Sunstein-Power
Nudging US Into Oblivion
Cass Sunstein, a key figure behind the concept of "nudging," served as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012. His influence at OIRA is crucial in understanding how regulatory control, nudging, and centralized authority intertwine within the broader context of executive power.
Cass Sunstein and the Concept of Nudging
- Nudging Theory: Sunstein co-authored the book "Nudge" with Richard Thaler, promoting the idea that government can influence people's behavior by subtly shaping choices without restricting freedom. This concept is based on behavioral economics and is meant to "nudge" individuals towards decisions that policymakers believe are beneficial for them or society.
- Application at OIRA: During his time at OIRA, Sunstein used the power of regulatory review to embed nudging into policy frameworks. Rather than imposing outright regulations, policies could be designed to influence behavior in a particular direction—like encouraging energy conservation or healthier lifestyle choices—through incentives, information presentation, or other subtle regulatory adjustments.
Influence at OIRA and Regulatory Oversight
- Centralization of Control: As the head of OIRA, Sunstein oversaw the review and implementation of federal regulations, effectively deciding which regulations aligned with the administration's policy goals and which did not. This positioned him as a gatekeeper, influencing the direction of all major regulatory actions from the executive branch.
- Behavioral Economics in Regulation: Sunstein's focus on nudging enabled the Obama administration to achieve policy goals without overt regulation, shifting agency behavior to align with the administration's unified policy agenda. For example, instead of direct mandates, federal agencies could implement choice architecture that subtly directed public behavior while ostensibly leaving choices open.
Why This Matters in the Context of Executive Orders and the Deep State
1. Expansion of the Deep State Influence:
- By leveraging nudges within regulatory frameworks, Sunstein's tenure at OIRA exemplified the deep state concept: unelected officials wielding considerable power over the direction of public policy. Instead of Congress setting a clear legislative direction, bureaucrats at OIRA shaped how policies were implemented, with a focus on behavioral manipulation rather than transparent rule-making.
2. Unified Policy Agenda:
- The executive orders discussed (12866, 13563, and 14094) established a more centralized and aligned regulatory process under the president's office. Sunstein’s influence at OIRA contributed to this centralization by aligning agency regulations with the broader executive policy goals through soft influence tactics like nudging. This created an interconnected network of regulations that reflected a cohesive policy direction determined largely by the executive branch and its advisors.
3. Behavioral Influence as a Tool of Control:
- The concept of nudging also reveals a subtle form of control that the government can use to influence the public without overt coercion. This aligns with the broader implications of executive orders centralizing power—by embedding behavioral economics into policy, Sunstein and the administration effectively shaped public behavior in a manner consistent with executive priorities, but without direct accountability or legislative approval.
4. Reduction of Transparency and Accountability:
- The use of nudges in regulation contributes to a less transparent government. Citizens may not be fully aware that their choices are being influenced by intentional design from policymakers, as nudges often operate below the level of conscious awareness. The combination of executive orders centralizing power and the implementation of nudges means that regulatory actions can be directed by a small group of advisors or bureaucrats without public debate or Congressional oversight, which is a core characteristic of the deep state concern.
Cass Sunstein's role at OIRA and his promotion of nudging are critical in understanding the broader expansion of executive power and the influence of the deep state. By embedding behavioral economics into regulatory frameworks, Sunstein helped centralize control within the executive branch, aligning regulatory actions with presidential goals while circumventing overt regulation or direct legislative oversight. This centralization, combined with the nudging approach, contributed to an environment where unelected bureaucrats could influence public behavior and policy direction in ways that are not always visible or accountable to the public or Congress. This is why Sunstein's influence and his time at OIRA matter in the context of executive orders and the deep state discussion—it's an example of how centralized regulatory power can be used to shape society under the guidance of a small group of advisors, further consolidating power within the executive branch.
Samantha Power’s roles in USAID and the State Department add another dimension to the discussion of centralized executive power, deep state influence, and the unified policy agenda. Power's career reflects a blend of humanitarian advocacy, strategic international influence, and executive consolidation, contributing to the overall dynamic where unelected officials significantly shape public policy, both domestically and abroad.
Samantha Power's Role in USAID and State Department
- USAID Administrator: As the head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Power has overseen U.S. foreign assistance programs, wielding considerable influence over international development projects, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic relations. Her influence at USAID allows her to align development funding with the broader strategic goals of the administration, essentially turning foreign aid into a tool of policy influence.
- State Department Influence: Prior to her role at USAID, Samantha Power was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Obama administration and worked closely within the State Department. She was known for her advocacy for humanitarian intervention, often justifying U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts to promote democracy or prevent human rights abuses. Her work in the State Department focused on shaping U.S. foreign policy around the concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), which gave a moral and strategic justification for interventions, often bypassing traditional diplomatic avenues and legislative checks.
