Let Freedom Pop

Left-wingers may like freedom in theory but aren’t really fans of it in practice, because freedom means that people can make decisions they don’t like. And when freedom gets in the way of statist goals, they attack the definition of freedom. In a recent editorial in the Daily Beast, liberal commentator Michael Tomasky takes on what he terms as “the freedom to be fat,” decries massive tubs of movie popcorn, and says that many Americans don’t know “the difference between ‘freedom’ and mere selfishness or stupidity.”

(Photo: justpoppin.com)

“As part of the health-care law,” writes Tomasky, “new rules would require restaurants and other food-serving establishments to post nutritional information. Movie theaters were on the original list sent out by the FDA. But, the (New York) Times reports, after some White House intercessions, cinemas were dropped from the list.”

Tomasky points out that the largest servings of movie-theater popcorn contain a whole day’s worth of fat. But it’s estimated that the average American adult only  goes to the movies about four times per year, so even if you get the jumbo popcorn every time that’s not going to make you fat. And those jumbo popcorn buckets are often shared by two or more people. Evidence also shows that nutritional info posted in restaurants or other food-serving establishments have or little or no effect on what customers order.

But this is about more than popcorn. Tomasky goes on to the larger matter of personal freedom vs. government mandates: “… I don’t want to pass laws mandating the eating of broccoli. But I do want us to understand how wrong and simple-minded our definition of freedom is today. Any time the government appears to be suggesting some program aimed at getting people to do something that is obviously good for themselves—buying health insurance, not eating (huge buckets of popcorn)—a certain number of idiots jump up and cry ‘Ha! Nanny state! Taking away my freedom!’ This, according to that Times article, is what the Obama administration feared Fox and Glenn Beck would do if it issued too many new FDA rulings.”

Here, the author displays the irresistible liberal urge to dismiss those with opposing viewpoints as idiots, ignoramuses, bigots, etc. His argument is not that the idiots are wrong because the government is not trying to take away your freedom, it’s that the (well, we) idiots have the wrong definition of freedom. (Also, how often has Obama based policy around what Fox News would say? It’s clear his administration can’t stand that network.)

Tomasky argues that we need to redefine freedom in order to pave the way for the government intervention he wants. “Eating anything you want isn’t a definition of freedom,” Tomasky writes. “It’s just indulgence.”  I’d call it the freedom to be indulgent and to accept the consequences that go with it. I’m sure Tomasky would consider the choice not to indulge to be a legitimate freedom, so why is it a fake form of freedom to choose the opposite?

When the author questions “the freedom to be fat,” he’s really talking about the freedom to eat what you want. (“The freedom to be fat” is a skewed phrase because one can eat a certain amount of fatty foods without becoming fat.) If you’re only free to make the “right,” government-approved decision, you’re not really free. Fortunately, we get to choose which freedoms matter to us as free individuals. So pass that buttery popcorn and cherish your freedoms while I head back to the concession stand for the best cinema snack, Junior Mints.