The Classic Liberal Blog

President Obama and his advisers are determined to "nudge" our personal behavior in directions which they approve. Obsessed with behavioral science, they've already begun doing so too, via implementation of "choice architecture" (regulation).

You see, they've discovered (goes the reasoning) that people don't always make rational decisions (well, duh), therefore leading them to believe the omnipotent "government just needs to provide the right rules, incentives and nudges to help us make the right choices."

Cass Sunstein, taking Orwellian Newspeak to new levels, calls it "libertarian paternalism." But the reality however is, it's anything but ...

[I]n their view, only actions that meet rigid requirements count as full choices. Smokers, research indicates, haven't fully taken into account the heath risks of smoking. Thus, they cannot be said "really" to choose to smoke. Further, people are often subject to so-called "framing" effects: they will "choose" differently when confronted with identical options, depending on how the options are presented. Choices in these circumstances, Thaler and Sunstein aver, are problematic: how can we say that people in the grip of conceptual illusions are freely choosing?

What is left? Given the authors' wide net, few actions count as rational choices. There is thus practically unlimited scope for the state to suppress liberty: in doing so, it is not interfering with what the self "really" wants. True enough, the authors preach a mild doctrine. Nudges, not force, are on their agenda. But they lack a rational basis for this limit. If people do not "really" choose their actions, why not forcibly restrict them? After all, doing so may enable them better to achieve what they "really" want — as experts, suitably instructed by Thaler and Sunstein, determine.

Now, a recent and purposeful change in language made by both President Obama and Secretary Clinton, has Randy Sly at Catholic Online (via Robert Wenzel) wondering whether the Obama administration is attempting to "nudge" the country away from freedom of religion.

Obama Moves away from 'Freedom of Religion' toward 'Freedom of Worship'?

The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

As Wenzel had noted, it would be easy to argue that Sly is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, but when you look at it from the perspective of the administration's obsession to "nudge," it's a very legitimate (and troubling) concern. After all ... a little nudge here and a little nudge there ... "and one day you wake up in an entire different country and wonder how it happened."