Sunday, January 03, 2010

The Nanny State and The Complacent Citizenry

DAVID BROOKS -- People should be grateful for whatever assistance that government can provide and had better do what they can to be responsible for their own fates. That mature attitude seems to have largely vanished. Now we seem to expect perfection from government and then throw temper tantrums when it is not achieved. We seem to be in the position of young adolescents — who believe mommy and daddy can take care of everything, and then grow angry and cynical when it becomes clear they can’t.


It’s worth pointing out that it wasn’t the centralized system that stopped terrorism in this instance. As with the shoe bomber, as with the plane that went down in Shanksville, Pa., it was decentralized citizen action. The plot was foiled by nonexpert civilians who had the advantage of the concrete information right in front of them — and the spirit to take the initiative.

For better or worse, over the past 50 years we have concentrated authority in centralized agencies and reduced the role of decentralized citizen action. We’ve done this in many spheres of life. Maybe that’s wise, maybe it’s not. But we shouldn’t imagine that these centralized institutions are going to work perfectly or even well most of the time. It would be nice if we reacted to their inevitable failures not with rabid denunciation and cynicism, but with a little resiliency, an awareness that human systems fail and bad things will happen and we don’t have to lose our heads every time they do.

GLENN GREENWALD -- The citizenry has been trained to expect that our Powerful Daddies and Mommies in government will -- in that most cringe-inducing, child-like formulation -- Keep Us Safe. Whenever the Government fails to do so, the reaction -- just as we saw this week -- is an ugly combination of petulant, adolescent rage and increasingly unhinged cries that More Be Done to ensure that nothing bad in the world ever happens. Demands that genuinely inept government officials be held accountable are necessary and wise, but demands that political leaders ensure that we can live in womb-like Absolute Safety are delusional and destructive. Yet this is what the citizenry screams out every time something threatening happens: please, take more of our privacy away; monitor more of our communications; ban more of us from flying; engage in rituals to create the illusion of Strength; imprison more people without charges; take more and more control and power so you can Keep Us Safe.


What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That's because certain values -- privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power -- were more important than mere survival and safety.

HT: Suzanne Perry


8 Comments:

At 1/03/2010 5:14 PM, Anonymous American Delight said...

Good excerpts. I certainly don't need the government to ruin everything by trying to solve everything.

But national defense and security are legitimate functions of the federal government. The Constitution permits that.

What the Constitution does not permit is a federal role in areas like health care, education, arts, energy policy, etc. Let's be sure to decentralize the right things.

 
At 1/03/2010 6:01 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

The problem is all political sides want the state to play nanny in some area or other. The left perfers the nanny in the economic sense, the right in the social sense. So you have regulations on banking etc, from the left, and on drugs, abortion, gay marriage etc from the right.
The federal government has responsibilities over currency from the constitution, since states can only issue gold or silver currency, intellectual property, etc. A number of the regulations now in existence were asked for by the regulated industries because its easier to meet one regulation than 51 of them. The federal government has power over energy if it involves interstate commerce or federal lands. I suspect most business would rather have federal rather than state standards because its simpler to meet 1 standard. (In essence this is a part of making the US into a common marketplace, which is how the US got to be where it is in the period 1850-1920.)

 
At 1/03/2010 6:42 PM, Anonymous DeeBee9 said...

Both these excerpts seem to be apologies for the failures of the Obama adminsitration to take the terrorist threat seriously, and they do so by seeking to diminish the federal government's role in defending us from enemies, foreign and domestic. I have two objection to this. First, is there any other federal responsibility the ranks higher than protecting life and liberty? Liberals tend to think almost everything ranks higher but most Constitutional experts think it ranks first, way ahead of "nation building" and regulating everything that moves. My second objection is that neither of these authors would have dreamed to offer apologies for and similar failures under a Republican administration, and that makes what they say sound very insincere.

 
At 1/03/2010 7:47 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"My second objection is that neither of these authors would have dreamed to offer apologies for and similar failures under a Republican administration, and that makes what they say sound very insincere"...

O.K. I'll bite, just what were those alledged similar failures by the Republican administration in your opinion...

I have some ideas but I'm curious as to what your's are...

 
At 1/03/2010 9:41 PM, Blogger wingke6 said...

Obviously, these writers just finished reading Joshua Ramo's book, "The Age of the Unthinkable," and merely spit out his thesis. Good job reading, Brooks and Greenwald...how about next time acknowledging the lift by using a footnote or something!

 
At 1/03/2010 9:57 PM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It LIke It Is Man" Cole said...

I wonder when US farmers will stand on their own two feet. Or four hooves. Whatever.

 
At 1/04/2010 12:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't remember Brooks and Greenwald calling for greater self-sufficiency after Katrina? Neither do I.

I think that DeeBee9 is right, this is just diversionary verbiage meant to keep us from focusing on the incompetence of government, at a time when the Democrats are planning a government takeover of health care.

If people have been trained, it's been by leftists who see their path to power through government sponsored dependency.

 
At 1/05/2010 10:26 AM, Blogger RaplhCramden said...

I am no fan of a lot of the stupidity in airport security. But I'm even less a fan of lying to ourselves. If the underbomber (did I just coin that?) had not been constrained by airport security, he could have brought a bomb aboard that was significantly more reliable than the one he managed to bring on. The plane was saved primarily by the constraints of making a bomb which could be got on to the plane.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home