Liberal Paternalism Posted by: Jon Henke
on Saturday, July 09, 2005
It had to happen. Liberalism has moved from "Government out of our bedrooms!", to "Government into our kitchens!". Paul Krugman writes an ostensibly anti-obesity column which bears an awful resemblance to the arguments the religious right makes about anti-sodomy/anti-gay legislation: it's for "the children/society/your own good".
As Paul Krugman once wrote, "medical care is the cutting edge of extremism". And Paul Krugman is on the cutting edge.
Paul Krugman's moralistic, nanny-state liberalism aside—and, after his outrage over the Republican intrusion in the Schiavo case, it's particularly difficult to put that aside—I want to address this section:
In today's America, proposals to do something about rising obesity rates must contend with a public predisposed to believe that the market is always right and that the government always screws things up.
You can see these predispositions at work in an article printed last month in Amber Waves, a magazine published by the Department of Agriculture. The article is titled "Obesity Policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences," suggesting that government efforts to combat obesity are likely to be counterproductive. But the authors don't actually provide any examples of how that might happen.
Krugman cites this article, and it's very difficult to see how he concludes that "the authors don't actually provide any examples of how" government efforts to combat obesity might be counterproductive. In the first place, the word "counterproductive" is entirely a product of Krugman's own imagination, as it appears nowhere within the article. What the authors do say is that "unintended effects could dampen the policy’s success in reducing overweight and obesity".
That's quite different than Krugman's characterization.
In addition, here are the examples provided by the authors:
Nutrition Labeling at Restaurants:
"A restaurant study in England found that providing nutrition information had no effect on overall energy and fat intake of patrons. In fact, the presence of “lower fat” information was associated with fewer restaurant patrons’ selecting the target dish."
"...restaurateurs could choose to reformulate away from one ingredient, like saturated fat, and compensate for flavor changes by boosting the sugar or salt content of the food. In this case, the overall nutritional content of a restaurant meal may not improve. Meals that are marginally lower in one or more attributes may not be much healthier than the originals."
"A study by Christine Moorman of Duke University showed that following NLEA, food suppliers expanded price promotion of nutritionally poorer brands while promotion of nutritionally better brands did not change significantly between the two periods."
A Tax on Snack Food
"No benefits accrue if the tax simply induces substituting one snack food for another—pork rinds for potato chips."
"A relatively small tax on snack food, say 1 percent, would have vanishingly small impacts on dietary choices and thus negligible impacts on weight or health. Since calculations were made under the assumption that the entire tax would be passed forward, the actual impacts may be smaller still."
Curtail Food Advertising, Particularly to Children
Food markets, for the most part, have stable aggregate demand, and advertising levels are strategically used to maintain market or brand share.
Potential benefits of restricted food advertising could be complicated in that across-the-board restrictions could result in lower prices and increased consumption of foods bearing the advertising restriction. Some studies found that aggregate cigarette consumption actually increased after the U.S. banned broadcast cigarette advertising. Cigarette companies, no longer allowed to compete through broadcast commercials, were forced to compete more on price, and were able to do so from advertising savings. If restrictions on food advertisements have similar effects on price and consumption, then Americans could end up fatter, not fitter.
So, even after mischaracterizing the authors claims, Paul Krugman was still completely wrong. They cited examples in which government intervention would (their words) "dampen the policy’s success in reducing overweight and obesity" and they cited instances in which government intervention could be (Krugman's words) "counterproductive".
Paul Krugman is welcome to his own opinion about the proper federal response to Frito-Lay's, but let's give a rest to the notion that it's just the Republicans who want to interfere with your private life.
Yes, we should "do something" about obesity. I suggest more exercise and less food.
ALSO:
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."—Thomas Jefferson.
On Monday, Paul Krugman had a column on obesity notable primarily for the absence of any raving about George Bush. It did, however, have a rant about evil big business, trying to make kids fat to fatten their own profits. The bit I noticed, however, was this at the end:
Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here. None of us would dream of telling any of you what to do. When it comes to adults, no big government interferring with your right to choose, impinging on your privacy. We are just protecting children. Your liberties are safe with us.
Today, only four days later, Krugman has his next column, and surprise, he has changed his tune.
Krugman here reminds me of the 17-year-old kid who murders his parents and then pleads for the court’s mercy on grounds that he’s an orphan.
