Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote this book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness.” Generally speaking the book explains how enlightening “choice architecture” can inspire decisions which will make people happier. Some such choices are decisions about broccoli consumption, increasing retirement savings and reducing strip mining inter alia. Says Sunstein to an interviewer:
A nudge is a small change in the social context that makes behavior very different without forcing anyone to do anything. The concept behind libertarian paternalism is that it is possible to maintain freedom of choice–that’s libertarianism–while also moving people in the directions that make their own lives a bit better–that’s paternalism.
What does this say about the “nudgeability” of the new regulation making contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization free of charge to the recipients? On the other hand, Santorum says:
Sunstein believes that it is right to nudge folks into being happier and he expressly wields the federal government’s nudge powers in order to achieve that result. Santorum believes that generally taking more care with respect to the procreative power of the sex act will make people happier and will be better for our society to boot. Santorum emphasizes that he would not eliminate the availability of contraceptives for anyone who wishes to obtain them but would only deny the federal government the power to make people of faith subsidize contraceptives His aim, I suppose, is to nudge people into being less promiscuous by driving up the cost. (Of course, contraceptives are pretty inexpensive anyway so the expense of birth control would seem to be rather minimal in that decision-making calculus). According to Sunstein though small “architectural” changes can have a big impact. Maybe Santorum is just using Sunstein as his model? In any event, what is the difference, if any, between these guys? We’ll get to that in a minute.
Another enlightening exchange between his interviewer and Sunstein is this:
Q. Paternalism implies that there’s some notion of what “good” is. How does anyone determine what ‘s “good”?How do we determine what is good for the environment?
A. For most nudges, we’re thinking of people’s good by reference to their own judgments and evaluations. We’re not thinking that the government should make up its own decision about what’s good for people. The environment can fit within that framework to a substantial extent, but it has a wrinkle, which is that often when we buy certain goods or use certain energy or drive certain cars. . . we inflict harm on others, so our own judgment about our own welfare aren’t complete. We want nudges that do help people who are being nudged but also help people who are harmed by those who are not taking adequate account of the risks they are imposing on other people.
Emphasis added.
Isn’t there likewise, to use Sunstein’s language, a ‘wrinkle’ in the idea of contraception which leads to more uncommitted sex which is itself having negative effects on the society as a whole? Shouldn’t this risk be taken into account as well? Or is the difference between Santorum and Sunstein related to the idea that catastrophic and anthropomorphic global warming is now such a firmly established scientific principle that there can be no legitimate debate about what behaviors cause this result? But isn’t there also scientific evidence that a major cause of the breakdown of the family and society can be laid at the doorstep of contraception, promiscuity and over 40 million abortions? Why can’t the freedom to be promiscuous be somehow nudged against in the same way that it is apparently okay to nudge people against driving certain cars or buying too many appliances? It is certainly not about disagreement about the nudging itself, both men are open to that. In fact Sunstein espouses it much more forthrightly than Santorum. For his part Santorum takes pains to deny that he would refuse the right to purchase contraceptives to anyone.
The new HHS regulations must have been approved by Czar Sunstein, the President’s regulatory Czar. What nudging was he engaging in with these HHS requirements requiring employers/insurers to provide free birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations to their employees? Was he attempting to nudge more people to act more freely with respect to sharing their sexuality? To be fair he, Sunstein, may believe or at least hope that making contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations free will have no effect on increasing promiscuity? If he’s wrong in his belief and hope, won’t “nudged” promiscuity impact the institution of the family, the raising of children in an intact home, and the general breakdown of society? And what would he penalize by reason of the counter-nudge? Sunstein, of course, is okay with burdening the opposite side of the “free contraceptives” argument who refuse to financially contribute to this culture of sexual freedom. In fact, he would financially destroy those who would take a principled stand against paying for things which their religion tells them are damaging to the dignity of individual men and women and to the society itself. And his mandate for employers is not a “libertarian nudge” but an devastating attack against those who are religiously motivated to refuse to comply.
What we have here is an example of nudging in favor of the secular morality which advocates for “free love” (pun intended) coupled with enforcing a destructive mandate which can only harm those holding a principled religious morality. And, as indicated, Santorum wouldn’t even ban contraceptives or sterilizations yet he is the one who stands accused of wishing to deny contraceptives to women and men who wish to use them. On the other hand Czar Sunstein is not even accused by the media of trying to ‘nudge’ an increase in uncommitted sex and general promiscuity. Sunstein and Obama seem to be making a political decision to support an increase in uncommitted sexuality while reducing fecundity because it is politically popular. Secular morality, because it is political, enhances a tendency to do what feels good even if it is actually bad for people and their society in the long run. Why is one of these men called mainstream and filled with wisdom while the other is labelled as being out of the mainstream and laughable? Has anyone else read “The Brave New World?”
Short and Sweet Blog 