Many Republican ideologues deride a "Nanny state". a government that guarantees decent subsistence and health care and housing from cradle to grave, regardless of how feckless you are, regardless how mentally ill you are, regardless of how you behave, regardless of your consumption of harmful substances.
Let me be honest, I would greatly prefer a nanny state, that always guarantees me a place within the tent, that will never allow me to starve or live on the streets, unless I choose to live on the streets, or in the woods, that will find a job for me even if I do not look: admittedly, if I were to be actively seeking the best job available for someone with my skills, I would most likely find a much better job than the hobo who comes in from the cold, who would have little bargaining power, and might very likely have to do something boring or unpleasant, in exchange for a decent income. Which would be fair. Effort should be rewarded.
If I do choose the woods, or the street: I want a state that will allow me to be welcomed back into the tent, not grudgingly, but with open arms; but that, if I want to remain in the woods, but able to come in the tent for an occasional meal or supplies, that will allow me to do this. I would not expect filet mignon or lobster Newburg, but I would expect a decent meal of hash browns and eggs at breakfast, and a nutritious meal at lunch or supper. Of course there is a fine line between allowing someone to live in the woods and allowing someone to starve themselves to death if they wish to do so. If you meet a stranger who looks to be starving and unkempt, do you call the nanny police (I am presupposing a police force that does what decent police already do) who will assess whether the stranger is mentally ill and in need of care.
The state has often criminalized suicide attempts, though these days in 2014 in the USA we treat such attempts with psychiatric treatment, outpatient or inpatient.
I think the ideologues who oppose the "nanny state" wish to maintain a labor force that is dead scared of stepping out of line, a labor force that turns up to work every day because it is afraid of starvation, or homelessness. In short, a labor force that is passively coerced into labor.
The Republicans invoke the notion of "entitlements" creating a very large class (47% was quoted by Mitt Romney in the election of 2012) of "dependents". Well I am sure Mr. Romney has no need for food stamps, or housing subsidy, or earned income tax credit, but he is dependent on the services of the state, whenever he drives on the road, or relies on government funded flood control to avoid swamping his house, or relies on any of the myriad services that government provides that keep the economy running.
I remember a long conversation with an Englishwoman at my half-sister's wedding two years ago. Through hard work she had elevated herself from being a cleaning lady within a large company, to the position of assistant manager. She said how much she resented for paying taxes for housing and social services and medical care and pensions for "lazy layabouts". It is precisely this kind of thinking that animates so many Americans to vote Republican. Envy. They envy even the poor widow's mite. They think health care should not be an entitlement, it should be earned, and if you don't earn it, you don't get it.
What they overlook is that some day, maybe tomorrow, they will be handed a pink slip and lose their hefty health insurance, and not be able to get a job, or will have to accept a job paying much less, and that they themselves will have difficulty paying for health care. What they also overlook is that maybe a brother or sister or parent may not have much money to rely on, and then has some catastrophic illness that their insurance (if they have any) does not cover.
Now of course the Mitt Romneys of this world have nothing to worry about, and may prattle on about the need to avoid "dependence". But the way Mitt Romney avoids dependence is to chisel out great whacking sums of money that insulate him totally from any need for reliance on government for nutrition or housing or health care. However, he does rely on government for a lot of items that he does not even think about, things he takes for granted. He willing pays taxes to keep the streets clean, to landscape the neighborhoods he drives through (but not, of course, the undeserving low income housing tracts), and to pay to protect himself from criminals who would happily choke and rob him if they had access to his august personage. However, Mr. Romney has "earned" his money at Bain Capital through a process of buying and selling companies by chiseling away worker benefits, by making people redundant. And, when expedient, sending jobs oversea. He crows about how he helped create Stapes, the office supply corporation, forgetting that these megastores have wiped out many Mom and Pop office supply stores, and have destroyed more jobs than have been created. Mitt Romney and the like depend on taking from taking money away from people less powerful than himself. In other words, he is a taker, and not a giver. He is not only a dependent, he is a self satisfied embodiment of the bad side of capitalism. I like a capitalism that creates jobs and does not destroy them, that brings useful new products to consumers, that treats workers decently.