Krugman advocates government-provided, universal health care for all Americans. That is, Krugman advocates further turning issues that would otherwise be private in to ones that are, by policy design, public. (In econospeak, Krugman advocates creating an externality where one doesn’t naturally exist.) Championing existing levels of nationalized health-care in the U.S. (mainly Medicare and Medicaid), and calling for even more, Krugman then tosses his hands in the air rather cavalierly and cites these government policies as a justification for greater intrusion into people’s private lives (or, what should be people’s private lives – and would be people’s private lives exclusively – were it not for the very health-care policies that Krugman champions).
Frankly, the columns are such vague pronouncements devoid of any support, they're really not worthy of a response. Except for this:
Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success.
Um, alcohol prohibition? I'd add drug prohibition, too. And I'd argue (though Krugman would certainly disagree) that the FDA has cost more lives by dragging its feet while allowing drugs to get to market than it has saved by keeping other drugs off the shelves. And Krugman would probably agree with me that abstinence-only education does more harm than good.
Paul Krugman writes an ostensibly anti-obesity column which bears an awful resemblance to the arguments the religious right makes about anti-sodomy/anti-gay legislation: it’s for "the children/society/your own good".
Ummmmmm... no. The religious right makes such arguments on grounds of morality, which Krugman’s tirade does not. Agree with such arguments or not, it matters little... and less still if you cannot at least identify them correctly.
Ummmmmm...Bithead, you might want to expand your understanding of the religious right’s arguments. Yes, morality is central to their arguments. However, to deny that they also use "children/society/your own good" arguments is to ignore what they say. For instance, here is a book review of James Dobson’s Marriage Under Fire:
...The next crucial blow to marriage came on 26 June 2003, when the US Supreme Court declared that there is a constitutional right to sodomy. In November of that year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court proclaimed the right to same-sex "marriage"...
Dobson outlines eleven reasons why this battle must be won. The first is the protection of marriage and family: once a nation forgets the reason why these are important, it will soon recognise and bless all manner of sexual relationships, regardless of how harmful they may be to individuals, to children, and society...
Another reason why we must win this battle, argues Dobson, is because children will suffer if we do not prevail.
There are many, many examples of christian conservatives using the "children/society/your own good" arguments. I can post more if you’re not convinced.
You admit my point in your first line, and then try to argue around the point. There’s a major difference between arguing on moral ground and arguing on ’the common good’.
I didn’t argue "around" the point. I showed you that while they view such activities are immoral, they argue that if society allows the activities then "children will suffer." They use the exact arguments that Jon pointed out. You claimed that Jon could not correctly identify the arguments, but in fact he did. As I said, I can fill up the comments section with quote after quote from prominent religious conservatives if you like.
There’s a major difference between arguing on moral ground and arguing on ’the common good’.
Bithead,
As a religious conservative who admires James Dobson, perhaps I can explain just what we do. We use both kinds of arguments. Matters of family and sexuality can usually (and properly) be argued either or both ways at the same time. JWG was just pointing out that we do use the "common ground" arguments as they relate to "the children/society/your own good." Your pointing out that we also use other arguments does not change JWG’s point.
Of course, either kind of argument can be done well or poorly, reaching a correct or an incorrect conclusion. You can disagree with those arguments, and if you make a good-enough counter-argument I will pay attention and perhaps change my mind. There is nothing irrational about "moral arguments."
The religious right makes such arguments on grounds of morality, which Krugman’s tirade does not
I’ll echo what JWG said, and also point out that the religious "moral" arguments are made for "the children/your own good/society". Yours is a distinction without difference. You write that...
There’s a major difference between arguing on moral ground and arguing on ’the common good’.
...but moral arguments are made on behalf of "the common good". See: gay marriage, which will "destroy the fabric of society" and other such nonsense claims.
Unaha:
Stop subsidising the Sugar Industry?
I could get behind that. I could even conceivably be convinced that a sales tax on some foods would be tolerable if the proceeds were unalterably dedicated to medical spending, (assuming, of course, that we continue down this universal health care path) since such a plan would go some way towards internalizing costs.
..but moral arguments are made on behalf of "the common good".
(Sigh) Yes, Jon, but..... Only as a derivative of the moral argument. Morality isn’t the primary motivator.
Understand; What drives my comments in this thread, is the discomfort with trying to attach a concern of ’morality’ to the left. A look at their leadership, and indeed their rank and file, will speak clearly to the point that there is none to be had, there. Morality, would never be a primary motivation for the liberal, because they would never label immorality as such. Might offend too many of their base. So, they tend to argue more toward practical outcomes, rather than from morality as a first principle.
