Allow me to start with a caveat: I’m no fan of Michelle Obama.
She’s a statist, or more specifically a nanny-statist, who supports
her husband’s econo-moronic policies while spending huge quantities
of taxpayer money to support her lavish vacations.
But even Michelle Obama can have a good day, and — based on her
op-ed in the Wall Street Journal — Thursday was such
a day.
“The Business Case for Healthier Food Options” makes a mostly
free-market case for the cause she champions of increasing health
and reducing obesity among children.
Bringing a smile to my face as I thought of it bringing a scowl
to union leaders everywhere, Mrs. Obama spent a full paragraph
complimenting Walmart:
In just the past two years, the company reports that it has cut
the costs to its consumers of fruits and vegetables by $2.3 billion
and reduced the amount of sugar in its products by 10%. Wal-Mart
has also opened 86 new stores in underserved communities and
launched a labeling program that helps customers spot healthy items
on the shelf. And today, the company is not only seeing increased
sales of fresh produce, but also building better relationships with
its customers and stronger connections to the communities it
serves.
If Walmart can do well by doing good, they should. Investors and
those who value free society should hope that their actions are not
being made with the expectations of losses (or of profits that
would not normally represent an acceptable return on capital) and
that they are not being bullied into making decisions that they
wouldn’t otherwise make. It will be interesting to see if Walmart
ever comments on the bottom-line financial impact of the projects
and stores that Mrs. Obama is complimenting.
To the extent that Walmart shows that companies can generate
profits by thinking outside the box and that one need not be a
martyr in order to deal with certain critics, Walmart may be
blazing a trail for other companies.
A personal aside: As an Objectivist, I don’t view either
“helping others” or “altruism” as necessarily a valid goal in its
own right. That said, if a person wants to help others because it
brings him value of any sort (even if just psychological) without
sacrificing his own life, that’s a good thing. I do believe in
individual charity and volunteerism, though not out of a sense of
guilt. But government redistribution of wealth — which it can only
do through the threat of force if you don’t hand it over — is
theft cloaked in a costume of charity.
If corporations can generate profits by offering products or
services that might be more beneficial to society or certain
communities than what those corporations are offering now, and if
they make those changes voluntarily (even if pushed by public
opinion, but not by government threats), then we’re all better
off.
An important question is whether the first lady’s project “Let’s
Move!” is perceived by those she is trying to influence as
representing a well-meaning (if sometimes overbearing) pro-child
activist group or as an arm of the government.
On one hand, the Let’s Move! website makes little mention of the
federal government, and instead focuses on information about
childhood obesity. On the other hand, Let’s Move! is a .gov site,
not the .org usually associated with non-profit organizations.
The site highlights that President Obama “signed a Presidential
Memorandum creating the first-ever Task Force on Childhood Obesity
to conduct a review of every single programs [sic] and policies
relating to child nutrition and physical activity and develop a
national action plan to maximize federal resources and set concrete
benchmarks toward the First Lady’s national goal.” (Leave it to
this White House to capitalize “First Lady” when it is not an
official title, and everyone from the AP style guide to the White
House Museum says that it should not be capitalized. Of course, as
with all things Obama, the rule, according to the museum, is
“somewhat flexible.”)
Combining the implication that the power of the presidency and a
desire to “maximize federal resources” are behind Let’s Move! with
links at bottom of each of its web pages to four federal agencies
and the White House, one wonders whether Walmart and other
companies react to Michelle Obama’s suggestions the way Frank Nitti
might have reacted to a “suggestion” from Al Capone. After all, she
is the wife of the president who threatened a Democratic member of
Congress: “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”
In her op-ed, Mrs. Obama describes falling childhood obesity
rates in several states and, just as importantly for a free
society, makes a case for why employers, in addition to parents,
should voluntarily take actions designed to lessen America’s
collective girth:
We spend $190 billion a year treating obesity-related health
conditions like diabetes and heart disease, and a significant
portion of those costs are borne by America’s businesses. That’s on
top of other health-related costs like higher absenteeism and lower
worker productivity, costs that will continue to rise and threaten
the vitality of American businesses until this problem is solved
once and for all.
She’s right. There, I said it. In fact, she’s right about most
of what she says on this issue, and these changes should be cheered
(though I have no way to judge how much change her group was
actually a catalyst for):
Over the past few years, through Let’s Move!…we’ve seen
teachers bringing physical education back into schools. We’ve seen
mayors building safe spaces where children can play, faith leaders
educating their congregations about healthy eating, and parents
preparing healthier meals and snacks for their kids.
But eventually, her nannyism shines through: “And we’ve seen
Republicans and Democrats working together in Congress to pass
groundbreaking legislation to improve school lunches.”
Another thing: Does Mrs. Obama really need to soak taxpayers for
the cost of promoting her pet project? If the administration can
shake $500,000 out of individual donors to get repeated access to
the president, can’t Michelle raise some tax-deductible
donations from charity-minded Americans who want to support
her cause and meet the “First Lady”?
Scanning through my pocket copy of the Constitution, I have yet
to find authority for Congress or any other part of the federal
government to be involved with “improving school lunches.” Perhaps
certain legislation is “groundbreaking” because (much) earlier
Congresses recognized limits on federal authority.
Perhaps certain legislation is “groundbreaking” in much the same
way that an incautious construction crew, in breaking ground for a
new project, accidentally breaks a sewer line. Actually, the latter
is much better than the former since the sewer lines are always
repaired whereas the intrusiveness and expense of the Nanny State
are rarely undone.
Speaking of malodorous politics, a long-time believer in
government-as-co-parent such as Michelle Obama will have an
occasional (or even frequent) bout of nannyist intellectual
flatulence. But most often, at least outside of the stifling realm
of King Michael Bloomberg, Slayer of the Big Gulp, the odor is soon
carried away in whatever fresh breeze of liberty the country has
left.
So let’s focus on the good stuff, shall we? Mrs. Obama’s
encouraging greater parental involvement and responsibility in our
children’s daily lives, right down to making better meals and doing
more physical activity, is a welcome respite from a government that
otherwise seems to believe that children are by default wards of
the state, with parents generously given certain visitation
rights.
Most of the first lady’s epistle is a welcome appeal to
individuals and private organizations to live, eat, and act in a
healthier way. As long as those she is trying to influence see her
as an activist with a passion for a particular cause rather than as
an implied threat from the federal government, Michelle Obama
should be applauded for these efforts, though my appreciation would
be far greater if she stopped sticking taxpayers with the tab.
Photo: UPI
