The Hillaries and the Huckabees

Politics

A week and a half ago, I watched an episode of Stossel on Fox Business Channel (the March 31 episode). John went to the Students For Liberty conference in D.C. to speak to college students from around the country who identify themselves as Libertarians. Here’s a link to Stossel’s page on it. The show also has a page on Hulu but this episode won’t be available for a week or two.

His guest for that episode was David Boaz from the Cato Institute. My favorite part of the episode, just over halfway through, was when he talked about the Hillaries and the Huckabees. His argument was that the Democrats and Republicans are really not too different from each other. The Democrats (the “Hillaries”) think you’re too stupid to even know how to burp your own child. They need to provide a class to teach you how to do that because you’re too stupid to read a book. They have to ban Happy Meals in San Fransisco because you don’t have enough discipline over your kids to not be suckered into overfeeding them fast food. They think they should run your life. In contrast, the Huckabees think that God should run your life. You shouldn’t be able to control what you drink or smoke or who you marry if it goes against what the Bible tells them. Libertarians are the only significant political party that thinks that you know how to run your own life better than Washington does.

It’s an argument I’ve made before on this blog. Republicans want you to do whatever you want with your money but they want to limit what you can do with your body. Democrats will let you do anything you want with your body but want to limit what you can do with your money. (Their ideal situation is to let you smoke marijuana but tax it so they can spend the money.) But your income is a product of what you do with your body and your mind. It is an extension of yourself. Controlling my behavior and controlling my money are the same thing. I make a living so I can do things I want to do. Regulate how I can make a living or what I can do, and either way you’re interfering with my ability to pursue my happiness. That’s why I’m a Libertarian.

A radio personality on SIRIUS, Andrew Wilkow, took up a similar topic a few days later, saying that Washington is full of people who are perfectly fine with dictating behavior until it’s a behavior they want to do that is in jeopardy, and then suddently there’s a massive enfringement on their fundamental liberties. Some don’t want gays to be married, but heaven forbid you make them register to buy a deadly weapon and wait a few days to get it. Others want you to be able to smoke marijuana whenever you want, but heaven forbid our children be able to buy a soda from a school vending machine.

I wanted to write about that episode for a week now, but was too busy and needed something else to add to bring it together. Then today I saw this article about a school in Chicago that does not let students bring their own meals from home. It seems parents don’t pack lunches as healthy as the ones the school provides. Never mind that fact that a) the kids don’t eat the healthy lunches because they taste horrible, and b) the school gets more money if it forces students to buy school lunches. You don’t know how to parent your own kids — the nanny state (literally!) will take over from here.

(FYI: The new season of Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution starts tomorrow, and if it’s anything like last season, it will be an education about just how hard it is to put healthy food in schools that schools can afford and kids will actually eat. You can put all kinds of healthy food in front of kids but if it’s not tasty, kids just throw it away, like they did in the story above.)

When I was a kid, I ate peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and Fritos for lunch. So did all my friends. The reason most of us aren’t obese even to this day is that we were allowed to play tag during recess. These days you can’t even do that in some schools, lest someone fall down and scrape a knee or, even worse, someone’s feelings get hurt when they aren’t fast enough to outrun another student. Government controls your kids behavior (for their own good) by limiting how they can play, then they get fat, and then they have to control their diet because, gosh darn it, for some reason kids are getting fat these days.

This brings me to Michelle Obama and her program to change the way children eat. I’m fine with the goal, but it’s the sheer arrogance that offends me. She’s saying that we have to get restaurants to change menus, schools to change menus, and educate parents because they’re too stupid to know how to keep their kids from getting fat. What spurred this mission of hers on? Her daughters were getting chunky when they were kids and she didn’t realize it until a doctor told her they needed to lose weight. What did she do about it then? She exerted some parental control, changed the way she did things, and now her kids are fine. Funny how she didn’t need a government program or some bureaucrat telling her she couldn’t give her kids a lunch to bring to school. She worked it all out on her own. But she’s on a mission because there’s no way that the unwashed masses could do what she did.

I’ll finish by reminding people that when you allow legislators to enfringe on your neighbor’s liberties because you think they should do something differently, you should worry about them doing the same back to you when they’re in the majority. Politics is littered with people who drink too much (Ted Kennedy), smoke too much (John Boehner), cheat on their spouses (too many to list), and do illegal drugs (all of our last three presidents). And yet so many Americans seem to have no problem letting these horribly imperfect people tell you how you should live your life and raise your kids, as if they actually know better. News flash: if you think politicians and bureaucrats actually know how to raise your children better than you do, they probably do; and if that’s the case, it says a whole lot more about you than it does about them.

Share
7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Marsha Mallow  •  Apr 12, 2011 @1:24 pm

    Yes, Michelle Obama fixed her kids but that doesn’t mean everybody else will. In your view we let people do whatever? I don’t think most people will go far that way. The function of the government is precisely regulation. Otherwise wouldn’t we be living in a jungle and applying Darwin’s survival of the fittest?

    Democrats also put limits on personal freedoms. And Republicans don’t just stand for economic freedoms– they simply want the rich to pay less in tax so that there would be less social programs. I don’t think the seeming equality goes beyond allowing the poor to be poor and the rich to be rich.

