nudge, shove, shoot

Your post got me thinking Titus. Thinking about the very nature of Western governments, ours in particular... grow, grow, grow. Now understand something - I am going to put forth an idea that in passing seems like "conspiracy" talk. But these are real books, real positions in the White House, and real people with real power. Not to mention, we now live in a world - ala the NSA & DEA - where today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's headline.

We all agree that we are heading towards greater and greater government paternalism. And it shocks us. The people in command and control of the federal government define freedom differently. They encourage freedom from worry, from want, from mistakes. That thinking isn't new, it has reared its' ugly head before. One notable example is New Deal. "Safety Nets", baseline here and no further catch-alls for people whom just can't make it. They are sold as temporary, or emergency, if all else fails stop gaps (like Social Security) that we must enact out of "compassion."

Ok. We're compassionate. We care. Fine. Good. The problem is "temporary" and emergency fail safes become the new norm. They never go away. And what's worse, they grow exponentially. So then the next administration or congress, or three later, or five, looks around and says "hey! What the hell are all these poor doing among us? We have to do something!" So we enact the Great Society. SSI is sold as insurance incase you can't retire "in dignity" in old age, and now Great Society is incase you can't live "in dignity" during middle age, via public housing and medical care (as a side bar, I am in no way indicting those rank and file whom legitimately participated in or utilized these programs, no more than I fault the average computer programmer at the NSA for this nation's spy policy). And why do we do this? Because our "new normal" seemed insufficient, there were still poor among us after all.

So for decades we had Medicaid for the poor, and Medicare for the elderly, and after passing it we felt good as a nation because, we care. Awesome. Go us.

A couple three decades later and what's this? Why do we have all these poor among us whom can't afford health insurance? The new "normal" isn't sufficient, there are still all these damned poor! We have to do something. Obamacare. Now we not only have government subsidized insurance available, it is mandatory - under punishment of law - that you sign up. Medicare's original fiscal projection - in the 1960's - accounting for population growth and inflation was set never to exceed an expense of $80 billion annually. In 2011 just the two prescription drug plans (part C and D) cost $84.7 billion. In addition, it is by law - if he wants it - available to Bill Gates (whom ironically is worth about $80 billion). Obamacare's estimate is $1 Trillion annually... for now.

And you can take this graph line and apply it to any sector of the public domain, not just fiscal policy. Surveillance for instance. What is described as the "new temporary emergency measure" for us, is the "norm" for our children. And since there will always be poor among us, and one Hannibal or another at the gates, our children will build upon us because as a people we are inclined to improve on what our predecessors built. Here's the problem - we never say, "well that didn't work" and repeal it then start over, build something new. No, we add to whatever exists, as a "fix." And the architects justify the authority to implement that fix by pointing to what we have all accepted as "normal." Well of course they can force your 401k to buy government bonds, you already acquiesced government mandated savings authority via Social Security. Of course we must provide prescription drugs in Medicare, we already provide the procedures. Well of course we must provide a public "option" insurance provider, too many slip through the cracks of Medicaid and Medicare, the government has to fix that. Well of course we can mandate your enrollment in health insurance, your non compliance raises the medical costs of your neighbor - whom the government is subsidizing - and you can't burden the collective... and on and on and on.

One "compassionate" policy begats another. And another. And another. Until you wake up one day to find that through inaction - INaction - you are noncompliant. And at that point, resistance is futile.

The title... It's not my theory, but I've co-opted it for my own purposes. Each of the wealthy Western nations I have in mind start out, and rises to preeminence, due to an emphasis on the individual. Each fall from that preeminence based on a shift in emphasis to the collective. That "shift"occurs, I believe, through the progression of nudge, shove, shoot. And by the way, "shoot" doesn't have to literally mean at the end of a barrel. I'll explain...

There's a book titled "Nudge." It was written by two professors whom broke down effective psycho-analytic ways of influencing the population into "good" choices. From healthcare to savings, you name it. It's based on an "opt-out" model, rather than opt-in. For example, from the book: "One change is creating better default [retirement] plans for employees. Employees would be able to adopt any plan they like, but, if no action is taken, they would automatically be enrolled in an expertly designed program." They go on... "On some dimensions Bush was on the right track with the plan [prescription drugs], but that, as a piece of choice architecture, suffered from a cumbersome design that impeded good decision making...Specifically, default choices for programs should not have been random... Seniors who did not sign up for a program should have one assigned to them."

