There is much talk among conservative political pundits these days about what they like to call the ‘nanny state.’ For those who aren’t regular perusers of the right-wing media, the nanny state is generally used to describe a society in which the government takes an active role in social and economic affairs.

One of the more ardent nanny state naysayers is a Canadian named Mark Steyn. A prolific and ubiquitous newspaper columnist, Steyn is a self-described 'pro-Washington madman’ who has largely abandoned his native land for the 'live free or die' state of New Hampshire. His is a witty and engaging writer, and is emerging as the standard bearer of the political right; he is frequently lauded by right-wing bloggers as the best of the conservative pundits.

He recently wrote a piece on the late Swedish foreign minster Anna Lindh, who was murdered last September. Noting that Lindh was stabbed in a busy department store, and that none of the bystanders jumped to accost the killer as he ran off, Steyn concluded that their reticence was the product of living in socialist Sweden. The Swedish welfare state, went Steyn's argument, had created a 'culture of passivity.'

Ah yes, of course. Try to make a link between your average workplace gun massacre and lax firearm restrictions and a guy like Steyn will be all over you with charges of quack sociology, but he has no problem drawing a straight line between the freak murder of a politician in Stockholm and Swedish social policy. Don’t let all those robust hockey players deceive you, it appears the place is some kind of cross between Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ and Fritz Lang’s ‘Metropolis;’ a society of dozy automatons too stupefied to throw themselves in front of a knife.

Steyn’s thesis seems a bit of a stretch. Look right here in Vancouver. We live in one of the more liberal cities in a country he often derides as a 'decayed dominion' beset by 'Euro-statism,' yet we've seen some notable acts of bravery from what should, by his reasoning, be an utterly passive citizenry. Think of Anthony McNaughton a few years ago, or the recent heroics of Rachel Davis, both losing their lives while intervening in violent attacks. Or Langley schoolteacher Mohamed Chelali, the guy who went to Paris on holiday and ended up wrestling with the would-be assassin of Jacques Chirac after he fired a shot at the French leader during the last Bastille Day parade. (Of course, saving Chirac’s ass won’t exactly win you kudos from the North American political right.)

Nonetheless, pundits like Steyn make a good living on routine denouncements of the supposed corroding effects of the the state upon its citizens in places like Sweden and Canada. Nothing like a good nanny state diatribe when you’re not raging against the French, decrying the perceived bias of the New York Times and the BBC, or sneering at the remonstrations of Sean Penn.

It was a bit surprising therefore, to see Andrew Sullivan, a much read blogger and columnist who is generally sympathetic to many conservative ideas, turn his sights on an unlikely target---the American government. In a 'Time' magazine article entitled ‘Nanny in Chief,’ Sullivan pilloried the man right-wingers like Steyn have hailed as their savior from the smothering stench of the nanny’s diapers; George W. Bush himself.

“When your individual choices conflict with what the Bush people think is good for you,” wrote Sullivan, “they have been only too happy to intervene. The government, Bush clearly believes, has a right to be involved in many personal decisions you make — punishing some, encouraging others, nudging and prodding the public to live the good life as the President understands it.”

Sullivan concludes that Bush is “fusing Big Government liberalism with religious-right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash. Your cash, that is. And their morals.”

Good grief. Sweden, Canada, America...will the real nanny state please stand up? Sullivan apparently received a bunch of testy e-mails from the neo-con crowd. He’s always been a bit of renegade amongst conservatives, espousing things like gay marriage on the basis of equality and freedom of choice. Perhaps it’s because he’s not one of the true blue conservative club that he can step outside of the politics-as-team-sports mentality. The fact is, he has a point, and whether one agrees with him or not he is at least consistent enough to apply his anti-big government philosophy across the board.

Not so with a large chunk of the right-wing media. Clustered around their man Bush like a Praetorian guard around a Roman emperor, they are relatively relaxed as they watch a president who allows deficits to balloon, tariffs walls to be raised, privacy-invading legislation to be enacted, and programs to be put in place that allow the U.S. government to use tax dollars to leverage the kind of personal behavior deemed appropriate by the ruling party.

Always self-described champions of individual liberty, the position of many on the right seems as follows: If an expansion of state influence originates with your political enemies, it's cause for outrage and contempt. If it starts with your political friends, you let it slide.

Talk about a culture of passivity.