    D and R are the same in that they both, in the end, stand for the rich. However, D try ti soften the problems in society (to perhaps avoid big cataclysms like a revolution), while R don’t care about throwing candy to the poor but secure their votes by catering to stupid poor people wanting to own a gun and a ban on abortions.

  2. ProfSwitzer  •  Apr 12, 2011 @1:38 pm

    I disagree with the characterization of the evil intent of Republicans here. In fact, one thing I probably should have made clear in my initial post was that I don’t think the Democrats or Republicans are evil. That’s precisely the problem — they both think they’re actually doing good things and you’ll be better off if you just listen to them…and since you won’t listen to them, they have to pass a law to force you to behave the way they want you to.

    “In your view we let people do whatever? I don’t think most people will go far that way.” Ah yes, and that of course leads to schools banning parents from feeding their own children. What about you though? Do you think you’d fall off the rails of you were able to make any decision you wanted to that didn’t directly harm anyone else? I’m sure you think you’d do just fine, right? Yes, we all think we’ll make the right decisions because we’re smart enough or informed enough and we think the right way. But heaven forbid you let your neighbor have the freedom to make choices because they might make the wrong ones. Too bad everyone isn’t as well put together as you. I’m smart but no way do I think I’m smart enough to make all your decisions for you, and I’m certainly not arrogant enough to believe that if everybody did things the way I would want them to be done, the world would be a better place. Liberty is not just for smart people, and being stupid doesn’t mean you give up your constitutional rights.

  3. MM  •  Apr 12, 2011 @4:32 pm

    “Too bad everyone isn’t as well put together as you.” If they were then I would agree– to hell with government :D (I hope you’re catching on to my sarcasm)

    Liberty consists in authorizing specialists do their job. Doctors should heal; teachers teach, and politicians do politics. The trick is REPRESENTATIVE democracy. You are represented by professionals that do what they promised (and you elected them for their promises.)

    Liberty doesn’t mean that every person is trusted to do the right thing.
    There should be regulations; otherwise, I think it’s called anarchy.

  4. ProfSwitzer  •  Apr 12, 2011 @4:39 pm

    Yes, catching on to it. It’s a matter of degree. Some regulation is of course necessary, but my belief is that we should err on the side of less regulation, not more. Telling people they can’t prepare their own lunch for their own child? I hope you can see that’s just going too far. And if you think that the school board can feed your child better than you can (knowing that they’re getting PAID to force that decision on you), then I simply think you’re wrong.

    There are plenty of people who believe that gay marriage is their right, and they are being unfairly “regulated” by those who oppose it. There are others who believe they have the right to eat whatever they want and the government is unfairly “regulating” their ability to consume trans-fats. But the problem is not their eating — it is the government paying for their health care and thus inserting themselves into that decision. When the government is involved in regulating everything, they only give themselves an excuse to get even more involved in even more things (as my example of banning tag on the playground was meant to illustrate).

    What one person sees as proper regulation is easily seen by another as a fundamental enfringement on their liberties. The only consistent solution that does not impose your opinion on others is to let people make their own decisions and suffer the consequences for the bad decisions they make. Is that a PERFECT solution? No. Of course people will make mistakes — but you can’t tell me that there aren’t just as many adverse consequences to this regulate-all policy we currently have (as gay people who cannot marry would likely attest to).

    Liberty is allowing YOU to choose which specialists you will go to and which market transactions you will make. It is not about doctors deciding what you must have done, or politicians telling you what you can and cannot feed your children. Your conclusion that liberty = anarchy is extreme. You still have laws saying you cannot hurt other people.

  5. MM  •  Apr 13, 2011 @9:41 am

    Both ways there is extreme regulation then. If we apply what you say (people should make their own decisions and suffer the consequences), there will be still regulations as to suffering. So if they are obese, insurance won’t cover their problems? To what extent? Whose problems? Adults? or children also? How do you really make them pay for their mistakes? Or will you cover their expenses nevertheless? If you refuse to pay for those mistakes with the public money, there will be even more regulations for that.

    It seems to be better to prevent some things.

    As for gay rights, it is not really the same kind of issue. Imposing morality is something society has always done and it is not really strictly an economic issue. The US is the only developed country that is stuggling with letting people live their personal lives the way they want. Europeans don’t care about how many times their presidents were married — they want the president to be competent and run the country well. It would be considered rude and embarassing for everyone to start probing a person’s personal life, no matter what party you belong to.

    The issue is also the uneffectiveness of our ways. Look at the health care data — why does the US spend 1.6 times as much on health care (from the public funds), and still doesn’t have the universal health care as all other developed countries? Spending MORE money and achieving less? Simple inefficiency in approaching the issue.

  6. ProfSwitzer  •  Apr 13, 2011 @9:51 am

    If they are obese, they pay more for health insurance. It’s really not that complicated of a solution. Join a health club and get a discount on your health insurance — many insurance companies have instituted that and found good results. The reason we’re fat to begin with is because unhealthy food is cheap and people respond to prices. Make being unhealthy expensive and people will change their behavior. We pay more in health care costs largely because of insurance and the fact that our employers are footing much of the bill, so we don’t have the incentive to find lower prices. Why bother taking care of myself when someone else (my employer or the government) will pay for my medical care and bacon is so delicious?

  7. MM  •  Apr 13, 2011 @9:55 am

    But what if I’m addicted to bacon? Check this out: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/06/02_schmitzr_obesitypsych/

Leave a Reply