Obama becoming the National Nanny
posted at 1:36 pm on February 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
The funk into which Barack Obama has fallen can be chalked up to a host of reasons — the failure to engage on his own legislative agenda, the failure of ObamaCare, lack of attention to the crisis in employment for almost a year, and so on. Some Democrats think that the problem goes beyond the agenda and extends to Obama’s conception of a President. After having borne themselves the brunt of scoldings from Obama in his State of the Union speech, Politico reports that some in his party wonder why Obama insists on casting himself as the national nanny:
For a president who ran on uplifting themes like change and hope, Barack Obama spends an awful lot of time scolding Americans about how he hopes they’ll change.
He has advised parents to “replace that video game with a book and make sure that homework gets done.” He has urged members of Congress not to read blogs or watch 24-hour cable news. And he’s challenged lobbyists, lawmakers, bankers, journalists, insurance companies and other heads of state to do a better job.
He’s prodded people to get off the couch, eat healthier and exercise more. He’s even suggested Americans buy stocks, U.S.-made cars and energy-efficient light bulbs, while cautioning them not to max out their credit cards.
At times, having Obama in the Oval Office is like having a really powerful Dr. Phil around.
Well, Dr. Phil never whines about how much work Dr. Laura left him when he gained pre-eminence, so I’m not sure that analogy works.
Carol Lee quotes former Clinton aides DeeDee Myers and Paul Begala as saying some of this might be necessary, but too much becomes damaging, which is absolutely true. No one respects a manager who constantly crabs about everyone around him but doesn’t roll up his or her own sleeves to participate in the work. That’s exactly what Obama has done for the past year in pushing Congress to act without bothering to present his own specific ideas to contribute to the effort.
However, part of this comes straight from the agenda itself. After all, if Democrats want to build a nanny state, someone has to be Nanny in Chief, and Obama assumes that will be him. GOP strategist John Feehery says that no one likes a scold, but what has become crystal clear is that the Democratic agenda will put government in that position — with tremendous power to punish what it sees as bad behavior. The founders worried that a strong central government would accrue too much power to infringe on personal choice rather than sticking to truly national issues, which is why they wrote the Constitution to sharply curtail its ability to do just that.
Obama’s problem isn’t just that he acts like a nanny; it’s that his rhetoric makes clear the direction he wants to take the US, if the agenda didn’t already make that clear enough as it is.
Update: I think a little Mary Katharine Ham would be just perfect for this post (thanks to HA commenter Forest for the suggestion):
She came to the same conclusion almost two years ago.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
US population: approximately 300 million.
Indian population: approximately 1 billion.
Chinese population: approximately 1.5 billion.
Canadian population: approximately 33 million
Davey, if you are going to whine about a country being “too big”, how about picking on India and China?
Oops, damn, I assumed he was thinking logically.
Wanderlust on February 8, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Damn, here I thought drywall was leaving. But you can’t keep your stupid mouth shut, can ya, Davey?
Hey a$$hole, I am a US citizen who has dual citizenship (US/NZ) and currently lives in Australia (I am about to get permanent residency here in Oz). I think from my travels over the years that I appreciate much more than you the role US politics has in world affairs. Yet you never see me whining about it.
Wonder why?
Oh, that’s right, it’s because I am a US citizen and I get to vote in US elections.
When you get the privilege to vote in the US, drywall, only then can you rightfully have a say in US politics.
Until then, f*ck off already, idiot…
Wanderlust on February 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM
I can see it now….liberals charge that Ham called mid-westerners hicks.
——-
Davey my boy— what about those that did complain about large government under Bush? What about those Americans that will get stuck paying for this. Whether they were loud or not this spending is just crazy. Is something right or wrong based on the criticism it receivers or rather on its own merits. That argument is getting tired.
BTW early in Bush’s first term I warned that he was not a conservative and many castigated me. No go back under your rock Canuck.
CWforFreedom on February 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Well duh…..shouldn’t the Caliph (just curious has he found a church in DC yet?) be able to decide what his slaves do?
