Perhaps I was unclear. ‘Nanny State’ is reactive rhetoric from the self-regarding, that implicitly devalues community and other-regarding behavior. It is important, thru Tony’s contextualizing, to point out the rhetorical tactic in order to overcome it. But a popular underlying ideology for many in this society believes that self-regarding behavior works best to further the greater good – Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’.

Bottom line is that a large fraction of the populace doesn’t want to or doesn’t care to alter their behavior in order to have a better chance to change things for the greater good (or larger community or whatever you want to call it). They just don’t.

Franklin Roosevelt once told a group seeking his support for legislation, “You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it.” I keep thinking about that vis-à-vis Barack Obama, whom many have taken as their political savior. He can fix everything! No. He. Can’t. But he can be a valuable instrument for positive change if we provide the momentum and political climate for him to work in.

DanB, on your comment about being “nice”, that’s not the point. I agree with Tony. You want to win, right? Winning equals convincing – changing minds in order to change behavior and policy. So what does being loud or “in your face” possibly contribute towards that end? If that worked we’d have all become mindless Fox News parrotheads by now, writing love letter to Karl Rove.

I have little faith in appeals to altruism and DanS I don’t think placing one’s self-regard over that of others is a winnable battle, at least until we figure out mind control. But, (and again I look to Tony’s post), you can expand one’s definition of self-regard by educating about externalities and so on and so forth.Also along those lines, if we can all please drop the drivel about “saving the planet” and focus on “saving the humans” then that will help too. The planet and Mother Nature will survive no matter what we do. The only question is if we can keep hanging out with them or not.

This leads to the larger issue of whose minds do we change – decision-makers or the general public, or both? The decision-makers are largely on board, and know these puerile ‘nanny-state’ arguments are from a minority having no other argument. But leadership these days is such that there is no real leadership any more, so unless there is a huge outcry (Iraq war notwithstanding), nothing happens.

The larger issue – as Tony implictly avers – is creating momentum for change, and framing the issue to change the minds of those who can’t/won’t/refuse to/are too busy to listen is part of the package.

‘Nanny state’ is not a frame to effect change. It is a fear phrase to keep things the same. Thus, it has little power to change.

One must recognize this weak ‘nanny state’ rhetoric for what it is, and focus on overcoming that frame. Nanny state, alarmist, doomsayer, bias, ad hominem, etc are all frames created by the vested interests to prevent change.

Those who wield such phrases usually don’t have the best argument and use this rhetoric as a distraction. Don’t be distracted.

Tony’s comment focuses our thought on self-regarding vs other-regarding behavior – this is key. ‘Nanny-state’ arguments privilege self-regarding behavior over community benefits; this rhetoric cares little for the children or grandchildren. Self-interest over community interest does not get us where we need to go.

Why do people care more about themselves at the expense of others? is the basic issue here. One must overcome that.

I appreciate the importance of not pissing off the people whose minds you’re trying to change. This is the approach taken by Sightline, for example. The one problem with it is that when you’re always nice, you run the risk of losing people’s attention, cause it appears as if you don’t have strong convictions.

Of course I’d like to think that I’m helping shape opinions in a positive way with this blog, but I’m not going to refrain from saying something is completely fucked just to avoid ruffling the feathers of those who disagree with me.

So perhaps the blog has more value in helping people who already have the inclination to agree with me to clarify their thoughts and strengthen their convictions… dunno, maybe?