Eat Your Vegetables...Or Else

For many liberal policies, its greatest force field is, “Who would object to this?”  Such ideologues focus on agendas they proclaim in need of improvement and whose impact, if successful, would help said group/issue/policy.  With this in mind, the First Lady set out on an agenda to ameliorate the lunch programs in public schools.  To her dismay (as well as her supporters), there is a large push back from Democrats, Republicans, state governments, school districts and parents.

As with many government programs based on good intentions, little to no thought is given to how much it will cost and, more importantly, who is going to pay for it.  Republicans have been lambasted by some activists for daring to bring up such a fundamental question.  Once more, people on the right have been the target of some high-handed demagoguery, accused of not caring about children and, worse yet, wanting to hurt their nutritional well-being. 

At the core of this is an old, liberal argument – one, government can solve all of our problems because, two, we as ordinary citizens cannot.  Concerned citizens, like Americans throughout our history, measure our freedom by the choices we have.  Education institutions are the most cash-strapped organizations on the local level – most federal funding is dependent upon local schools adopting and implementing federal mandates.  With the ongoing recession that the president cannot seem to rectify, schools are being asked to shoulder burdens with which their constituents do not agree.  It is not surprising that Mrs. Obama is getting such resistance. 

On another issue, there is the question of the food itself.  Federal mandates on daily caloric requirements, salt content and other considerations have left cafeterias serving increasingly “bland” food in the words of students.  The students are seeking other options and typically, it does not include the “mandated” food.  An increase in home lunches (not an altogether bad idea) has cut into the funds that schools typically get from providing lunches and, in some cases, breakfast meals.  Caloric mandates seem a bit silly as well as if to say that all high school students should be at the same level.  Common sense would suggest that is not possible or advisable.  Parents are at the gates with some of these concerns and they are not happy.

In addition to the direct impacts on what cafeterias do or do not offer, the policies set forth by the First Lady are causing collateral damage.  Things such as bake sales of are being eliminated in favor of healthier options – strangely enough, these options are not quite the sellers as their predecessors.  As usual with top-down “solutions” to problems, Mrs. Obama’s directives are having unforeseen (to the architects of these polices) consequences but the First Lady is not backing down.  As Republican and Democratic policy makers are trying to find a way out of the restrictive and expensive program, Mrs. Obama has reasserted that change is sometimes painful but necessary.  An easy sentiment to throw out when one is not confronted with the reality of their actions.

I can appreciate the concerns that led Mrs. Obama to put forth these policies but ultimately, they come from a paternalistic mindset.  Ronald Reagan said that government was not the answer, it was the problem and in this case, a haughty attitude has turned what could have a great initiative and educational program at the local levels into a mandatory dictate that riles our evolutionary-engrained suspicion of government solutions.  One could hope the push-back might be a cautionary tale for such only-government-is-the-answer advocates but I doubt it.