Without veering too much into politics, in functional families, children do not mind if their dad knows they are home and who they bring in along, and dads do not install AI-powered security cameras.

This is a trust issue.

There is something deeply disturbing about the commonality of the "paternalist" conception of government.

I've been troubled by the normalization of "daddy" and paternal government rhetoric, especially the "daddy's home" framing that's become so prevalent. This language isn't just colorful—it signals something genuinely dangerous about how we're being asked to relate to political authority.

When we accept government through a paternalistic lens, we're accepting a fundamentally anti-democratic premise: that citizens should be treated as dependents rather than as autonomous equals. This isn't new—fascist regimes have consistently used paternal imagery to justify concentrated power, from Stalin to Hitler to countless others. The "strong father" archetype is a proven tool for normalizing authoritarian control.

What's particularly troubling about the "daddy" rhetoric we're seeing is how it combines paternalism with threats of punishment and retribution. It invites a dynamic where citizens compete for approval from a leader who's positioned as both protector and disciplinarian—someone who will "spank" the nation for "misbehaving." This language erodes the principle that government authority should be accountable to the people, not the reverse.

Democracy requires citizens who see themselves as stakeholders in governance, not children waiting for a father figure to tell them what's best. When we accept government as "dad," we're tacitly accepting a hierarchy where some people are "favored children" (the in-group) and others are outsiders to be excluded or punished. History shows this path leads away from democracy.

We should resist this framing, not because strong leadership is bad, but because paternalism is incompatible with democratic equality and individual autonomy.