Hat tip Huckfunn: This one will take a while, so bear with me please.
I was twelve years old when I read, “1984.” Since that time, I have heard the author’s name used as an adjective repeatedly. So often in fact, its punch has been cheapened by the sheer frequency. Concepts from the book have become ubiquitous in our society as well, “big brother is watching you,” “double speak,” thought crimes,” have all been permanently ingrained within our lexicon, and all thanks to George Orwell’s depressing description of what he believed Socialistic societies would inevitably become. I want everyone to think about the previous sentence for just one moment, because half of the people who bandy Orwell’s name about as an adjective with very little thought as to its actual meaning or his actual intent, are those very same Socialists whom we were being warned about 59 years ago. I can not even begin to contemplate an actual number of times I’ve listened to the likes of Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, George Stephanopolis, Matt Lauer, Charlie Gibson, describe some free market approach to a problem caused by a slickly sold government intervention as, “Orwellian.”
The concept of, “big brother,” easily the most oft referred to concept from the Dystopian vision laid out by Orwell, is also the most misunderstood. Those who refer to it most are more likely to cling to the paranoid vision of a government always watching and recording every move made. While that concept is terrifying enough, at least until earlier this week when Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, (and yes kiddies, he’s a Republican,) defended this very activity that our government has seen fit to undertake, the true message behind, “big brother is always watching you,” was even more insidious. That message was in the description of big brother’s likeness as being a benevolent, smiling, comforting, caretaker of society’s down trodden little folk. The message was that big brother would undertake to provide for all of the needs of the populace, and gave a face to where true love was supposed to flow, which was the central government. Big brother did his share of spying on the populace, that was certain, but the true menace of big brother was in how he got there in the first place. He was created as the sole provider for the people, and his watching out for them began as a means to protect his children.
Now, it may be at this point in my essay that some of you will tell me that I should be wearing a tin foil hat, and until eight weeks ago, I would have joined you. Then the whole Snowden thing happened, and in fact, our government has taken up the now possible task of watching our every move, including tracking where you drive, who you talk to, what you say, what you purchase in the store, where you eat, what you read, etc. While I do not believe Mr. Snowden to be a hero, in fact quite the opposite, we can still not discount what he told us all, which is that the application of the Patriot act has become so criminal and corrupt in nature that Orwell’s vision has become reality. It happened rather quickly, via the most reliable measure ever devised to inflict evil upon a formerly free society, the crisis. In our panic over what was admittedly a more powerful recession than most, we gave our Executive Branch carte blanche to consolidate power in a way never before thought possible, and as we have seen repeatedly over the previous 229 years, or throughout all of history for that matter, no one in the future will willingly decentralize that power.
This is what I read yesterday that is representative of that more insidious part of big brother. Here is where the benevolent all caring provider of our every need is born, and he is no where near as charming as one might expect him to be.
The federal government is hiring what it calls a “Behavioral Insights Team” that will look for ways to subtly influence people’s behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient.
While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.
“Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals,” reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team.
For those of you who will undoubtedly scream that Fox News should not be considered a reliable source, read the second link instead. It is a recruiting letter sent by Obama Administration Official, Maya Shankar to Harvard University’s Behavioral Economics Professor. What it states, in a nut shell is that the Obama Administration is going to undertake the task of mass manipulation of the behavior of American Citizens. Here is where the line between a free society and one that is willingly allowing itself to become enslaved has been drawn.
Overview:
A growing body of evidence suggests that insights from the social and behavioral sciences can be
used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals. The
practice of using behavioral insights to inform policy has seen success overseas. In 2010, UK Prime
Minister David Cameron commissioned the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), which through a process of
rapid, iterative experimentation (“Test, Learn, Adapt”), has successfully identified and tested
interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government, while saving the government
at least £1 billion within the next five years (see previous Annual Reports 2010-11 and 2011-12).
The federal government is currently creating a new team that will help build federal capacity to
experiment with these approaches, and to scale behavioral interventions that have been rigorously
evaluated, using, where possible, randomized controlled trials. The team will be staffed by 4-5 experts in
behavioral science and experimental design and evaluation. It is likely that selected individuals will serve
on a temporary detail under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act before returning to their home
organization, which can be a university, non-profit, or state and local government. Our preference is for
individuals who are willing to serve full time but we will also consider people who are only in a position
to serve part-time. Moreover, several agencies are looking to recruit expert academics to sit directly
within their agencies and to help inspire, design, and execute on specific policy projects, and so it is
possible to serve in this capacity as well.
If you are aware of individuals with strong analytic skills, experience designing, testing, and
evaluating rigorous randomized control trials, and a strong research background in fields such as social
psychology, cognitive psychology, or behavioral economics, please encourage them send a CV and
contact information to mshankar2@ostp.eop.gov, which will be sent to the relevant parties for
consideration.
