A couple of years ago while I was dining with a fellow from New York who happened to be a family friend of the mayor, I asked the young man what New Yorkers thought of the mayor’s attempts to regulate the diet of his city’s denizens by banning or taxing items and portions that he found objectionable. The fellow replied that there was widespread support of the mayor’s noble efforts. This chap was part of the mayor’s circle, and he was of the same stock—wealthy, Jewish, left-leaning, and well connected. So, perhaps it was not surprising that he enthusiastically agreed with the mayor’s aims, but he offered me a window to see how such folks think. I asked him what business it was of the city government to tell people what size soft drinks they could sell or purchase. He said that the government has a responsibility to look after the health of its people. Given our social welfare and medical safety net, he argued that it was necessary to encourage or even to coerce (nicely) healthy choices, as someone’s poor decisions can easily become a burden to his neighbors.
Of course, the fellow had a point. Socialists acknowledge that we are all in this together, which is quite true. I wanted to know, though, how this young man and his friend the mayor could so quickly see the rationality of compelling “healthy” food vending practices while never considering the regulation of the populace’s sexual practices, which have important and far reaching consequences. Before the Stonewall riots, New York City took an interest in sexual deviancy due to community moral and public health concerns. For the bathhouse culture and the many social and venereal afflictions that inhere and result from that way of life arguably affect its practitioners more than drinking eight more ounces of Coca-Cola during meals. Why is the left-liberal mind incapable of recognizing the need for the city to “legislate” morality in certain areas of human life but seems so ready and willing to tell other people what to do in other areas?
When I suggested that the mayor was contradicting himself by supporting a homosexualist agenda and by pushing soft public health tyranny in other ways, the fellow replied that it was sheer bigotry to suggest that homosexual behavior was a health risk. I responded by mentioning some of the public health facts that the public health establishment no longer cares to mention. See, for example, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” by Timothy Dailey of the Family Research Council. Regardless of one’s views of homosexuality, the public health aspect—the one on which Mayor Bloomberg and his allies stake their powers to dictate what New Yorkers should eat and drink—seems pretty settled. If a city wishes to promote public health, it should discourage many tendencies that seem to go along with homosexuality as it is currently practiced in contemporary America. Facts be damned, though, if a liberal commits himself to the notion that (almost) all sexual practices should be treated equally. Dailey’s findings are, as Steve Sailer might say, hate facts.
As much as I try to investigate the leftist mind, and as often as I interview our sinister friends or read critical theories that attempt to explain them, I just do not understand them. Perhaps, Bloomberg and my dinner partner find the sexual matters of human life too “sacred” or whatever the equivalent is for materialistic atheists for state intrusion, whereas they do not think that regulating food or cigarettes steps on anyone’s toes. After all, fat people can get skinny, again, and smokers can stop smoking; so it’s not a true hardship for them. Suggesting that homosexuals can cease from homosexual activity just as gluttons can stop pigging out does not appear to be acceptable. Is it because homosexuality is a permanent condition for them, like ethnicity or origin, and the liberal cannot bear to treat different people as if they were different when they cannot help their differences? I do not know.