A.J. DiCintio
A dangerous, unbeautiful nanny
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By A.J. DiCintio
April 21, 2010

If there is one thing about politics essential for every American to know young people, especially it is this:

In a masterpiece of the perverse work he has wrought ever since Adam and Eve breathed him into life, Irony has seen to it that centralized power loving liberals are associated with the ideas of freedom and choice.

Fortunately, the truth can be revealed through the following simple activity:

Fold a piece of paper in half vertically and title it "Freedom and Choice."

On the right side list all the ways liberals fully support the ideas of the title.

On the left side, list all the ways liberals have denied or propose denying/severely controlling them with commands issued and enforced by the level of government most remote from and most inaccessible to the people.

There you have it. As you are forced to tape sheet after sheet to lengthen the left side, the truth becomes self-evident.

Interestingly, however, this lust for the ugly, arrogant aristocratic model of government has not always disfigured the liberal mind; for while modern, elitist liberals bluster speeches about their love of ordinary folks at annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners completely oblivious of Irony, who writhes wildly about the room, howling guffaws of hellishly sardonic laughter the belief system of classical liberals protected them from such contemptible acts of hypocrisy.

So, when did the change come about?

For an answer, we can turn to "The Descent of Liberalism" (National Review), an invaluable essay in which Michael Knox Beran points out that until the mid-twentieth century, the classical liberalism of Jefferson and Jackson (which emphasizes Individualism, Decentralization, and a Sensible Libertarian Attitude about government) remained a part of the liberal/Democratic ethos, thereby serving to check and balance "the theories of 19th-century social philosophers."

However, Beran explains, "Liberalism today has lost this equipoise" in favor of an all-consuming "faith in the power of social science to improve people's lives. . . [a faith which] has forced liberals to relinquish the principles and even the language of the classical conception of liberty."

Yes, a power-mad faith in the beauty of the Sozialstaat ("social state") does, indeed, control the iron clad minds of America's New Puritans, who, having taken control of the Democratic Party's entire power structure, seek to impose their creed upon the nation by enacting their "scientific" doctrines into law through acts passed by Congress and rulings handed down by Liberal Activist Judges as well as by silencing every heretical dissenter with the deadly poisons that are Political Correctness and name-calling "Cards" of every vicious kind.

To offer dramatic evidence that a new ethos has indeed gripped the minds of the 20% of the population who self-identify as liberals, Beran quotes from FDR's 1935 State of the Union Address. Following is the passage that ends with the eleven words he finds powerfully telling:

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration that is fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. . .[Permanently continuing this dependence is] to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . ." (emphasis added)

Now, what are the chances Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi will ever deliver the same astounding warning about what today we call the "Nanny State."

That question is, of course, as bitingly rhetorical as the one that asks, "What are the odds Obama et al. will ever display the courage and honesty of British leftist Polly Toynbee, who opened one of her pieces in the Guardian with the following clear, precise, pithy sentence: "The nanny state is the good state."

Finally, Beran delves into the idea that the realities of human nature destine the social state to destroy liberty and prosperity, a truth demonstrated by "lessons of history" that range from the laughable fiascos of the gentle Utopians to the horrid Death-States instituted by communists who accepted Irony's suggestion that they name their nations using the words Democratic, People's, or Republic, an idea one murderous maniac found so brilliantly excellent that he decided to use all three.

However, to make the point generally, Beran simply quotes the nineteenth century British liberal John Stuart Mill, who condemned the "social reformers" of his day as guilty of "liberticide," which brings about "a despotism of society over the individual" and therefore serves "as a monumental warning. . . of what happens when. . . men lose sight. . . of the value of Liberty and Individuality."

Bringing Mills' notion to our time (in which Obama and congressional Democrats are engaged in an orgy of liberty-murdering centralization), Beran refers to the book Nudge, co-authored by Obama appointee Cass R. Sunstein, which argues that governmental agencies should create "choice environments" to help people make good decisions.

Perceptively, Beran says this about the book's cover:

"It shows a mommy elephant nudging a baby elephant. The citizen is a child. The social expert, armed with the power of the state (emphasis added), is his benevolent mother."

The state in all its power as a wise, benevolent mother who lovingly "nudges" her children to . . . everything that is good!

Imagine the reaction if a liberal group had peddled that rotten, lying, oxymoronic image to Jefferson for inclusion into the Declaration; the Framers, the Constitution; Washington, his Farewell Address; or Lincoln, his Gettysburg Address.

As helpful as it is, however, we must go beyond imagining; for the problem of the dangerous elephant that is the unbeautiful Liberal Nanny State is no mere abstraction that serves as an interesting topic for a debate club.

Not, with liberalism having insinuated itself into virtually every aspect of American life with, of course, an enormous helping hand from the "objective" ideologues of what Bernard Goldberg mockingly dubs the "Lamestream Media," the nation's celebrity culture in all of its revolting manifestations, and a host of Republicans who claim to stand for liberty, common sense, and free market competition until they are approached by big money or big business, asking for a "few" special requests to be written into federal law.

Not with modern liberals controlling the House with a substantial majority and the Senate with 59 nearly filibuster proof votes.

Not with the Executive headed by a president who has not only worked, worshipped, and served in politics as a modern liberal his entire adult life but also has made it inarguably clear he feels down-home comfortable among the likes of true-believing leftists such as his campaign adviser Anita Dunn, who, as his White House Communications Director, was seen and heard the world over gushing about the unimaginably monstrous Mao Zedong as one of the two "political philosophers" to whom she turns "most" when she considers "choices" regarding "things that have never been done before."

Well, from the pile of rancid, wasteful, insulting pork Irony named Stimulus Bill to the 2,700 page abomination he baptized Healthcare Reform precisely because it shamelessly sucks power into Washington, pays off every liberal constituency from trial lawyers to union members, buys the vote of every insatiably rapacious political hog and sow, and does absolutely nothing to reduce out-of-control costs, we have had enough of liberal things that have never been done before.

It is time, then, to look into the faces of our children and grandchildren and then dedicate ourselves to laboring tirelessly for the triumph of enduring truths, including these:

[There is] no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people.

[Legitimate government is] of the people, by the people, for the people.


Unlike those who proclaim the lying dogma that "Scientific Socialism" has charms not just to soothe the savage breast of human nature but perfect it, we know the fruits of our labor must be flawed.

However, we can continue in the work of our days, minds, and hands reassured that we labor not as willing followers of arrogant frauds and dictatorial hypocrites but as kin to true political giants, including Jefferson and Lincoln, who would never have allowed themselves to be duped by an ideology that describes the ideal government with the image of an innocently nurturing, stunningly beautiful nanny armed with the elephantine power of the state.

© A.J. DiCintio

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

A.J. DiCintio

A.J. DiCintio posts regularly at RenewAmerica and YourNews.com. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up. Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and polished by experience, to social/political affairs.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by A.J. DiCintio: Click here

More by this author