How Power Figures Into the Broader Dynamic of Centralized Executive Power
1. Unification of Domestic and International Policy Goals:
- Centralized Influence Over Foreign Policy: Power’s roles have allowed her to integrate USAID’s efforts directly with the broader foreign policy agenda of the U.S. State Department. By controlling foreign assistance and strategically leveraging aid, Power plays a role in shaping international relations in ways that align with the administration's political goals. This reflects a centralization of foreign influence, where USAID becomes a key arm of executive-directed foreign policy rather than simply a development agency.
- Tying Aid to Policy Influence: USAID’s development projects often come with political strings attached. By linking foreign aid to democratic reforms or promoting specific social policies, Power has been able to use aid as leverage to ensure that recipient countries align with U.S. strategic interests. This contributes to the overall goal of a unified foreign policy agenda, with aid acting as both a carrot and a stick, promoting the executive's objectives abroad in a manner that lacks transparency and is often not debated in Congress.
2. Executive Authority and the Deep State Element:
- Moral and Strategic Justifications for Intervention: Power has been a major advocate for humanitarian intervention, often using moral arguments to justify executive actions without legislative approval. For instance, interventions in Libya and Syria were framed as necessary for humanitarian purposes, but these actions were often taken without direct congressional consent. This further exemplifies the deep state influence, as the executive branch, guided by advisors like Power, can unilaterally decide on foreign interventions under the guise of protecting human rights.
- Leverage Over Foreign Governments: Through USAID, Power has significant leverage over developing nations. By directing funds toward specific programs and agendas, she helps to shape the political landscape in those countries, often pushing them to align with U.S. ideological positions. This reflects an extension of executive power into foreign sovereign affairs, without necessarily being held accountable to American voters or legislators.
3. Broader Connection to Executive Orders and Centralized Policy Goals:
- Alignment with Domestic Regulatory Actions: The unified policy agenda seen in executive orders like EO 12866, EO 13563, and EO 14094 extends beyond domestic regulation into international influence. While those EOs help ensure agencies align with executive priorities internally, Power’s work at USAID and in foreign policy ensures that external actions also reflect those priorities. Whether it is promoting "equity" or advancing climate agendas, foreign aid distribution and diplomatic strategies become aligned with the broader executive vision.
- Consolidation of Influence by Unelected Officials: Like Cass Sunstein, Samantha Power exemplifies the role of unelected officials in driving policy outcomes. By managing USAID and playing a significant role in foreign policy, Power wields enormous influence over both domestic and international matters. The decisions made by these figures are often not subject to direct public accountability, adding to the deep state concern where power is concentrated among bureaucrats and advisors with lasting influence across multiple administrations.
4. Pushing Ideological Agendas Without Accountability:
- Promotion of Liberal Internationalism: Power’s advocacy for humanitarian intervention and her approach to leveraging USAID funding are consistent with a liberal internationalist perspective, which seeks to spread democratic values and intervene for human rights abroad. These goals align with broader ideological objectives but often circumvent legislative scrutiny. By placing significant power in the hands of officials like Power, the executive branch can shape both the narrative and policy direction, domestically and internationally, according to its ideological objectives, while Congress and the public have limited oversight.
- Deep State Characteristics: Power’s ongoing influence in shaping U.S. foreign policy and her strategic use of USAID demonstrate a deep state dynamic, where unelected officials with ideological commitments are able to shape national and international policy in line with executive preferences, without the need for legislative debate or direct accountability to voters. Her role exemplifies how centralized decision-making within the executive branch can influence a wide range of issues—from humanitarian aid to foreign intervention—without a transparent process.
Samantha Power's influence within USAID and the State Department reflects a deeper trend toward centralizing executive power, both in foreign and domestic affairs. By using USAID as an extension of executive-directed foreign policy and promoting interventionist ideals under moral pretexts, Power exemplifies how unelected officials within the executive branch can shape policy according to their ideological goals. This dynamic contributes to the deep state narrative, where bureaucrats and advisors hold significant sway, directing both the domestic regulatory process and international relations, aligning them with the administration's unified policy agenda while bypassing traditional channels of accountability like Congress and public oversight.
A Stark Warning
The concentration of power within the hands of unelected officials like Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power, coupled with executive orders that consolidate regulatory control, represents a profound threat to the democratic foundations of the United States. This web of executive influence erodes the checks and balances that are crucial for accountability, enabling a deep state to operate outside the public eye, subtly nudging citizens and manipulating foreign nations in pursuit of ideological objectives. If left unchecked, these mechanisms risk undermining representative government, making policy decisions the domain of a few well-placed individuals rather than the collective will of the people. The time to challenge this centralization of power is now—before the machinery of governance becomes irrevocably detached from the consent of the governed.