Perhaps you’ve read the story about the the pre-schooler in North Carolina whose mom-packed lunch was deemed nutritionally insufficient by a state official? The account has gone viral and has sparked a surprising level of outrage across the country.
The facts are a little sketchy, but it seems that there was a state official present at the school doing lunch inspections in accordance with USDA guidelines. Reportedly, the level of some of the pre-school’s funding was dependent on how well the students’ lunches met the guidelines. When this student’s lunch of a turkey and cheese sandwich on white whole-wheat bread, banana, potato chips, and apple juice was identified as deficient, the teacher (not the state official) offered the four year old a cafeteria lunch, for which her mother was billed, and of which the little girl ate three chicken nuggets and trashed the rest.
The fact that the lunch seemed wholesome enough, and that the pre-school took it upon themselves to countermand the mother’s lunch choice for her daughter has created a flurry of protestations from across the nation. Why has this story hit such a raw nerve amongst Americans? Would the story have spawned similar outrage had it occurred in another part of the world, say Europe, Russia, or China? The answer to these questions lies in our historical concept of governance, and the existence of a peculiarly American independent core that although battered, is not yet broken.
There’s a couple of ways to look at the way a society can function, and this pre-school situation serves as a microcosm of the two different approaches. The mother of the little girl was not upset over the cost of the lunch, but by the fact that the school had called into question her parenting, and found it wanting; that the school did not respect that she knew what was best for her child. And is it really that big a deal if she doesn’t always send the “perfect” lunch? Why do people so detest being “micro-managed”? Think about what is being said by the “micro-manager”; that they do not trust you to do the right thing, that you are not smart enough to do the right thing, that they are superior to you, and in this case, that they, more than you, know what is best for your child. Of course the school, if they were being candid, would agree with all that. If parents knew how to pack lunches in accordance with USDA guidelines there would be no need for “lunch inspections”. They have education and training to make them the experts, why should they not be expected to intervene and supervise when it comes to caregiving? If funding is dependent on each student’s performance, then these decisions can’t be left strictly to the parents, for the sake of the school as a whole.
Governance can be viewed as an organizational exercise. You put your best people at the top, and they set the course, goals and rules for the whole organization. These elite preside over others to whom they delegate responsibilities and a measure of authority, who in turn preside over others on down the pecking order. In this traditional model, those at the bottom have little opportunity for independent action, but also bear little responsibility, except to follow orders and be taken care of. Institutions where one might see this type of governance would include the military, many religions, various large corporations, and authoritarian regimes. The theory is that the more decision making that can be left in the hands of the smartest people, the smoother the machine will run, to the benefit of all. The shortcoming with this model of governance can be the failure to recognize that talent and intelligence are not always the only factors involved in the successful governance of large organizations. Relationships can also be crucial. The mother of the pre-schooler may not be trained in nutrition or USDA guidelines, but she knows what her daughter will eat, and how to get her to eat nutritionally, because she knows her daughter, and loves her. In a large organization, those in positions of power can be so out of touch with those they are governing that all their brilliant ideas and talent fail to keep the machine running smoothly because their elite theories don’t function in real life situations. “Let them eat cake” is something that could only be seen as a solution to starvation by one who has never known the meaning of hunger and poverty. Perhaps “keeping the machine running smoothly” is not the highest aspiration in any event. Was making sure that little girl had an extra serving of dairy worth the embarrassment to the child, the insult to the mother, and the usurping of the parents role in providing for a balanced diet?
The Founding Fathers had a different view of governance. Having escaped the tyranny of an authoritative top down monarchy, they saw government as something that should arise from the bottom up on an “as needed” basis. The contention was that there were human rights that did not arise from government, and as such were not to be impinged upon by the government; among these, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This being the case, the government that was envisioned was a limited one. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “That government is best which governs least.” Liberty was so sacred a principle to them that they were willing to forego what might be a more efficient, more effective, less cumbersome system in order to preserve it.
This system of liberty based governance begins with the individual. How you live your life is your own decision as long as it does not interfere with how others choose to live theirs. The first level of governance above that is the family where children are corrected if they don’t eat their vegetables, and fathers and mothers are encouraged toward appropriate unselfish behavior by their mates. Where there are issues that are beyond the scope of the family to resolve, local government and police forces are required, and beyond that State government for what local government is not equal to, and then on up to the central Federal Government to provide what the State governments cannot, and for controversies between the states. Relationships dictated this natural progression of the most government being the closest to the level of the governed. It is clear that the Founders assumed that there was a natural tendency for power to move toward tyranny, and that seems to be the case as we see it at every level from authoritarian parents, to controlling spouses, to governments that feel the need to micro-manage every aspect of existence. The Constitution was primarily written to tie the hands of government, to slow down and restrict this all too natural process of men enslaving their fellow men.
