| Consider for instance the idea that lawyers should be able to bring lawsuits on behalf of animals. Sunstein's reasoning is incredibly straightforward. Most if not all states have laws against animal cruelty. An overwhelming majority of people agree that cruelty to animals is morally wrong. Yet, we permit massive, systemic cruelty in the form of factory farms. If lawsuits could be brought on behalf of animals, then the deliberately cruel practices of factory farms might be brought to an end, thus bringing our actual practices into coherence with our moral sensibilities. I have to admit I also like the idea of someone facing a lawsuit for cruelty to household pets - people who beat and starve dogs and cats and horses should face not just criminal but civil charges; how cool would it be for the court to order some bastard whose been beating his dog until the creature is blind to be ordered to sell his possessions to pay for the costs of treating the dog? Growing up, we had dogs and cats and horses and we were always responsible. One of the first things I did when the cat beast moved in my house was schedule an appointment with the vet to make sure we did not end up with unwanted kittens; there are dozens of strays (including one really cute black and white cat that gives you a look that says clearly she wants to be in your arms but she afraid of you) in my neighborhood already the last thing Salt Lake needs is another copiously breeding tabby. (Besides, I didn't want my cat deal with the stigma of unwed motherhood.)
Yet, from our friends on the right we're hearing hysterical cries that somehow Sunstein's entirely bland suggestion will lead to our household pets suing us for not providing them their favorite kibble. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous - because such attacks aren't really about specifics of the issues. They're about making it politically unfeasible to think about social problems and suggest solutions, they're about making the political cost of finding solutions to problems so high that no one who does so will want to venture into public life. It is all about maintaining a status quo. It's difficult not to believe that the fear is that these solutions would work - and would demonstrate that government with relatively innocuous policies could easily create a much more positive and stable society. If that were to happen, the actual intellectual bankruptcy of conservative anti-government ideology would be laid bare for all to see.
In a recent post on this topic, Ezra Klein observed:
In his book "Nudge," Cass Sunstein proposed a way to save more lives: Make the default for organ donation "yes." Anyone who didn't want to donate their organs could check the box "no." But if nothing was done, if the question was examined and left untouched, that person would be an organ donor. It's a smart solution to a hard problem. Predictably, some conservative outlets have fastened on this for their next line of attack: "Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People's Organs Without Explicit Consent," blared CNS News. You'd think Sunstein was going to leave America in a bathtub full of ice with a scar running down its back. [snip]
It's a politics that is flatly opposed to considering hard choices on difficult dilemmas. That is flatly opposed, in other words, to thinking. That, however, is also a choice: It is a brief for the consequences of inertia, and against the possibility of progress. That will sound good to its advocates, I guess, as long as Obama is in office, and up till the day when one of their children needs an organ transplant.
I'm not quite done with Sunstein's The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution--And Why We Need It More Than Ever. In several parts, Sunstein's gets lost in the weeds. but it is a fascinating book that meditates at length on the question "What if, in addition to specific political rights, were also believed a set of economic rights and how would that affect our nation?" Sunstein explores a second question - one John McGowan also explored in his book American Liberalism - the notion of effective freedom. Sunstein talks about the legal realists of the 1930s and the thinkers who inspired FDR and points out that people who lack economic means are effectively barred from participating in public life and democracy. To give an example: I've been for many years a member of a local advocacy group that works on issues of economic justice. When we attend hearings and visit the capitol, we are not representative of the people for whom we are lobbying. Here's why: the working poor are rarely able to take a day off and go the capitol and talk to legislators. That means their voices are effectively silenced and their role in democracy is greatly reduced. Another example: If you do shiftwork, on election day it can be difficult to get to a polling place. We have a law in Utah that requires employers to allow employees on election day to take time without penalty while the polls are open (if their shifts would not otherwise allow them to vote). It's amazing how few employees take advantage of this right, how few employees actually know about it and as a result, don't vote on election day (or at all). Sunstein looks at the Second Bill of rights proposed by FDR and explores it from a variety of angles, asking a number of very interesting and key questions - how is it that for a time, we seemed on our way to accepting as a matter of settled law the second bill of rights but stopped and why is it that some nations have written economic rights into their constitutions and why haven't we? If there something unique in the American political environment that has created a hostility to the second bill of rights? And so on.
Sunstein's book explores territory that social democrats, liberals, progressives and political thinkers have explored for at least a century now (consider that Teddy Roosevelt called for a national health care policy). These are hardly radical ideas from a fringe crackpot. Yet, WorldNetDaily (aka WingNutDaily), has a breathlessly funny article attacking Sunstein's thinking on the Second Bill of Rights (one which demonstrates that the author the article doesn't actually understand Sunstein's book and which makes we wonder if they've actually read it).
The article begins:
A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.
A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return.
A nation that has the power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.
This is not a description of Cuba, communist China or the old USSR. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny.
Richard Nixon once proposed the US adopt a "full employment" policy. These are hardly radical ideas, despite the coming attempt of the right to portray Sunstein as some sort escapee from the politburo. The right - having picked off Van Jones - is going to go after anyone and every member of the Obama administration they can in an attempt to make them appear controversial. Don't fall for it. We need very smart people thinking about solutions to social problems and we need those people to play a role in government. The right is attempting to engage in a form of censorship in which any idea not approved of by James Dobson or Karl Rove is considered beyond the pale of public discussion. They should not be allowed to distort public discussion by simply declaring any person to the left Dick Cheney a socialist. |
