Hillary Clinton's concept of a village as ideal means for raising children is a sugar-coated plea not only for federalizing child care but for increasing government control in our lives. According to her reasoning, if we only cede more of our money, freedom and good sense to the "village," (i.e. the state) we will be raising a nation of little angels before long, because the village, represented by bureaucrats and social workers, knows just as well or better than parents how to raise children.
In Hillary Clinton's recent speech to the Democratic convention, and the introduction to her book, "It Takes a Village," (Simon and Schuster, 1996) she portrays her model of society as part of a larger consensus which would guide our collective behavior if it were not for a handful of unnamed extremists. After stating some very obvious and banal facts about the information age and our increasingly mobile society in the introduction, she emphasizes ad nauseam the need for "balancing individual rights...with mutual obligations" throughout her book. This means surrendering our individual choice in exchange for paternalistic coercion with a forced smile.
The village metaphor here bears an eerie resemblance to "the Village" of the late 1960s British TV show "The Prisoner," starring Patrick McGoohan. In the series, the protagonist is kidnapped and taken to the Village, a society where all necessities are provided - except freedom. Everyone has a number, not a name, and Village authority is never questioned. All aspects of the inhabitants' behavior and even thought are closely monitored and controlled. Any dissent is quietly and violently dealt with, while pleasant broadcasts cheerfully remind Villagers of their "social obligations." The Village leaders try to convince the independence-minded McGoohan that the Village is the ideal blueprint for society at large, and that he should give up his futile rebellion and conform to peaceful Village life.
Of course, Hillary Clinton is not proposing such an Orwellian nightmare, but the essentials are the same. Her message is that you and your children would be better off if you conformed to our happy ideal of a society largely organized and directed by us, the benevolent and wise elite.
Unfortunately, many Americans are duped by such "caring" rhetoric and the pretense of concern, and walk away from the ballot box thinking that the Anointed Caregivers in Washington or Tallahassee will somehow improve their lot. They do not realize or care that some of us want to be free to think and act for ourselves, and that we do not want to live in "the village."