Nanny State on Steroids

by Don Boudreaux on October 15, 2009

in Nanny State

Here’s a letter that I sent this morning to the Los Angeles Times:

In her open letter to Richard Riordan, Esther Jantzen starts off well by discussing the importance to children’s welfare of good parenting (“Dear Richard Riordan,” Oct. 15).  But she soon goes completely off the rails by proposing “a federal and state Office of Parenting Education and a massive marketing campaign about best parenting practices.”

Has the Cult of Politicization become so hypnotic that sober people sincerely believe that all serious problems can be solved by government bureaucrats?  Is this cult’s influence now so great that it blinds us to the reality that any “Office of Parenting Education” will be a stage upon which rival political extremes – from Biblical literalists to Vegan Nudists for Hemp – routinely joust with each other for influence over parenting?  Do persons such as Ms. Jantzen not worry that a bureaucracy charged with “educating” parents will balloon, in budget and power, to eventually intrude itself into the most intimate and private aspects of family life?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Lest you think me to be over-reacting to the surely well-meaning Ms. Jantzen, take a look at the picture below, taken by my friend Joseph Henchman this morning on the D.C. Metro. TwoOfUs.org is a site brought to us by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  How disgusting.

IMG00074-20091015-0849

In case you can’t read the text at the bottom of the photo, it says:

“Engagement ring, wedding ring, snoring? It takes more than love to make marriage work. But whether shouldering a cuddle or a good cry, he’ll be by your side whereever your journey takes you. Find marriage and relationship tools to help you along your path to happily ever after at TwoOfUs.org.”

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • reasonablerobinson
    How ironic that they use a 'sleeping' metaphor! Whenever we 'sleep walk' into conformity and blind acceptance then that surely means we are susceptible to a cult mentality. Just because messages come form 'formal gorvernment' doesn't mean they won't use exactly the same types of social influence techniques that a cult would use to get compliance. Wrapping people up in the warm blanket of the Nanny State is purposely designed to lull us into a sleepy comfort zone so that we become increasingly susceptible to future messages. Stay awake folks!
  • Mari
    Note the couple is AfroAmerican. If you see another one of these pay special attention to the ethnicity or signals of ethnicity. They are targeting my people. The idea is to battle single motherhood and to do that you gotta try to keep het couples together because married couples tend to use fewer social services than the stressed out single moms and disconnected fathers.
    Is it any of the govt's buziness? Depends on where you sit on the marriage debates. Really keeping marriages together is organized religion's job (not disorganized religion, don't put them in charge of anything), not the State's.
  • David
    We are all helpless againt the manipulations of advertising- Galbraith said so 50 yrs. ago. How will the DC registrar of marriages cope with the stampede of applicants for marriage licenses that this poster will no doubt initiate? We'll probably need some federal dollars to help the DC muni govt. hire more clerks to deal with the increased demand. See, it's about creating jobs!
  • vikingvista
    That's a laugh. Our taxes went up 11% when we got married, just by switching filing from singly to "married filing whatever". So OF COURSE they want people to get married. Except for low income people. They typically get a tax break when married. Thus all the government programs promoting single motherhood amongst the poor.

    Politicians are such a disgusting lot.
  • DrT1
    "Find marriage and relationship tools to help you along your path to happily ever after at TwoOfUs.org."

    The nannystate will make life easy. We will no longer pursue happiness: the government will provide it.
  • Randy
    The Progressives will find that "educating" parents is far more difficult than "educating" children. In fact, if the parents are forced to really see the type of people they have been subjecting their children to, the fear and loathing they experience will likely result in a backlash the likes of which the Progressives have never seen.
  • Gil
    Of course, it has been long noted that a toddler has an open mind which rapidly absorbs information and they will anything called "the truth" as trugh. Hence the quote "give me the child's first seven years and he's mine for life".
  • stickrouse
    In A.D. 2009

    War was beginning.

    Citizen 1: What happen ?

    Citizen 2: Somebody set us up the twoofus.org

    Citizen 1: We get signal.

    Citizen 2: What!

    Citizen 1: Main screen turn on.

    Citizen 2: It's you!

    Bureaucrat: How are you couples?

    Bureaucrat: All your marriage are belong to us.

    Bureaucrat: You are on the way to happiness.

    Citizen 2: What you say !!

    Bureaucrat: You have no chance to survive make your time.

    Bureaucrat: Ha ha ha ha...
  • Mommsen1625
    What this reminds me of is the government's effort (at the state and local level) to ensconce itself in pre-school*, when there are gazillions of providers out there.

    *Ignoring for the time being that there is no evidence that sending your kid to school at the age of three does them any good later on.
  • martinbrock
    The totalitarian state marches on.
  • JohnK
    I really believe that statism is a religion, with government as the higher power.

    Political Correctness defines right and wrong, everything is done for the good of the Collective, and there is no greater enemy than the Individual.

    It all starts with the sentence "We are government".

    Once the distinction between society and government is broken, the indoctrination can begin.
  • Mommsen1625
    "We are government. Resistance is futile. Your property and income will be adapted to service us. "
  • Mommsen1625
    I've wondered whether the growth of the nanny state means that it will eventually collapse either because of its own weight or due to a backlash against it.
  • davesmith001
    And people wonder why the school roof leaks?
  • Economiser
    I want my tax dollars back.
  • eidolways
    Not a bad-looking poster or a bad-looking site, even if the wording of their little ad at the bottom makes me scratch my head.

    Of course the question is... Why is the Department of Health and Human Services putting this on? There are private counseling and information options for couples of all stripes, from pre-marital to engaged to newlywed and on. Why is government involvement necessary?

    Of course, I AM amused by the site URL: twoofus. It's like doofus, but twice.
  • danielkuehn
    In response to your first question (why is HHS putting this on?), it's actually an institutional response to a lot of great research by conservatives pointing out that changes in family structure are a huge source of poverty and inequality. In that sense, it's somewhat vindicating to see this (it's not often that government actually takes research into account!).

    In response to your second question (Why is government involvement necessary?) your guess is as good as mine. I have a hard time getting riled up by what essentially amounts to a public service announcement, but I agree with you there's no pressing role or relevance of the state here.
  • eidolways
    I gotta say I'm with you on the lack of angry reaction. There's no regulation here, no infringement of rights. I do agree that government doesn't need to step into this space, but there's no force involved here.
  • DonBoudreaux
    Doesn't government use force to acquire the taxes used to pay for this "public service"?

    Would it be proper for, say, me to forcibly take money from my neighbor in order to place posters around town encouraging people to love their parents or to care for their pets or to read classic literature? Surely no one objects to these fine proposals.
  • eidolways
    They did indeed take my tax dollars by force, Don. It's worth noting, though, that the absence of ire is not the presence of support. As government intrusions go, this is small but certainly worthy of repudiation, as is any attempt of government to direct family life. But given that this is government trying to be touchy-feely, it's a head-shaker rather than a teeth-grinder.
  • Mommsen1625
    Tax dollars are being spent on this; there is an infringement rights there because this is well outside the constitutional bounds of the state.
  • The HHS is putting this on to justify its existence and to fight for a larger budget, which they will of course have to spend every penny of to get the same or larger budget next year. Government is all fraud and waste with very few exceptions.

    What's scary about this woman's proposal is that she apparently sees an opportunity but doesn't understand how to capitalize on it. Why not offer parenting classes for a fee? If people really value them, then they will spend the money. What's happening to entrepreneurship in this country?
  • I see that poster every morning commuting to and from work. I was never struck by how frighteningly intrusive it actually is until now.

    Give government some credit. They know how to spread propaganda.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: