Case studies in nanny state name-calling: what can we learn?

Abstract

The 'nanny state' has become a popular metaphor in debates about public health regulation. It fulfils a particular role in that debate: to caution government against taking action. This paper presents case studies of nanny state criticisms, using them to identify a series of contextual features that may assist in better understanding, evaluating and where appropriate, resisting the rhetorical force of nanny state criticisms. The case studies presented include Rush Limbaugh's reactions to Michelle Obama's efforts to encourage American food companies to market healthier food to children; Christopher Hitchens' critique of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's public health policies; and the reaction of neoliberal think tanks to Australia's plain tobacco packaging legislation. These case studies do not provide a basis for making generalisations about the practice of 'nanny state name-calling'. Nor do they preclude debate about the appropriate limits of government action. However, in appropriate cases they may assist policy-makers and public health advocates to contest the framing of public health interventions as unwarranted incursions into the private lives of individuals. One important lesson from these case studies is that the principal concern of nanny state critics is not loss of freedom as such, but the role of the state. The nanny state critique is ultimately a call for the state to be agnostic about the health of citizens, allowing market forces to dominate. Although the nanny state critique is not new, it is a significant challenge to government efforts to address lifestyle-influenced risk factors for non-communicable diseases, including tobacco use, harmful use of alcohol, and unhealthy diet.

Political Orientation and Public Attributions for the Causes and Solutions of Physical Inactivity in Canada: Implications for Policy Support

“…Previous literature has demonstrated that public support generally decreases as the level of policy intrusiveness increases although intrusive policies generally have more impact on population behavior (16, 17). Particularly in western, liberal and democratic societies, such intrusive policy interventions may be unpopular as they run the risk of accusations of “nanny state-ism” where the government is seen as intruding “into the private lives of citizens and treats them as infants who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions (p. 1074)” (18). Therefore, the examination of how Canadians endorse different policy actions to address physical activity, from the least to most intrusive policy actions, would be helpful to inform future policy approaches and the implementation of the Common Vision (11).…”

Obesity prevention advocacy in Australia: an analysis of policy impact on autonomy

“…Interventions that increase individual autonomy were more frequently recommended, than those that reduce or have a negligible influence on autonomy. This direction of preference reflects resistance to the notion of developing a ‘nanny state’, which to date, has increased resistance toward government‐led regulation 44 . Previous research supports that enabling or informing choice (approaches which enhance autonomy), may be more acceptable forms of public health intervention, 33 and their value has been recognised globally within research and public health directives 4,30,31,45 .…”

“…This direction of preference reflects resistance to the notion of developing a 'nanny state' , which to date, has increased resistance toward governmentled regulation. 44 Previous research supports that enabling or informing choice (approaches which enhance autonomy), may be more acceptable forms of public health intervention, 33 and their value has been recognised globally within research and public health directives. 4,30,31,45 These strategies that balance choice architecture have been implemented at state level in Australia, 8,46 and are recognised as important by stakeholders internationally, 29 despite a lack of evidence from national-level trials to support their effectiveness.…”

Beware the Nanny State: Neoliberal Ideology and American Health Law Reform

“…On occasion, sexism surfaces in nanny-state rhetoric, as, for example, in radio talk-show pundit Rush Limbaugh's snide comments on Michelle Obama. Her campaign for healthier foods for children, Limbaugh said with tongue firmly in cheek, reflected "the good intentions of a supposedly nice woman who's a great mother with a great garden who really cares about people" (Magnusson, 2015(Magnusson, : p. 1082). However, the gender of almost all nannies notwithstanding, neoliberal personifications of the supposed nanny state are more likely to be male.…”