Now some readers may protest that Mitt is history, that there is no need to attack him. My point in lambasting him is not any personal dislike. No, it is because his mindset infects so many Republicans, who are so short sighted (and sometimes blind) that they do not understand the world they live in.
What Democrats need to do is to seek out and destroy those elements in thee Republican mindset that are indefensible and destructive to the well being of the American public, and replace them with beliefs that are benign and constructrive, especially in the economic sphere.
Republicans have been busy portraying themselves as"
defenders of the magically powerful capitalist system against socialists,
as defenders of free markets,
as fiscally responsible (which patently they are not, and which they should be attacked for their obvious hypocrisy).
and most important, as bringers of lower taxes, and protectors against rises in taxes.
To prevent a Republican presidency in 2016, we need to deal with these arguments. We need to say that we are firm supporters of good capitalism, that create jobs and does not export them, that treats works decently, that we love the dynamic of decentralization where a couple guys in a garage can bring forth a brand new product, or a great improvement of an existing product.
But on the other hanmd, that we are not destroyers of the safety net, that we insist on everyone having bread on the table and a roof over their heads. And that "everyone: might include you in a coupe years time, if you lose your job, if you hjave physical injuryt, if a family member has a catastrophic illness.
In short, we believe in a mixed economy, of good capitalism and good government. Make it clear we understand that bad government can easily occur if there is not transparency and scrutiny, and if government fails to attract competent and well motivated people. Make it clear we also understand that capitalism can fail if cheats and swindlers are allowed to dominate, if it fails to treat woirkers kindly,
Good government is not easy. It requires a public that thinks and examines what government is doing, what legislators are doing, and that has a mass media that pays close attention, with good reporting and analysis of what Congress and the White House are doing, more than attending WHite House conferences and "reporting" on whether the Prewsident stumbled in an answer and said something stupid, or stumbled and fell oin the floor. Similarly good businmess is not easy, it requires a government that regulates, and avoids unnescssary or stupid reguilation, but that sets needed standards to protect workkers and consumners.
We need to say what Rachel Maddow has been saying, that the economy does best when there is a good partnership between business and government good
ADD SOMEWHERE: Republicans since the 1960s been cultivating in the public mind a set of beliefs that business is good and government is bad
ADD SOMEWHERE: I think most Americans would want a nanny state if they knew what it meant. Namely: security, but at the same time, freedom in the aspects of life that really matter -- where in som e very imporant Republicans want to impose limits, lie abortion --... "Freedom" is a much abused word. In reality, your freedom is sharply constrained. You are not free to kill your colleagues or your family members.
My spouse has sagely remarked that in the American political contextr, "freedom" refers to the ability of business to do whatever it wants, "free enterprise". It does not mean personal freedom. Because total personal freedom is impossible in a system where people rely on each other, where people have to be prevented from harming one another physically (though it is hard to prevent them from doing grievous pscyholigcal harm). YOu can havce the occasional maverick who goes off to live in the woods and not rely on anyuthing except hius/her own hunting and foraging skills. But to succeed at all, human society requires a ahuge amount of cooperatiopn. In the American political context, freedom to own lethal weapons (within certain limits, hand grenades and artillery and tanks are not included), has gained an enormous amount of traction: and indedd, in a population where all the criminal own guns, and half the noncriminal population own guns, the logic of disarmament becomes very murky. If everyone except security services coulnd be disarmed, and if deviants could be identified and forced toi giv e up their weapons, then gun control becomes absilutely logical.
My definition of the nanny state: mixed economy; no unnecessary govt regulation; everyone assured of food, housing, medical care -- but of course those who produece more get better food and better housing; careful attention to the environment; encourage good government and good capitalism;