in U.S. circa 1990, “nanny state” takes the intellectual space of “political correctness”

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
The criticism of “political correctness” has really had a lot of longevity.

In my state of Texas, wearing seat belts was made mandatory around 1986, so the timing works. The criticism of “nanny state” could have arrived first.

The other big thing going on was the build up of the Persian Gulf War, or “Desert Shield,” in the second half of 1990, and the war itself, or “Desert Storm,” in early ‘91. I personally have never seen this level of war hysteria. So, maybe it led to a hunting of enemies internally.

Please paint me a picture in which “nanny state” takes most or all of the intellectual space used by “political correctness.” Thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
If "nanny state" is used to mean things like more health-and-safety regulations etc, it's gonna be tricky for right-wingers to explicitly oppose that when they've just finished raising the drinking age to 21.

I'd also throw in the War On Drugs and the Meese Commission, but dope and porn are sorta considered a priori beyond the protection of democratic rights, so a lot of people wouldn't care about the contradiction.

(And come to think of it, regulation of youth[like the drinking laws] is also seen as a good thing by conservatives, regardless of its incompatibility with "liberty", so maybe they could get away with posing as the champions of rugged-individualism on every other safety issue, without prompting charges of hypocrisy.)
 
Last edited:
Why do the Americans have such a high drinking age? Why are they so anti - youth?

I guess the standard answer would be residual puritanism?

There's also the issue that with each state setting its own age, you have the problem of people in border regions driving over to the next state to drink, and then driving back intoxicated. This has been cited to me as a reason for the uniform age, though logically, there's no reason it would have to be 21, as long as it was the same everywhere.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . but dope and porn are sorta considered a priori beyond the protection of democratic rights, so a lot of people wouldn't care about the contradiction. . .
You’re right. A lot of restrictions on liberty are grandfathered in and considered a given.

Which is one reason I think the seat belt laws are a real possibility for a POD.
 
(And come to think of it, regulation of youth[like the drinking laws] is also seen as a good thing by conservatives, regardless of its incompatibility with "liberty", so maybe they could get away with posing as the champions of rugged-individualism on every other safety issue, without prompting charges of hypocrisy.)
You're mature enough to vote, get married and get killed for your country but you can't go out with your mates and have a pint? Insanity.
 
You're mature enough to vote, get married and get killed for your country but you can't go out with your mates and have a pint? Insanity.

Well, in fairness to the Yanks, there's a sìmilar inconsistency in Canadian law, though less extreme. You can have sex at 16, drive at 16, vote and join the army at 18, but in some provinces, you have to be 19 to drink.

And in Quebec, otherwìse viewed as the least puritan province, the age for buying marijuana is a Reaganesque 21.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . Since then, 25 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that require at least the driver and all front-seat passengers in a motor vehicle to wear seat belts. . . [ June 1986] . . . ”

So, the timing is right in the mid-1980s for criticism of “nanny state” to become an intellectual topic.

* the word nanny has a little bit of a British flavor. It’s a word Americans are familiar with, but per my experience here in Texas, don’t use all that often.
 
Last edited:
I could see making the age for joining the military be 21 or even later but I'd scrap any drinking/smoking age for sure. Same with ages for selling pot/booze/tobacco to people ofc.

This thread remidns me of the reasons why if I ever won the lottery I'd bail out of the anglosphere permanently.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
nymag-e1452524931360.jpg

Jan. 1991

Is it really so objectionable to be asked to use Native American rather than Indian? You don’t necessarily have to do it every time, or even at all.

And the irony is, for a movement which purports to be against elites, the anti-PC movement is very leader driven! :openedeyewink:
 
PC and nanny state come from the same puritanical mindset.

If you want to avoid both you'd need to reduce the influence of progressivism, both in the 1890-1910ish or post-1960s or post-2000s form on the left. A more working class and less yuppie left.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
I could see making the age for joining the military be 21 or even later but I'd scrap any drinking/smoking age for sure. Same with ages for selling pot/booze/tobacco to people ofc.

This thread remidns me of the reasons why if I ever won the lottery I'd bail out of the anglosphere permanently.
We want you to stay. I want you to stay! :)

Instead of a permanent change, how about just the occasional vacation, even if just an imagined one? For example, maybe to Asia which is roughly half the world, and has a number of interesting cultures.
 
Prevent America from becoming so dependent on cars so that seatbelts and drunk driving don’t become such big issues.

Prevent leaded paint and gasoline from being invented so that crime doesn’t become such a big issue.

A more recent POD could be if Reagan doesn’t appoint Elizabeth Dole to be Secretary of Transportation and instead of embracing her views, comes out against “the liberal drinking age” (Frank Lautenberg introduced it) and “New York seatbelt laws”.
 
Last edited:
We want you to stay. I want you to stay! :)

Instead of a permanent change, how about just the occasional vacation, even if just an imagined one? For example, maybe to Asia which is roughly half the world, and has a number of interesting cultures.
I'm not likely to luck into wealth anytime soon so it seems you'll get your wish, sadly. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or Vietnam could be interesting to visit, though.

For a country that supposedly prides itself on "freedom" the US is honestly worse than most of europe in nanny statism. Anti-smoking insanity, high drinking age, weed still illegal in most of the country. I blame the free market, specifically having a heallthcare system based on having to pay for your own through insurers. Going by how much less puritanical many more "socialist" countries in the west are, it seems the old conservative argument of "you'll have less freedom if the government pays for your healthcare" is not only false, but the opposite of the truth. Not that UHC is perfect or some utopian thing but well, better outcomes for most. IMO 80% having halfway decent healthcare and the top 20% getting their cost is no object gold plated plans is a better outcome than our 60/40 split between shitty healthcare and those EXPENSIVE plans.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
A more working class and less yuppie left.
I’m glad you put this out there, but I think I disagree on this one.

I’m going to say, And . . Both.

I want a job which has a real chance of middle class upward mobility or more, especially work which has some intrinsic interest and actually means something. And I want to be treated as a first-class regular citizen even if I am LGBTQ+, minority religion, atheist, a woman, a speech impediment, etc, etc.

Now, a healthy economy in which companies look for ways to hire you, rather than excuses not to, helps all of this.
 
Last edited:
I’m glad you put this out there, but I think I disagree on this one.

I’m going to say And . . Both.

I want a job which has a real chance of middle class upward mobility or more. And I want to be treated as a first-class regular citizen even if I am LGBTQ+, minority religion, atheist, a woman, etc, etc.

Now, a healthy economy in which companies look for ways to hire you, rather than excuses not to, helps all of this.
The yuppie left doesn't care about upwards mobility in practice. It's all lifestyle issues, and not even say helping LGBT ppl. Banning smoking and other stuff like what you've complained about in this thread plus getting to have cheap servants are their priority. I'm talking a specific type of upper-middle class leftist here.

Personally I'd rather have drug laws scrapped, a basic income and national healthcare instead of people being publicly shamed/their lives ruined for being "mean" or saying the wrong thing.

Anyways, avoiding a Clinton presidency would get democrats more to both of ours' liking.
 
Top