Is Cass Sunstein the Next 'Van Jones?'

Could Cass Sunstein be the next Van Jones? It largely depends on whom one asks. While it is suggested that Professor Cass Sunstein favors things like a ban on hunting or the right for animals to sue in court, there are some who suggest that he is not that radical.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law Professor, has been nominated to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Strictly speaking, Cass Sunstein would not be a "czar" because unlike Van Jones, his job is subject to Senate confirmation. That appears to become a problem for Cass Sunstein, because several Senators have placed a "hold" on his nomination based on his opposition to hunting according to an article in the Washington Independent.

Nevertheless, Cass Sunstein has a number of conservative and libertarian defenders, including Glenn Reynolds and Hot Air's Ed Morrisssey. The crux of the argument in favor of Cass Sunstein seems to devolve around two suppositions. The first is, as already pointed out, Cass Sunstein is not really a "czar." The second is that Cass Sunstein is less bad than any other person the Obama administration would appoint to the position.

Even so, one does not have to be a right wing hysteric to suggest that Cass Sunstein has some rather peculiar views that are out of the mainstream of American political thought. His concept of "libertarian paternalism" seems to be a contradiction in terms, sort of like "socialist capitalism" or "government health care."

The idea behind "libertarian paternalism" is that regulators will gently nudge people into making the choices they (the regulators) believe are appropriate, using incentives. This seems to be less bad that bludgeoning people into submission with the heavy hand of punitive regulation. But the underlining assumption is the same. People are by their nature not competent to make their own choices and have to be guided by regulators to make the "correct" decisions as determined by the regulators. Oppressive big government is the same. The means of control are just more subtle and less brutal.

The idea of animals suing people, presumably represented by human lawyers, strikes one as a prescription for mischief for a legal system already clogged with law suits. What better way for radical groups like PETA to advance their agenda against those of us who like eating meat and wearing fur and leather?

The arguments that Cass Sunstein is about the best one can expect or that he really won't advance some of his more radical beliefs are not particularly persuasive. Putting the fox in charge of the hen house is never a good idea, even if the fox swears a vow of veganism.

Cass Sunstein should not be confirmed. If Barack Obama chooses someone who is as bad or worse, then he or she should not be confirmed either.

Source: Attacks on Sunstein Frustrate Conservative Fans, David Weigel, Washington Independent, September 9th, 2009