PappyD61 on February 8, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Obama’s problem isn’t just that he acts like a nanny; it’s that his rhetoric makes clear the direction he wants to take the US
All I can say is that I hope he goes into full bitch mode when the NFL and player’s union fail to renew the salary cap agreement which has kept the game great for the last 10 plus years. Without someone pounding the bully pulpit, the NFL will destroy itself, turning into a pimping competition that ruins the small franchises like Minnesota and New Orleans.
Teddy Roosevelt was also known to loudly voice his opinions and scold the public, yet the country didn’t turn into a socialist paradise.
bayam on February 8, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Well, Michelle Obama did tell us that “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
She did tell us the man is a pain-in-the-ass nag. The sensible amongst us listened and refused to vote for him. The morons inflicted him on us.
SilentWatcher on February 8, 2010 at 8:26 PM
She didn’t tell us, though, that Barack is both uninvolved and uninformed.
SilentWatcher on February 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM
This should be no surprise to anyone who heard Michelle Obama speak about her husband during the campaign:
Emphasis mine. Sounds just like a National Nanny, doesn’t it?
tom on February 8, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Straight to the heart of the issue. There’s nothing wrong with acting like a nanny, when you are a nanny. But when dealing with adults, not children, treat them as such.
tom on February 8, 2010 at 8:49 PM
I love ya, Ed!
jgapinoy on February 8, 2010 at 8:58 PM
mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, Mary Katharine Ham.
I love her.
mrt721 on February 8, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Heh.
massrighty on February 8, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Obama can dish it out but he can’t take the heat. Obama doesn’t like to be scolded or critized.
TN Mom on February 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Yeah, while he is chauffered around in a big SUV and cranks up the heat to Hawaii temperatures in the White House.
This nanny lecturing crap is another example of what a girly man he is. Mom pants.
atheling on February 9, 2010 at 12:46 AM
He’s our NannyNazi.
Dhuka on February 9, 2010 at 2:31 AM
For one thing, we could easily go for weeks without hearing about George Bush or pretty much anything political unless we actively sought such info. Unlike Dear Leader President Bush could lead without his mug on the boob tube 24-7, nor did he lecture us on how we should live our lives.
As for downsizing government, how could the Republicans do that? Sure, many would not (RINOs we call them), but I still remember the whining from the Leftards back in the ’90s when Gingrich and the House Republicans tried to do just that, and also Reagan back in the ’80s (not so much the MSM as they were well aware of the “Reagan Democrats” and they were basically afraid of him, but there was a seething hatred of Reagan and Conservatism in general-the TV evangelists/Moral Majority provided the perfect opportunity for an indirect attack on the Reagan/Bush Sr. thing).
What happens is the Republicans try to cut wasteful spending and entitlement programs and they are excoriated for being racists and not caring about “the poor”, the whales, the snail darters, the flies, the baby fur seals and Gaia in general.
It’s political poison to take away what millions think is their money and programs and having millions more far better off that feel sorry for them and can’t see why the evil rich couldn’t pay just a little bit more whining from the sidelines.
The only wasteful spending as far as the Libtards are concerned is anything spent on national defense or anything that allows individuals and companies who have earned their money to keep it.
Dr. ZhivBlago on February 9, 2010 at 6:28 AM
Except for the 14% who are unemployed due to idiotic Obama administration policies, that is.
NoDonkey on February 9, 2010 at 9:57 AM
I respectfully disagree. He is becoming the National Overseer admonishing us little people on the plantation to do what he says – - or else.
kens on February 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM
I am not a party zealot. I vote all across the board.
I prefer to keep a mix of parties in power to counter balance each other.
Your typical responses to anyone here are usually always sophomoric & idiotic, having nothing to do with the topic at hand (like your FEMA jab at me here), which is why you took so long to answer my question half-a$$.
You are a spoiled brat. You whine about how we are ‘too big’, too much power & influence, blah blah blah.
That is jealousy in any book.
I think the ‘too big’ comment is hilarious.
You are lucky the American Revolution’s Canadian campaign didn’t work out or you would be a part of this country you see to hate so much.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Narcissists cannot handle being criticized.
Their response is to blame, polarize, demonize, & destroy their criticizers.
Narcissists are often extremely evil people.
Badger40 on February 9, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Isn’t that word spelled N-i-n-n-y?
justltl on February 9, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3