The divided states of nannydom

This week, I heard a story about Netflix’s new employee parental leave benefits (which by the way are not being offered to the workers in its distribution centers) Employees are being granted more autonomy and being treated “like adults” in exchange for more responsibility. I got to thinking about American culture more broadly. How do we define adulthood? What does it mean to be self-reliant? This led me to a consideration of the term “nanny state,” and what the use of this term implies in the context of government intervention in our lives.

The Divided States of Nannydom

The term “nanny state” originated in Great Britain, but it has been used extensively by subscribers to many political ideologies across the world. While most people consider it a term of derision, a closer look at the manner in which it has been used provides revealing implications concerning our perceived relationship to government and business.

A nanny is a caretaker, specifically one who cares for children. When we call a policy or a piece of legislation the work of the “nanny state,” we place ourselves in the role of the child: helpless, dependent, and without agency. We relinquish control of the situation and deny our capability to change it.

Yet the role of nanny is exclusively feminine in nature, and also implies a nurturing guide and protector.  The implication here is that children need nannies, but adults can and should fend for themselves. Nannies are also interlopers who act to prevent us from making mistakes before we know better. In short, they wipe our bottoms and clean up our messes.

So the nanny is a contradiction. It is a benevolent force whose actions are resented by her charges. Why oh why do we resent our nannies? How could we be so callous as to use her as a scapegoat for our dissatisfaction? When we hear conservative politicians, critics, or pundits decry the failure of “the nanny state” what they are really saying is, “I am helpless to deal with the implication of this–law, policy, executive order, supreme court decision–so I’m going to stomp my feet and blame the nanny.”

Let’s get back to the role of nanny as protector. To acknowledge that millions of individuals in the world need protection from exploitation by the privileged is to deny the narrative of social Darwinist thinking. Conservative politicians are happy to bail out banks and the auto industry, but will call foul faster than you can say “1984” when the conversation shifts to raising the minimum wage. To these politicians and pundits, the false humanity of a corporation takes supremacy over the true value of actual human beings. Perhaps this is why some liberal politicians have used “nanny state” to describe a tax structure that benefits corporations and the wealthy. Check out this list of corporations who take advantage of this tax structure. We speak of corporations being “shielded” from burdensome taxes. In reality, everyone, regardless of their proclaimed political beliefs, believes in a nanny state: they just disagree about who needs her the most.

To many, “nanny state” is synonymous with big government, but the terms carry different baggage. This is yet another piece of evidence that the perceived size of the government is somehow a better indication of its functionality than its actions or the policies it espouses. With a straight face, libertarians will attribute laws protecting child workers from exploitation and regulations providing oversight of food production to the free market, revising history to exclude enterprising journalists and compassionate lawmakers. People would rather complain about how government is intervening in thier lives (telling us to wear motorcycle helmets, taxing cigarettes) than think about what effects this intervention has on all of society. How can we take a critical look at the work our lawmakers are doing, when they deflect our concerns using the false dichotomy of big vs. small government?

If the role of government is to protect our natural rights, then why not embrace the term “nanny state?” I would rather have a wise old nanny telling me what to do than a military dictator or despot reliant on Orwellian doublespeak. Perhaps we should be asking the government to do more for us in the way we prescribe, instead of arming ourselves against its potential overreaches. This debate about the size of government is a dangerous distraction that obscures the implications of the decisions made by our lawmakers every day. It pits poor and middle class white Americans against poor and middle class Americans of color. Guess who wins? Hint: neither group.

The debate about the size of government is an ideological, and therefore a polarizing one. It is just as insidious as the abortion debate. Politicians use both issues to galvanize their voter base across a false divide. A politician’s stance on either issue says nothing about his/her/their ability to make good decisions, their qualifications to hold their position, or their motives for seeking office. We have to stop letting false ideological divides that have little implication on the day to day functioning of our government, guide the way we vote.

There are progressive politicians across the United States that would fight of behalf of working class people in every red state. Yet millions of us vote against our best interest in every election. Why? The answer lies in these dangerous and largely false ideological divides that politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to perpetuate. We American voters are not dumb, we have been sold on a false narrative. Next time a candidate tries to convince you of their belief in “small government,” ask about their stance on government “intervention” in the form of tax shelters for the rich. See how their facade crumbles.