I have no doubt that there will be many who will poo poo this as being, “nothing to see here.” They may even believe that the government is well advised to, “nudge,” human behavior, most especially in those areas where our decision making may not measure up the the wiser and certainly more beneficial decisions that big brother wishes to, “nudge,” us into making for ourselves. In fact, you already have examples of such incentives currently happening without your explicit realization. When you are asked whether you wish to be an organ donor while procuring your driver’s license, this is an example of the government attempting to, “nudge,” more citizens into becoming benevolent organ donors. Many of you have doubtless been automatically enrolled in 401k programs at work, and been told that should you not wish to save for your own retirement, a foolish decision by the way, you must take the step of opting out in order to receive your full pay. This is the government teaming up with your employer to, “nudge,” your behavior in the direction of making you a better saver for your future.
My objection here, and I suspect the objection of others is that this is not the business of our government, and this is certainly beyond the scope of decentralized government involvement under which our nation was founded. To call this a slippery slope is an understatement of dangerous proportion. The problem with cute baby gorillas, is that they very quickly grow into the 800 pound variety that will beat you to death should you cross them in any way. How many small seemingly inconsequential benign government programs or agencies have we seen grow into such menacing monstrous gorillas, that have subsequently taken to the business of beating our economy as close to death as whim dictated? The EPA for example has begun to use the Clean Air Act as a means to declare your very act of breathing to be a menace to society. The scope of Obamacare went from a cost of $1 Trillion per year to the astronomical $2.5 Trillion per year, and it hasn’t even been fully implemented yet. What do we do when a, “nudge,” becomes the more menacing version called a shove?
The government has the power of the state behind it, and ultimately, everything our government undertakes is backed up by force. They have the power to arrest, to deny permits, to deny licenses, to revoke the same, to administer financial penalties, to levy taxes, to declare eminent domain, and many other menacing methods to shove us into making the choices that they deem superior to our own. What happens to us when our government, “nudges,” us into buying inferior and less efficient cars, such as the Chevy Volt, complete with two drive trains, extra weight, and batteries that have been known to spontaneously combust, thus rendering the car to be an actual danger to life and limb when driven. For those of you who will claim that such arguments are foolish, that our government would never dare to embark on a path towards vigorous enforcement of these simple, “nudges,” I say take a look at the multiple occurrences of our government engaging in behavior that others told us we were silly to believe that they ever would. The IRS scandal and the NSA domestic spying scandal are this month’s examples.
The other side of the coin of course is this, I don’t want my behavior modified. I like eating hamburgers, pasta, drinking beer, and probably a whole host of other things that the behavior pixies have deemed not good for me. That’s my business, and I consider any who have never met me, that wish to change me, to be the most vile and evil humans on the planet. I like to be left alone, and really do not like the noses of others in my business. That is basically the only behavior that will end a friendship from my end. I like my privacy, and like to respect the privacy of others. Resentment for those attempting to mold my behavior does not even begin to cover the contempt that I have for these people. There is something else, representative of an even greater evil at work here.
I’d like to introduce you to Kurt Lewin. He is the author of the field of psychology known as group dynamics. His work is responsible for those diversity training seminars that many of you were forced to suffer through. He was also a member of the Frankfort School, that group of Communist thugs that set up shop as a part of Columbia University for a while and then moved back to Frankfort after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Lewin’s work, his motivation, were based upon the success of Adolf Hitler. That by the way is something that Lewin himself not only admitted to, but actually bragged about. He was not a fan of Hitler, but felt that Adolf was on to something and clearly had success in molding a uniform public opinion and behavior. He felt that such forces could also be used to create a public benefit, as well as self destructive behavior. So yes, that diversity training was not so much about helping you to become more tolerant of others as it was about molding your opinions and behaviors to match those wanted by the program’s directors. In short, it was about the very definition of intolerance for anything not approved by the human resources people who felt it to be such a grand idea.
The grand nightmare for all of this is, who ever we deem fit to give these powers to now, will not be in charge for ever. Even if you view Barack Obama to be the cat’s pajamas, or if you viewed George Bush as such, the next election cycle bestows the same power upon either Barack Obama or George Bush. Who will be President 20 years from now? A whole country whipped up in uniform thought and behavior is capable of terrible things, all of which can be seen on the nightly news in places like Benghazi or Cairo. Please don’t forget to take a peek into history at the very first example of government, “nudging,” behavior. The consequences of following this path have always been disastrous. Before any of you label me as paranoid for worrying about this, bear in mind that history is already replete with many, all too real examples of how good intentions can go awry, most especially these good intentions.
