 U.S. automobile drivers did not have to wear seat belts. But overreaching rules of other sorts reigned supreme. Under 'blue laws,' most retail stores and virtually all liquor stores were closed on Sundays, presumably so everyone could stay sober and go to church. More profoundly, in 1960 married couples could not legally obtain birth control in Connecticut, mixed-race couples could not marry in Virginia, black kids in Georgia attended underfunded segregated public schools and homosexual sex was against the law.

If, as Harsanyi contends, we are 'well-cared-for slaves' today because of campaigns against trans fats and smoking, what were we back in 1960? The civil, consumer, women's and gay rights movements were in their infancy. There was real inequality and political oppression. Moreover, corporate America's advertising had our parents fooled into thinking that tobacco smoke was refreshing and carbonated soda was good for digestion.

What 'Nanny State' lacks in historical perspective it almost makes up for with a bevy of funny examples of government gone wrong. A Virginia town tried to ban baggy pants that expose boxers or thongs; tomato growers sought to prohibit the sale of tasty but ugly ripe tomatoes. 'Nanny State' spares no one, belittling the mayor of New York for trying to legislate bathroom equality for men and women (the ladies have to stand in long, long lines) and the president of the United States for wanting to add moral Right and 'Rong to the three R's.

Harsanyi is unsympathetic to ordinary people who honestly do not know as much about the inherent dangers of consumer products as one might wish. 'You can't legislate against stupid,' he quips, while recounting the story of a man whose fast-food-loving teenage daughter ballooned to 290 pounds and who himself wound up in the emergency room for 'medical ills caused by his diet.' Harsanyi seems to favor treating citizens like conscientious adults, even if they do not, in fact, have the information and education needed for responsible choices.

Readers have to wait until the final pages of this book to learn exactly why Harsanyi thinks the nanny state is a bad thing. The nanny state creates a moral hazard, he claims. 'People act more recklessly when (purported) risk is removed.' Plus, 'the rigidity of nanny regulations does not allow consumers to practice common sense and protect themselves.' People lorded over by micromanaging public policies may never fully grow up, he argues. Constricted beginning in childhood by protective legislation premised on politicians' morals and manipulated social statistics, Americans are destined to lose their capacity for genuine personal responsibility. The nanny state also blurs the lines between public and private, and between serious welfare concerns and trivial moralism.

Unfortunately, Harsanyi offers no criteria for distinguishing sound public management from intrusive micromanagement. His sweeping rejection of nanny laws is generic: Surely not all of them are equally bad. How can we balance the need for freedom and privacy with the need for regulation and accountability? Practical limits have got to be set on government interference with personal liberty. But because the harm people do to themselves has an impact on others' wallets and welfare, some limits must also be set on individual conduct.

To make this book work, it helps to read Harsanyi as a 21st-century John Stuart Mill. In 'On Liberty' (1859), Mill condemned laws prohibiting gambling, polygamy and the use of drugs and alcohol. The 'only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others,' Mill wrote. 'His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.' Lacking Mill's philosophical nuance, this is Harsanyi's message, too.

" Reviewed by Anita L. Allen, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania and an ethics columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger, Washington Post Book World (Copyright 2006 Washington Post Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group)
(hide most of this review)

Harsanyi offers a convincing argument that government intervention in its citizens private lives not only denies them freedom of choice, but also erodes their national character by promoting a culture of victimhood and dependence.

In certain Massachusetts towns, school-yard tag is now banned. San Francisco has passed laws regulating the amount of water you should use in dog bowls. In New York City it is illegal to sit on an upended milk crate. In some parts of California, smoking is prohibited— outside.

In the name of health, safety, decency, and good intentions, ever-vigilant politicians, bureaucrats, and social activists are dictating what we eat, where we smoke, what we watch and read. Why do bureaucrats know what’ s better for us than we do? Have they overstepped their bounds in dictating our behavior through legislation? Are their restrictive measures essential to our health and safety— or exercises in political expediency? Girl Scout cookies, swing sets, cigarettes, alcohol, and gay authors are all in their sights. Nanny State raises a host of questions about the motives and influence of the playground police, food-fascists, anti-porn crusaders, and other “ nannies” popping up all over America.

Nanny State provides a rubric for viewing the debate about the size and scope of the state. Drawing on dozens of examples, Harsanyi offers a convincing argument that government intervention in its citizens’ private lives not only denies us freedom of choice, but also erodes our national character by promoting a culture of victimhood and dependence.

David Harsanyi is a staff columnist at the Denver Post. In addition to a twice-weekly column, his writings on politics and culture have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Christian Science Monitor, and other publications. He has appeared on Fox News (The O'Reilly Factor, The Big Story), PBS, NPR, and dozens of radio talk shows across the country. He lives in Denver, Colorado.