Cass Sunstein
Cass Sunstein, "regulatory czar", heads up the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Formerly
he was a Harvard law professor who has advocated for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "second bill of rights",
described in the annotation as "inherent economic rights" and "a vision of an America in which all citizens were free from
want." Note the rights that FDR spelled out, attributed as BASIC HUMAN rights
(read the FDR second bill of rights |
view the PDF):
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation (the RIGHT to a JOB)
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation (the RIGHT to a standard of WEALTH)
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give
him and his family a decent living (the RIGHT to a PLANNED MARKET)
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition
and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
- The right of every family to a decent home (the RIGHT to a GOOD HOME - without mention of RESPONSIBILITY)
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health (the RIGHT
to a standard of HEALTH CARE - without mention of responsibility)
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
(the RIGHT to RETIRE and the RIGHT NOT to face EVERYDAY RISK)
- The right to a good education (or more specifically, the RIGHT to a FREE EDUCATION)
These rights are much different from those spelled out in the Constitution, in which the focus, and the driver that
got this country off the ground, was FREEDOM (or more specifically, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").
These rights, in fact, are a precursor to a much different system altogether. It bears repeating: NOWHERE in the
Constitution are these rights spelled out. The Constitution instead enumerates your FREEDOMS and the rights
mentioned are those things the federal government CANNOT do to you to infringe upon your freedoms, not things
it MUST do for you as a matter of course.
Sunstein has taken extreme viewpoints in the realm of animal rights. In his 2004 book
Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Sunstein wrote: "I will suggest that animals should
be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law."
He further stated, "Laws designed to protect animals against cruelty and abuse should be amended or interpreted
to give a private cause of action against those who violate them, so as to allow private people to supplement
the efforts of public prosecutors."
Sunstein seems, then, not only to support equalization of people (as an advocate for FDR's "second bill of rights")
but he supports equalizing people and animals to the extent that animals, using people as proxies, should have
access to our court system.
He argues for the good of federal broadcast regulations in his book The Bill of Rights in the Modern State,
suggesting that regulation of content is akin to regulation of pollutants and endangered species.
He points out that that sheer number of outlets is surely not sufficient for consumer choice because of the
similarities in programming across those outlets today. Finally, he proposes that folks tend to seek the programming
they're used to, and that they'd benefit from different programming (pg. 287-288). This entire discussion,
incidentally, is premised by the attacks of the day on the Fairness Doctrine.
In his book Republic.com, he goes further, suggesting a common good in regulating Internet usage. He
writes
(read the Cass Sunstein passage |
view the PDF):
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest
of citizenship and self-government. Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected
in freedom's name.
He then puts forth a scary proposition regarding a "fairness doctrine" for the Internet, here described by writer
Adam Thierer:
Sunstein called for popular or partisan websites to be forced to carry links to opposing viewpoints. Think of it
as a combination of must carry mandates and the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. Thus, the National Rifle
Association (NRA) would be forced to run links or editorials by anti-gun groups, and abortion rights groups would
be forced to contend with links and editorials from pro-life organizations. Apparently in Sunstein's world, people
have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one
desires.
Sunstein reverses himself later in an interview with Salon.com, stating
(read this article about Cass Sunstein |
view the PDF):
I have thought over the years of whether it makes sense for the government to have a regulatory role
[for the Internet]. But the Internet is too difficult to regulate in a way that would respond to these concerns.
The first book ["Republic.com"] had suggestions that government should consider fairness-doctrine-type mandates
on Web sites. It suggested that it's reasonable for government to think about creating the equivalent of
linking obligations and pop-ups, so that you'd be on one site — say, a conservative site — and there'd be a
pop-up from a liberal site. I now the believe that the government should not consider that — that it's a stupid
and almost certainly an unconstitutional suggestion.
Republic.com made a mistake of applying to the Internet some ideas that were developed in a world
of three or four television networks... But the kinds of regulation that would respond to my concerns
[about deliberative democracy], they're not really feasible and they probably wouldn't help. Most problems
are best solved privately, not through government. There's a problem of discourtesy in the world, which is
best handled through social norms, which are indispensable. But you wouldn't want the government to be
mandating courtesy.
No, you would not -- but you come away from his comments at best with the belief that he probably supports a
fairness doctrine for TV and radio. The fact that he has reversed himself on Internet regulation is a
small comfort, but his elitist viewpoint that "deliberative democracy" should be pushed upon people in his
own vision is scary and progressive to its core.
On a completely unrelated note, it's worth pointing out that Sunstein is ill-convinced on the existence of a
"right to keep and bear arms"
(read this report on Cass Sunstein |
view the PDF).
Bottom line: Cass Sunstein connects extremist animal rights views, intense regulation of
First Amendment rights, and opposition to the Second Amendment with the President.
Click here to see all Obama czars, Obama appointments, and Obama associates
|
|
|
Coming This Week:
The basic principles for which we stand -- can you disagree?
The people surrounding the Congress
Central government as a necessary evil ...our view
The history of the federal income tax
Why slippery slope theory is REAL
Our read of the Constitution
|
|
|
