The Ten Dumbest U.S Ideas of 2011

(Just For Fun)

1. European-style socialism for the U.S.
2. Accumulating a $15 trillion national debt.
3. Continuation of deficit spending.
4. Regarding border crashers as immigrants rather than criminals.
5. Occupy Wall Street nannyism seekers.
6. Republican candidate self destruction via repeated debates
7. Solyndra et al.
8. Fast and Furious
9. The Congressional Super Committee
10. 90% of TV Programming

Nannyism And Politics

It’s a curious fact that the population of the United Sates is essentially equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.  In fact a recent Rasmussen pole found that Republicans account for 33.9% of the population while Democrats account for 33.7%. The remaining 32.4% were not affiliated with either party.

Anyone following national politics can’t help being impressed with this fact and the resulting corollary that when our nation comes to a fork in the road, half of the people choose to go right and the other half choose to go left.  In most cases when you follow one fork or the other, you arrive at different destinations.  That begs a key question that may reveal interesting insight into human behavior.  Is this a strictly random distribution, like flipping a coin, where a sufficiently large number of flips will result in equal numbers of heads and trails or does it represent two truly different populations who actually desire two quite different socioeconomic systems?  Have we arrived at this even political split through rational analysis or by mere chance in a manner once suggested by Yogi Berra, “when you come to a fork in the road, take it”?

Rather than desiring a different objective, it’s more likely that the split represents differences in belief (ideology) regarding a preferred path to the same goal, i.e., a strong and viable socioeconomic structure for our country.  If this is true, it would indicate that roughly half the people think that a large central government is the best path to follow while the other half of the population believes that smaller federal government with a greater emphasis on more local institutions, i.e., state and local governments, is preferred.  This later path would presumably allow for greater individual involvement and would be favored by those concerned with issues of personal liberty and responsibility.  While there are many other related differences between the liberal and the conservative positions, the size and degree of influence of the central government reflects the principal basic difference in philosophy.  So the question we have to answer as we come to the fork in the road is which do we have more confidence in, a large central government or more local governance?

This can be a difficult choice since it’s very easy to come up with a laundry list of why you may not trust one option or the other.  The choice one makes is very likely dependant on personal experiences.  However, returning to the theme of human behavior, I would like to introduce the concept of “nannyism”.  While the term is often used in a strictly political sense, i.e.,  “the role of government in regulating and controlling people in order to protect them from themselves”, a more general examination of the concept may be useful.  People differ in their desire to have someone else, a nanny, take care of them and we all have this desire to some extent. It comes to us in a very natural way.  During the early years of our lives, we all depend on various adults, in particular our parents, to provide for our needs.  As we mature, we develop a sense of and desire for increasing independence.  However, this does not develop to the same extent in everyone.  Some people may suffer either physical or mental handicaps, which render them permanently dependant on others.  Some, for one reason or another, freely choose to remain more dependent and to relinquish a degree of their self-determination and independence.  In all likelihood they make this choice because they either lack the confidence or the motivation to accept the attendant responsibility.  In fact, I would say that most of us desire some degree of “nannyism” in our lives.  Perhaps the most obvious example is the concept of “God” that the vast majority of the world’s population believes in.  Why are so many of us subject to this form of “nannyism”?  While this opens a vast and potentially very controversial topic that would be very interesting to probe in great depth, the following will suffice to illustrate this example.  As humans, we have very limited and meager understanding of our greater environment, the universe, much less any ability to control it.  Our only hope for a feeling of ease and comfort in this situation is to adopt the concept of a superior intelligence, thus, “God”.  If you think I’m dismissing the concept of “God” as simply a convenient stopgap for dismissing human ignorance regarding the nature of the universe, I assure you I am not.  The concept of “God” is central to the spiritual world which I believe is every bit a part of reality as is the material world - more on this in a future communication.  Condominium ownership is another far less controversial example.  Those who purchase a condominium choose “nannyism” via a homeowners association.  The association is responsible for exterior property maintenance, thus, relieving the individual homeowner of that responsibility. Workers join unions, which, in effect, become nannies for the membership. There are numerous additional examples of “nannyism” in our lives where, in all cases, we give up a degree of personal freedom in exchange for avoiding a degree of responsibility.

Returning now to “nannyism” in politics, it’s suggested that those favoring large government, the Democrats or Liberals, are more open to “nannyism” than are the Republicans or Conservatives who favor less government intrusion into their personal lives in exchange for a greater degree of individual liberty and responsibility.

Finally, getting back to the initial question of why there seems to be such an even divide between the two major political parties, I would suggest it is due to this very basic aspect of human nature, i.e. “nannyism”, as it exists in our country at this point in time.  When our country was founded, individual liberty was cherished and the “nannyism” imposed by the British crown was rejected.  As the years have gone by, the early attitude toward “nannyism” has mellowed and dependency on government has become more accepted.  The population of our country has grown far larger since 1776 and a larger government has become necessary to address ever more complex issues.  Currently we seem to be experiencing a “tug-of-war” between the forces of socialism and capitalism and the split is essentially even.

I’ve tried to present this analysis without taking sides but I have to conclude by pointing out that socialism is the next stage of “nannyism” that our country may be headed for.  As the entitlement population of the U.S. continues to grow under the influence of far-left liberalism, we move ever closer to that unfortunate eventuality.  I say unfortunate because many failed nations lie in the wake of socialism. I’m not sure we can still claim this status, but the U.S. was once respected as the most desirable and successful nation on earth.  Because the human spirit has such a strong desire for liberty and individual freedom, many from around the world were attracted to this country as the land of opportunity.  I hope that view will not permanently fade into history.