I have a confession to make. Among the podcasts that I listen to regularly are highlights from Sean Hannity and  Bill O’Reilly’s radio shows. This is not due to a case of closet conservatism or liberal masochism. It’s partially entertainment value. For example, some of the Hannity podcasts start with an announcer declaring “Hannity listeners make better lovers…”, seriously, and they often get more bizarre from there. Secondly and maybe more importantly, it’s a case of “Know your enemy”. I think it’s important to keep track of what the wing nuts on the right are ranting about and these two are two of the nuttiest. Hannity is hateful bully who pretty much unapologetically sticks to the Bush administration talking points (a recent exception being the immigration reform bill). O’Reilly is a little wilier, claims to be an independent and occasionally departs from the party line to prove it, but is a hard core “family values” guy.

It was on O’Reilly’s show this week that I heard him rant about America declining into a nanny state spurred on by the proposal of a traffic congestion charge in New York City. The term “nanny state” is used, derisively, in reference to policies in which the government is extreme in its desire to protect or control particular aspects of society. The term is usually invoked in description of Western European countries’ social entitlement policies – particularly Britain’s. And in general, it’s true – Britain is a nanny state. The government likes to get involved in peoples’ business in all sorts of ways, most notably heavy taxation. For example, alcohol and tobacco is heavily taxed and the use of at least the latter is discouraged strongly by the government. What’s interesting is that these policies and others are overwhelmingly supported by the British public. More than 75 % of Britons think that the government should prevent people from living unhealthy lifestyles. I agree for one big reason – a country in which health care is funded completely by tax revenue has the obligation to encourage people to live a healthy lifestyle. If people opt not to do so, they represent a financial drain on the system and the government has the right to take punitive measures. In a liberal Western democracy, that punishment comes in the form of higher taxes. I’ve quit smoking now, but even when I was I didn’t grumble too much about paying £5.50 (eleven of your American dollars) for a pack of cigarettes, because the tax revenue goes to support the National Health Service.

Now, whether or not you agree with me on the virtues of the nanny state, what I would like to propose to you is that the U.S. is well on the road to becoming a socially conservative nanny state. O’Reilly railed and hooted derisively about New York City “nanny state” – the proposed congestion charge, banning of trans-fats, etc. But what I find ironic is that these far-right loons have no problem at all with the U.S. government instituting laws that are designed to protect Americans from themselves if these laws support fundamentalist Christian and/or big business values. Some examples, follow and keep in mind the nanny state definition (extreme in its desire to protect or control particular aspects of society):

  • Restrictions on abortion. Whether or not you agree that a woman should be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy, laws curtailing this are an example of the government interfering to protect or control.
  • Restrictions on the teaching of evolution in schools.
  • Restrictions on gay marriage. Again, regardless of whether you agree or not, this is certainly the government seeking to protect and/or control.
  • Preventing American citizens from buying prescription drugs in Canada or Mexico. No matter how you spin this, it’s government protection and control.
  • Restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research designed to protect unborn babies.

And I could continue. What I find ironic is that a “libertarian” like O’Reilly would support such government control (he definitely supports the first three).

If we can agree then, that both Britain and the U.S. have policies that could be considered elements of a “nanny state”, then we can ask the question – which is better? The way that I see it is in the U.S. a vocal minority is pushing through policies that are designed not for the health and welfare of the body politic, but for (and I will attribute the kindest reasoning I can here) the “spiritual” good of the country. The problem is that one person’s spiritual health may be vicious exclusion to another. We can (almost) all agree that smoking is harmful and results in lots of health problems, but it’s up for debate whether or not gay marriage is harmful to the health of a nation. Most scientists are willing to agree the obesity is reaching epidemic status in Britain and the U.S. – especially in children, in Britain there are moves to ban advertising of junk foods during kids’ TV programming. Most scientists also agree that embryonic stem cell research is a very promising technology with the potential to make strides in understanding a wide range of human diseases. In the U.S. the religious right has managed to seriously curtail this research.

Which nanny state would you rather live in?

Popularity: 2% [?]