Once again, children are out front in Washington. It has become a useful tactic for politicians to use children to advance policy. In the latest efforts to curb guns in the U.S., the children who died in Aurora are the catalyst for the new push. This is not to say that the nation does not mourn adults who die due to gun violence, it is that dead children add a poignancy to the issue it otherwise lacks. Who mourns cheating husbands, gang members, drug dealers, and would be muggers? Even though the vast majority of gun violence in the U.S. revolves around criminals, any gun control policy drafted around such people would be a waste of time. No, a more sympathetic group is required. What better group is there than children?
Whether the issue is welfare reform, obesity, smoking, or immigration reform, the first and best line of defense for policy is children. This is because everyone wants to protect children from harm. Yes, there are too many fat people in the U.S. But it is for the sake of the children who are fat (for no reason of their own we are told) that we must act. Yes, there are too many people who still smoke but it is to protect our children from being seduced or enticed into smoking that we need to snuff the tobacco industry out. Yes, people are being shot and killed everyday in America, but it is for the sake of our children that gun ownership be limited or banned, not for the, criminals, drug dealers and gangsters who are gunned down everyday on a regular basis.
If subsidized health care care can improve the quality of life for our children, then aren't we obliged to provide it? If restricting school diets and banning junk food can keep our children from becoming obese, aren't we obliged to do so? If loosening immigration laws can lead to a better life for the children of illegal immigrants, doesn't decency demand that that we overlook the violation of our laws and let the family of that child stay? If altering how women are portrayed in the media might reduce self esteem issues in teenage girls, shouldn't we do something about it? If so, then if it can be demonstrated that private ownership of firearms jeopardizes the lives of our children, then we need curb the ownership of them.
We are frequently asked to alter our behavior for the sake of the future. We tend to the environment not so much for ourselves as for those who will come after us.We set aside some of our ambitions when we take upon ourselves the obligation of raising a child. We put off things to ensure we will have the means to assist our children in the future. Strangely, that same logic is not applied to the debt. If balancing the budget can keep our children out of financial peril, shouldn't we do it?
When all else fails, we are asked to do it for the children. We are told we forget for a moment our position on whether the Constitution allows for individuals to own guns and think of the innocent children who are victims of gun violence. We are asked to put aside our concerns over the financial disaster looming in our future to consider what cutbacks in spending will mean to people who are dependent on government spending and their children. We are urged to temper our opinions on immigration and think of the millions of immigrant children who, through no fault of their own, find their futures at risk.
Acting on behalf of our children is fast becoming the first resort of progressives. Our children are alternately used as bait to garner the support of the public and hostages to defend government spending. We are told that we need to act against obesity because children are at risk. We are told we must reform education in this country because if we don't, our children will languish and be fated to low incomes and ignorance. They are also used as shields to protect government programs. When budgets need to be cut we are told it is the children who will suffer, not government workers and contractors.
We want to protect our children from violence even as we remain willfully blind to its causes. We want our children to grow up in stability even as we work to undermine families. We suspend our personal wants to tend to our children's needs. Yet we are willing to subject our children to economic peril through our reckless spending. We are willing to expose them to the social and political turmoil that will inevitably result from changing demographics as different groups and ethnicities jockey for position and power. We are willing to expose our children to anomie as we deconstruct the traditions and virtues upon which our society, indeed every society that has ever existed, was built. We are content to lead them into the subjectivity of "values" by presenting them with a collection of "goods" that are not recognized to be binding, but only desired. We tell our children they should grow up to lead principled, ethical lives even as we can offer them no reason why they should. If we tell our children they should aspire to a modest life free from vanity and limitless desire we do so against long odds as we must compete against a culture that tells them they should have everything. If we attempt to tell our kids that life isn't fair we are countered by those who assert that they are being short changed if they find themselves with less than others.
Society has only a tangential obligation to our kids and that through social casuistry. Nevertheless, for progressives, that is enough. Because progressives conflate the social with the political, that means government has an obligation to our children because to the progressive mind there is no distinction between society and government. If we are to move society forward we have to change what people think and how they behave. Bad behavior must be rooted out and desired behavior instilled in its place. Law has become the preferred method because in addition to their other virtues, progressives are impatient. They do not have the patience to wait for society to come around to their way of thinking. There is also the danger that society might not ever come around unless it is compelled. Left to themselves, people might forever wallow in their ignorance, selfishness, and short sightedness and never find their way to the future. They must be compelled by law. Law can only be passed by government. We can counsel our neighbors as to how they should raise their children but only the government can compel.
We will restrict gun ownership to protect the lives of our children. We will redesign products to protect their safety. We will regulate what food can be offered in school cafeterias to protect their health. We will regulate the media to protect their minds. We like to tell ourselves that we would do anything for our children yet we have been unwilling to get the deficit under control to protect their future. If we are serious about taking care of our children and giving them a secure future, we need to change that.