And by the way, For this discussion, I’ve not addressed the validity of the arguments, which I think another matter altogether.
And I think I’ve just addressed Rory’s concern, as well as JWG’s.
Christians usually don’t argue against, say, pornography purely because it is "immoral". Rather, they do it because it is bad for society, and because "immorality" is bad for the social fabric.
In any event, I said his arguments bore a resemblance. They do. If you concur with those arguments from the Conservative/religious side, I have to wonder why you think they’re illegitimate in principle from the liberal side.
I will agree that those of the Judeo-Christian ethic are forced to argue at the second level, but in my view that’s because of the same disconnect I’ve already spoken on; Liberals can’t fathom a morality argument.
And by the way, the destruction of the fabric of society is hardly a nonsense claim, but then again, you knew that.
The best thing government could do to decrease obesity in the US would be to address the environmental affects that lead to Americas weight problem.
Tightening up our urban areas by reducing urban sprawl and implementing public transit in major cities would go a long way to reducing Americas weight problem. When its not unusual for Americans to live 30-90 minutes away from the places where they work and play, is it any surprise why we are so much fatter compared to our European counterparts? Several hours a day in the car is several hours that we must, by default, be sitting still in the car.
The "fat lazy American" isnt that way because of a particular charachter flaw, it is largely because of the way we have structured our lives and the places we live. Walking to the bus-stop, the subway station, to work, to the movies, and to restaurants is all superior (health-wise) than driving there.
I lost more than ten pounds after only a week of vacation in Paris, thanks in large part to the amount of walking I got in by utilizing the metro. The crappy French food that cause me to want to eat much less than usual probably helped too....
Which brings up an interesting topic... what exactly is the libertarian position on urban planning and public transit? Its not exactly something that the free market is particularly good at providing... requiring too much central planning and coordination for the market to handle on its own.
Thousands of troops are struggling to lose weight, and thousands have been booted out of the service in recent years because they couldn’t.
However, one of the biggest worries concerns those not even in uniform yet: Nearly 2 out of 10 men and 4 out of 10 women of recruiting age weigh too much to be eligible, a record number for that age group.
"This is quickly becoming a national security issue for us. The pool of recruits is becoming smaller," said Col. Gaston Bathalon, an Army nutrition expert.
Unless weight rules are relaxed, "we’re going to have a harder time fielding an Army," he said.
Makes the "common good" angle of the obesity epidemic pretty clear, eh?
“I’m not talking about the inherent difficulty of the task - getting people to consume fewer calories and/or exercise more may be harder than getting people to stop smoking, but we won’t know until we try. I’m talking, instead, about how the political winds have shifted.” – Paul Krugman
“Not talking about the difficulty of the task”…, then what good are you?
Who cares which way the political winds are blowing? The underlying premise is still the same; Government invasion into my home. Just as I don’t want Right-Wing slime like Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) trying to legislate what tunes in on my T.V. (pay T.V. mind you), I don’t want Krugman or some Lefty politician making decisions on what I put in my fridge, or order on a menu.
Sure, obesity is a problem. So what are we going to do about it? Some would say taxing unhealthy products to discourage bad behavior is the way; I would say that doesn’t sound very tasty. I abhor the thought of taxing people to encourage a certain behavior, it rarely works. Smoking has grown unpopular through a social and cultural condemnation, not through an economic one. If we try to encourage good behavior through taxation, it should be the other way round. Health club fees could be tax deductible, obese people could be given tax credits for losing weight and keeping it off, and health foods producers could be exempt from employer taxes. Something – I don’t know, - Anything. I’ll leave the details to those who better understand them. The government needs to stay out of our bedrooms, off of our television sets, AND out of our kitchens. I have a physically demanding job AND I go to the gym at least three times a week, so… Keep your hands off of my ho-ho’s.
“It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.”Krugman,… (sigh) You suck, dude.
That’s simply ridiculous. I know you may believe that, but that fact says far more about you than it does about liberals.
(sigh)Basic logic time. To really understand a morality argument one must agree not only that there is both morality and immoraity, but what defines each.
One cannot possibly really understand what one does not think even exists.
What kind of morality arguments can be had from a group of people who argue there is no uniform, all encompassing right and wrong? I submit to you anyone who supports such a statement, as liberals... social liberals in particular, often have, over the years.... cannot possibly fathom an argument based on the idea that there ARE such things as right and wrong... IE; a morality argument. As such any liberal claiming their argument is a moral one, is suspect at the outset, in my view.