"Choice Architects." There's a nice Orwellian phrase, don't ya' think? It's subtle. And note they said "Seniors", not "Seniors already enrolled in the program." They know starting with a mandate on Americans is like a direct assault on a Roman garrison - suicide.So they start, for instance, with simply insisting healthy food be offered along side pizza in school cafeterias (and this example is right from the book). That's the nudge. Then the healthy food is placed at the line of sight for the average height student, where the pizza is now relocated behind the healthy food and just above the line of sight. That's the shove (according to me, not the book, they would contend this is all "nudge"). Then finally - as some kids still don't make the healthy choice - the pizza is removed entirely, because we still have unhealthy eaters among us. They've shot the pizza. Get it?

Healthcare, retirement, schooling... they have "Nudge Policy" for all of this, yet they are not demanding flat out that you must do this one thing or that without first laying the groundwork. They just keep eliminating choices until there is a new normal. Then they don't care what you choose, so long as the choice is compulsory. And you may say, ok, one Ivy League professor puts out a psycho-political policy book, it doesn't make it so. However, this author was Cass Sunstein. And the entire book laid out various effective tools for manipulation of the masses not by direct order, but by slowly, and permanently, removing the "bad" options from your life. And so long as choosing is compulsory, they have forced you into a "good" situation (if you don't want to choose, see the Borg declaration, page 1, section 1, paragraph 1).

So what does a Harvard professor's book have to do with any real world affect on government, or the current administration? Well not only was the good author, Professor Cass Sunstein, consulted in the crafting of Obamacare, but he served as President Obama's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009-2012. He described this as his "dream job." By the way, his wife is Samantha Powers, the current US ambassador to the UN. Sunstein literally coined the phrase "choice architect." The man wields real power and influence. Two of his other books, "Republic 2.0", and "Radicals in Robes." Get where this is going? This is the "fundamental transformation" Yoda. And less you think I'm just bashing some "liberal" Obama acolyte, this same man adamantly defended Bush's right to conduct military commissions in the war on terror. Is there any doubt on how he feels about five presidencies' authority to use the NSA, on everyone? In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to "reformulate First Amendment law." Reformulate? Wanna get even scarier? The purpose of this reformulation would be to "reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,” and thinks that“in light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.” He proposes a “New Deal for speech that would draw on Justice Bradeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.” Well, that's not creepy. I'm thinking of being Cass Sunstein for Halloween! And not only do serious people take his advice, not only did he direct that Orwellian sounding office, but he currently is instructing at America's most elite university. Now I'm sure this guy is considered by normal standards and political affiliations a "leftist", but I don't see it that way (how many leftists were defending W on the war on terror?). This guy has a single allegiance - POWER. To authority. To ensuring compliance. This man's ideology and formulations permeates both parties, one's just on a bullet train to mandating earthly nirvana and the other is riding the Union Pacific (first class no doubt). And they have BOTH made it their mission to crush this Tea Party rebellion.

Now back to the big picture point of my post. What makes this man's ideology (and that creepy sounding position in the administration) possible? A government's very nature is to expand. No one gets elected by promising to keep the status quo, or why else elect someone new, right? And even that would be fine if not for one crucial element - the nature of law makers is to do, not to undo. It is by far easier to pass a fix than repeal a problem. And each succeeding generation of law makers builds on the precedent of the last. Social Security sets the precedent for mandatory bond purchases. Medicaid sets the precedent for Obamacare. DEA mass surveillance sets the precedent for complete NSA authority. We have "always" voted YES to raise the debt ceiling, so we can't stop now. Mandated seat belts later allows cell phones while driving laws. Registering your firearm leads to city-wide bans. Just a little here, just a little there, for your safety of course. It's why fighting these smaller measures is so crucial, once you allow a new normal to develop, its too late.

So is it too late now? I see that Titus is qualifying his "back nine" admission with "my own personal back nine." Uh huh. I'm curious. Did you ever ask yourself "why?" Why do people from Wilson, to FDR, to Johnson to Sunstein and Obama - and all the less notable but equally dedicated "choice architects" in between - push these means? What is their end? What do they think will happen? After all, this top-down central planning of every aspect of life has never succeeded before, so what do they hope to achieve? I'll give you my answer. I truly think they believe utopia can be achieved in this life. In this world. If just the right people were in charge, with the right motivations, with the right authority we can actually eliminate all poverty, all suffering and set you "free" from worry, free from risk, and if individuals have to give up an archaic Right or two, so be it, we're trying to fundamentally transform here... after all, Vader only wanted the power to save his wife, but these pesky rebels kept upping the ante. 

So here we sit... 50% show up to vote, and most of them are too distracted to notice what's going on. They simply don't realize that you cannot eliminate risk without first eliminating the freedom to choose that risk. And once you start eliminating freedoms, you've entered the back nine. So its' nice to see you here Titus... the club house is nice, the beer is wicked expensive, no mulligans, and the hangman will clean your ball on the 18th... he has the time, he's already set up.