IMHO: It is the natural tendency of government to gravitate upwards toward centralization and finally tyranny. It is the duty of the lover of freedom to stand against this tide. Hotheads of varied political persuasions will often quote the words of Jefferson, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It would be the height of arrogance and foolishness to trivialize the level of blood a modern day violent revolution would entail. If we can go beyond the gory imagery of Jefferson’s quote to the intention of his words, we would see that he was speaking of a spirit of resistance with which the rulers of the people must occasionally be confronted and warned, to remind them that we are not a people who will accept tyranny, neither in the schoolhouse nor the statehouse.
Love this! So happy for voices rising up against the tide of government interference. Where will it stop? The people need to arise and say, “no.”
We are not as the nations we left to form our “more perfect union.” Freedom is in our DNA, and it’s being messed with. Hopefully, as the author says, we will not need some bloody revolution to correct the problem, but “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny – when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Time, friends, to arise and use our freedom to speak truth.
Bravo. We, as Americans, must realize that our liberties are being taken away each day. We must rise up against ths type of tyranny and let them know that we will not allow this to happen. And it is surely tyranny when the goverment decides it knows more than you do as to living your life and raising your children.
From what I have read online, what happened to the pre-schooler in North Carolina was an isolated incident resulting from a mistake the school or state employee made. If the girl’s home-packed lunch was deemed nutritionally lacking, the school should have made an effort to offer additional items from the cafeteria, not replaced her lunch altogether. I’m not surprised that this story has been politicized and blown out of proportion by the right-wing media. Simply insisting that parents should have sole authority over what their children eat doesn’t help those who are sent to school with inadequate lunches (or without lunch altogether) by careless or underprivileged parents. Speaking of liberties and individual rights, it deprives these kids of their right to a decent lunch which they cannot provide for themselves. As always, there are positive and negative liberties when the lives of others are affected and we must consider both sides. It is sad that food programs that probably do much more good than harm are questioned over one unfortunate, yet isolated incident.
This said, I agree with you that ideally, governance should evolve from below rather than being imposed from above. If we feel that our liberties are being trampled upon, that our government is gravitating towards centralization and ultimately tyranny, as you put it, then we are witnessing the symptoms of a “democracy” that is not functioning. Those calling for less government might actually be yearning for more involvement in governance, for more democracy. Unfortunately, those are usually also the ones who are opposed to any efforts to allow for more democratic structures where our lives are directly affected, such as the right to freely organize in the workplace.
There actually was a report of a second child that was treated similarly, and reportedly the teacher said that these “lunch inspections” by “officials” occur from “time to time”. The controversy arises less from the replacement of the lunch verses the augmentation of the same, as much as the warrantless search and who should be the final arbiter of what the child eats. When there are children in other countries and even here in the U.S. that are going without lunch on a regular basis, and here we are spending time and money to determine what seemed to be a more than adequate lunch to be deficient; this is patently absurd, and evidence that the inmates are running the asylum. There’s nothing wrong with helping out for kids where there are serious deficiencies, preferably at the parent’s request or with their permission; but when you try to do that with a huge government bureaucracy, it’s like trying to do surgery with a chainsaw.
What much of the right is calling for is just what I referenced in the blog, a decentralization of government, not anarchy. With decentralization you can vote with your feet. If you don’t like legalized prostitution, don’t live in Nevada. If you don’t like high taxes, don’t live in New York. When things become centralized at the Federal level, your only choice if you disagree is to flee the country, or go to jail.
So many of the “positive liberties” come at a cost, whereas the “negative liberties” simply require the government not to interfere. When a “right” not specified in our constitution interferes with one that is specified, I will generally opt for the one specified. There are many things I would like to see provided for all citizens, particularly our children; that doesn’t mean that they should be elevated to the level of “rights”. That people and even governments should be charitable and help where we can is a question of morality, and best left at levels where it can be governed from the heart. When we legislate new rights without addressing issues of responsibility and economy we find ourselves in Athens.
Let’s look at the facts. The USDA has developed a dietary guideline, Meal Patterns for Children in Child Care, which, according to a program implemented in North Carolina to fight obesity and malnutrition, defines what a healthy school lunch should look like. It applies to both school and home-packed lunches. The state has decided to have so-called food inspectors visit the schools on an occasional basis to show that it is serious about the program. Now we can debate the program as a whole but it surely doesn’t amount to “a huge government bureaucracy”.
Many Americans simply don’t have the means to vote with their feet. Moving requires a financial cushion as well as functioning employment and housing markets. And decentralizing programs that are of national interest increases bureaucracy. For example, it would be silly to have each state develop its own dietary guideline since we all need the same nutrients.