Such as Krugman, for example.
Jamie Rosensteel
Tightening up our urban areas by reducing urban sprawl and implementing public transit in major cities would go a long way to reducing Americas weight problem.
Gee... sounds rather like what the UN was telling us a few years ago. Move everyone back into the cities. Remember?
As for the rest, one wonders how Nadler will vote, on such restrictions should anything like what Krugman proposes, get to the floor.
Fine, but when all is said and done, at base in any denomination of Christianity is a belief in Christ. You can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe in Christ
By the same token, you can’t make a mroal argument if you don’t think there’s a solid immovable right and wrong.
I lost more than ten pounds after only a week of vacation in Paris, thanks in large part to the amount of walking I got in by utilizing the metro. The crappy French food that cause me to want to eat much less than usual probably helped too....
A friend has just got back from a months holiday in Cuba, he did not stay in a resort and has managed to lose 29 lbs eating the local cuisine (very charcoaled chicken & rice). Forget the French model - just adopt the living conditions of a third world dictatorship.
Tightening up our urban areas by reducing urban sprawl and implementing public transit in major cities would go a long way to reducing Americas weight problem. When its not unusual for Americans to live 30-90 minutes away from the places where they work and play, is it any surprise why we are so much fatter compared to our European counterparts? Several hours a day in the car is several hours that we must, by default, be sitting still in the car.
Versus the several hours a day spent sitting in a train.
By this logic, you would expect New Yorkers to be our thinnest folk. Is that true?
I might add that while I spent a whopping 40 minutes a day driving to-and-from work, I also take the 11 flights of stairs to get to my cube every day. Sometimes twice a day.
A lot of people choose to be fat. Public transit won’t change that very much, if at all.
I’ve no doubt that Krugman would favor the federal government having the same level of power that Castro exerts. After all, we won’t know until we try, right? So why not try it? If no one can provide any specific examples of how that abuse of power might have a negative impact or unintended consequence, the clearly, the best thing to do is give the federal government unfettered power to control every aspect of our lives.
Oh wait, that’s utter crap. But what else can you expect from Krugman?
What kind of morality arguments can be had from a group of people who argue there is no uniform, all encompassing right and wrong?
...any liberal claiming their argument is a moral one, is suspect at the outset, in my view.
Bithead, thank you for enlightening us to the "fact" that liberals have no real moral code! In reality, I think you will find that most liberals do follow a set of moral codes, only their view of those codes cause them to focus on a different set of priorities than you. For example:
Access to affordable, quality health care is therefore a crucial policy priority and moral challenge...
[E]nsuring access to affordable, quality health care is a simple matter of right and wrong...The belief that every person deserves quality health care is embedded in our core values, and our vision of health care over the next generation must honor that conviction.
But the popular presentations of religion in our time (especially in the media) almost completely ignore the biblical vision of social justice and, even worse, dismiss such concerns as merely "left wing."...
In a political and media culture that squeezes everything into only two options of left and right, religious people must refuse the ideological categorization and actually build bridges between people of goodwill in both liberal and conservative camps...
When reporters started talking about the religious issues of this election being abortion and gay marriage, I often corrected the narrow perception that reduces all Christian ethics and values to one or two hot-button social issues. I talked about how poverty, the environment, the war in Iraq, and our response to terrorism were also key religious and moral values questions...
Bithead, go ahead and claim moral superiority over the Left...but in reality God is not a republican or a democrat.
What kind of morality arguments can be had from a group of people who argue there is no uniform, all encompassing right and wrong?
And I submit that you are a fool, prone to make ridiculous, over-broad and tendentious characterizations that bear little to no relation to reality.
You may disagree with liberals on specifics of morality, but they certainly believe there is such a thing. I can’t even believe I’m having this argument, so I’m going to stop before the fucking stupidity becomes contagious.
Bithead, thank you for enlightening us to the "fact" that liberals have no real moral code! In reality, I think you will find that most liberals do follow a set of moral codes, only their view of those codes cause them to focus on a different set of priorities than you. For example: Health Care, the Budget and Morality
On what moral basis do liberals go about stealing from others to fund such things?
The true foundation of Christian moral values is all-encompassing love above all else.
Not unexpectedly, you mistake love for unconditional acceptance. They are not the same.
And I submit that you are a fool, prone to make ridiculous, over-broad and tendentious characterizations that bear little to no relation to reality
I look forward to being corrected, then. Thusfar, all I’ve seen are general statments denying what I’ve said....
