Feb 26th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Nanny-in-Chief
Like I said, Andrew Sullivan is in an interesting position given some recent Republican developments.
Nanny-In-Chief
Bush versus Freedom
There's barely a speech by president Bush that doesn't cite the glories of human freedom. It's God's gift to mankind, he believes. And in some ways, this president has clearly expanded it: the people of Afghanistan and Iraq now enjoy liberties unimaginable only a few years ago. But there's a strange exception to this Bush doctrine: it ends when you reach America's shores. Within the United States, the Bush administration has shown an unusually hostile attitude toward the exercize of personal freedom. When your individual choices conflict with what the Bush people think is good for you, they've been only too happy to intervene. The government, Bush clearly believes, has a right to be involved in many personal decisions individuals make - punishing some, encouraging others, nudging and prodding the public to live the good life as the president understands it. Tha nanny-state, much loved by Democrats, is now thriving under Republicans.
Just recall Bush's State of the Union last week. People used to ridicule president Clinton's laundry list of micro-initiatives. But Bush is no different. Where once education was the preserve of states, school principals and parents, this president has expanded the federal role in unprecedented ways. The No Child Left behind Act federalizes educational standards in a dramatic reversal of traditional Republican deference to localities and states. In his speech, the president unveiled millions of dollars to test high school kids randomly for drug-use. He is doubling the federal money currently spent to admonish teens and adults to practice sexual abstinence. He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-drug propaganda, while sending federal agents to bust pot-clubs for those using medical marijuana to counter crippling diseases. The feds are even trying to prevent states from allowing medical marijuana ads on public transport. These are not unrelated measures. The president is proud of his big government moralism. As he put it in his first State of the Union, "Values are important, so we have tripled funding for character education to teach our children not only reading and writing, but right from wrong." Sounds inoffensive enough. But who exactly determines what is right and what is wrong? Churches? Synagogues? Parents? Teachers? Nah. The federal government.
Once upon a time, Repubicans believed in the private and voluntary sectors to do the important work of building citizenship and values. Remember the "thousand points of light"? These days, those light-bulbs need government subsidies. One of the key beliefs of this president is that federal money should be funneled to religious groups that blend proselytizing with important social work. His faith-based initiative largely withered on the vine. But he has done what he can. In last year's State of the Union, he proposed almost half a billion dollars to pay for "mentors" for disadvantaged high school students or the children of prisoners. This year, he proposed an even more extensive government program to coach newly released ex-cons into better lives. ever wonder who these government-backed "mentors" are? And what exactly they're preaching? Maybe you should, because you're paying for them.
States' rights? Only if the states do what the president believes in. How else to explain the vast expansion of federal power that the Partial Birth Abortion Act entailed, limiting states' rights to regulate abortion as they see fit? On medical marijuana, the Bush doctrine has led to federal agents over-ruling state laws tolerating the use of pot for medicinal purposes. Gay marriage? The Bushies are close to backing a federal Constitutional amendment that would over-rule any state that decided to give marriages - or even civil unions and domestic partnerships - to gays. States' rights are all well and good - as long as the states don't do things some Republicans disapprove of.
Want to lose weight using ephedra? Not if Bush gets his way. Rather than simply put a warning label on the over-the-counter supplement, Bush's FDA wants to ban it. Steroids? You heard the nanny-in-chief. And if you're a scientist researching touchy subjects, be prepared to feel the breath of big government down the back of your white coat. Early on in his administration, the president - not scientists or patients - decided exactly how far research into stem-cells could go. Cloning technologies? Forget about it.
There has always been a tension in conservatism between those who favor more liberty and those who want more morality. But what's indisputable is that Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is a move toward the latter - the use of the government to impose and subsidize certain morals over others. He is fusing big government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny-state with more cash. Your cash, that is. And their morals.
January 26, 2004, Time.
copyright © 2000, 2004 Andrew Sullivan
|
Linear Mode