Protecting negative liberties by simply requiring the government not to interfere often comes at a great cost. Tens of thosands of Americans die every year because they lack health insurance. The right to bear arms, regardless of how it is implemented in particular states, results in high levels of gun violence compared to other Western countries. The global financial crisis which affected and still affects millions of Americans was caused, at least to a large extent, by a lack of oversight and regulation. The negative consequences of the government simply not interfering can be tremendous.
The development of a “dietary guideline” at any level is hardly an issue. I would assume that such guidelines would be determined scientifically and be valid in all 50 states, and the rest of the world for that matter. I would also assume that the guidelines would have little to do with whether the child is in school or out of school. Such guidelines would be useful for parents to develop healthy menus for their children, for public charities to assist families who are unable to provide these things for their children consistently, and for reaching out to the less fortunate across the globe. To determine that these ideal guidelines are a “right” to be be enforced by the government to the extent that this quite acceptable lunch required intervention, turns a useful tool into an oppressive taskmaster. It is intellectually inconsistent to limit the enforcement of this “right” to children who attend pre-school, on an occasional basis. How could we be sure that homeschoolers are receiving appropriate diets? And what about dinner and snacks when the children are not in school?
As difficult as moving from state to state is for the poor, it is nearly impossible for them, or even those of moderate incomes, to change countries. I live in a state that is known to be generous in its aid programs, and the poor do often manage to move here because of it. While the nutritional guidelines may well be universal, it goes without saying that the level of assistance required or desired would not be the same from state to state, or even from district to district. Leaving the implementation of aid to centralized agencies almost always results in trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
I’ll leave it to my second amendment friends to defend the right to bear arms, but your conclusion exemplifies the difficulty so many have in understanding what I referred to in the blog as “the peculiarly American independent core”. Even if we stipulate all the claims of of the inferiority of our system to those more advanced and successful societies, we are a fiercely independent people who are ever vigilant for the slippery slope of tyranny. It is not that we do not value these other things, but never at the cost of our precious freedom. We are still the seed of our forefathers who formed this nation. To echo Patrick Henry is clearly hyperbole in this case, but instructive of our heritage, “Give us Liberty, or give us Death!”.
Of course dietary guidelines should apply all the time, not just in school. And of course the schools in question should follow such guidelines at all times, not just on an occasional basis. You are obliged to obey the law at all times even though you aren’t constantly being monitored by the police. Public schools are responsible for the well-being of their students during school time. Outside of school, we trust parents to take good care of their children unless there is evidence that this is not the case. But in (public) school the children are under the care of the government. If we believe that an adequate diet is as important as, let’s say, adequate clothing for the well-being of a child, we should allow public caretakers to intervene if reasonable standards aren’t met. Wouldn’t we expect the same if a student kept showing up in a t-shirt and without a coat in the midst of winter? Sending your kid to school without an adequate lunch can amount to child neglect just as much as sending your kid to school without warm clothes in the wintertime. While school and state officials apparently overreacted in this particular incident, the program itself makes a lot of sense to me. It has the potential to improve the quality of school lunches and raise awareness for healthy eating.
As a non-American, it is difficult for me to fully grasp the nature of that “peculiarly American independent core” as you call it. I commend you for acknowledging that prioritizing liberty at all cost can stand in the way of progress. A nation that places too much value on individual liberties will find it hard to make achievements that would benefit society as a whole (such as universal health care) and ultimately fall behind on a global scale. A philosophy that focuses on the individual alone is a selfish (and eventually a self-destructive) philosophy.
You’ve done well in crystallizing the differences in perspective and priorities, and I do not wish to belabor the point or become repetitive. I will say that the desire for liberty does not inevitably indicate egotism or selfishness. The US is the most charitable nation on the planet, and the groups that are the most giving are also the ones that traditionally most cherish liberty and individualism. Freedom for us does not indicate a desire to be free from the duty of charity, but rather the desire to do it of our own volition. We particularly abhor seeing our charitable contributions mandated and then wasted, or used to the detriment of society, when we ourselves could have directed them more productively.
America’s rise to world dominance was predicated by this prioritization of liberty and rugged individualism; the decline in so many areas relative to other nations is complex, but if a correlation to public policy is sought, the decline would seem to coincide more with our gravitation toward centralization, and policies more similar to socialized nations. While this may be the price we have payed for progress, one wonders if there are not alternatives where the cost would not be so dear. As I survey the governments and situations of other nations, I see none so wonderful to merit abandoning the principles that have formed so successful a system as ours, to more closely emulate theirs.