So how much urban sprawl do you think our society can handle before it becomes unmanageable? Sprawl is pretty much a function of market forces at work. Our cities were built around cheap land outside of urban areas and cheap access to gasoline and motor vehicles. Of course once any of these variables change, market forces will have a hard time adapting because the city has already been built and cant easily or efficiently be redesigned by the market.
Versus the several hours a day spent sitting in a train.
I am not talking about public transit in terms of shuttling in workers from the far reaches of suburbia via train as opposed to car. That makes little difference, sitting in a car is the same as sitting in a train. However in many major cities (especially outside of the US) its not uncommon to be able to walk a few blocks to a subway/train station and arrive within a few blocks of work, school, or wherever else you need to go. All that walking makes a huge difference in our health.
A friend has just got back from a months holiday in Cuba, he did not stay in a resort and has managed to lose 29 lbs eating the local cuisine (very charcoaled chicken & rice). Forget the French model - just adopt the living conditions of a third world dictatorship.
I bet he walked alot though, didnt he? The fact of the matter is that you can eat pretty much whatever you want and not get fat so long as you get alot of exercise.
Thusfar, all I’ve seen are general statments denying what I’ve said....
You made the charge that liberals do not argue on the basis of real morality. I provided examples showing that they do work from a base of morality and a different set of priorities. I can show more, especially from the Catholic Church which contains very good examples of this in regards to almost all policies (most of which fall in the liberal arena).
You have failed to show that they do not work from a base of morality. You have stated it without evidence.
On what moral basis do liberals go about stealing from others to fund such things?
Re-read the quote I provided...it is very clear as to the moral basis. Additionally, liberals argue that the "federal budget is the most concrete expression of our nation’s values." However, my purpose here is not to defend liberal ideology; it is to demonstrate that liberals can and do function from judeo-christian morals. Of course, you’re welcome to walk into any black church (since upwards of 90% of blacks vote for liberals) and try to argue that the overwhelming majority of them do not believe in right or wrong.
Not unexpectedly, you mistake love for unconditional acceptance. They are not the same.
I mistake nothing in this example. It is not my quote. The quote is in reference to the 10 commandments debate (read the link). I provided it as another example from a very liberal organization to show that liberals do indeed resort to the same basis of morality that you do when making arguments.
I look forward to being corrected, then.
Read the writings from a wide range of liberals (they’re easy to find) and you will see judeo-christian morality staring you in the face. Just because you disagree with their priorities does not mean they lack an understanding of "real" morality.
Consider yourself corrected. Of course, you’re welcome to provide examples to show otherwise.
(Sorry for the delay, I’ve been away... anyway...)
I will not, because I HAVE not.
Instead of labeling it a reading problem on your part, I’ll simply assume you missed this:
To really understand a morality argument one must agree not only that there is both morality and immoraity, but what defines each.
Note the last three words, particularly. I tried to point up morality being a solid, you can’t touch this, right and wrong.
You made my point for me about not operating from a moral base, when you tried to counter the argument with the idea that liberals operate under a different set of morals, and that’s arguable, to a point, but any argument of that stort, of nesessity, negates the concept of their being a solid right and wrong. As I have said to understand a moraity argument there needs be agreement on what morality, what that right and wrong consists of.
I would argue that the Islamofacists are operating under a moral structure of their own. Similarly, the Nazis, similarly, communists the world over. Yet I daresay you’ll get some argument about what is and is not moral about them.
And JWG, since when are the nation’s values tied directly to what the government spend’s tax money on? Where is it written that government needs to be involved at all?
Is it charity when the government steals my money earned with my ability to produce to people who don’t produce?
Or is it rather charity when the individual becomes involved in helping those in need, without being forced by the government to do so?
Tightening up our urban areas by reducing urban sprawl and implementing public transit in major cities would go a long way to reducing Americas weight problem.
An interesting idea. "Reducing" sprawl? By, for example, building enormous apartment block buildings (like those in Hong Kong) in the urban areas and then razing the suburbs and making, say, public parks out of them?
I’m not arguing that your point isn’t correct; it may be. I didn’t see a lot of fat Italians in Italy, and that was due to exactly what you’re talking about. But who is going to MAKE this happen, and HOW?
Sounds just like the reasoning behind electric/hybrid vehicles. Sure it’s a good idea, but if I don’t want to trade in my Mustang on a Prius—then what?
