Bad Precedent, Impossible Standard

---by Micheal

At a recent board of selectmen meeting in my town, there was both a bad precedent set, and an impossible goal voiced. The Nanny State creeps into small town government quietly.

First: The Problem. A resident had his house broken into early one morning. There was no town police officer on duty at that time. Three of them were out on medical leave, so the shift was unfilled. The call was routed to the State Police who took 25 minutes to get there. There was much outrage.

Second: The Bad Precedent. Selectmen, reacting to the upset resident, decided to hire an additional police officer. Whether they have the authority to do so will remain to be sorted out. Town residents have balked repeatedly over the years at budget requests to add to town-paid staff. One selectman exposed a sentiment which is poison for democracy. "Such decisions should not be decided by the town," said one selectmen. The selectmen, being so much better qualified, should decide. Incredibly, the audience applauded such arrogance.

The selectmen exhibited that hallmark Nanny State attitude. Only government officials know best. The voting majority can and should be ignored...for their own good! Thus begins the smug elitist's reign. Democracy is nothing but a hollow ritual. The State knows best and should decide all.

Third: The Impossible Standard. The break-in victim told the selectmen than residents have "a fundamental right to feel safe." I was shocked at the thought. Now, I can sympathize with his feelings. I've been there twice before -- once with the house, and once with my car. The feeling of being vulnerable and violated are powerful. I know that. But his is a completely impossible expectation. No town, no state, can ever satisfy collective feelings. What if a resident doesn't feel safe unless there is a policeman assigned to their driveway 24/7? It cannot be the job of any town's government to satisfy residents' feelings.

The victim-resident and audience expose the dark flip side of the Nanny State. Residents demand that their government be responsible for everything -- including their feelings. This resident's beef is with the other voters in the town. THEY voted to add only one policemen to the budget, not two. He should be demanding of the voters, at the next town meeting, that THEY satisfy his feelings. How far do you suspect that demand will go? The voters can take on that task or remind him that our collective safety is a shared burden, not a service to be ordered from the front desk.

The Nanny State does not have to arrive in jackboots or paratroops. It can sneak in quietly as local officials assume a smarter-than-thou arrogance, and residents demand nanny service.