Some Conservatives Regret Smear Campaign Against Cass Sunstein

Sunstein1

If conservatives really were concerned about principles as opposed to just opposing Obama, they would have been happy about the appointment of Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Unfortunately, just as many conservatives use the language of limited government and fiscal responsibility while promoting the opposite, they also use the language of libertarianism while having no regard for actually supporting liberty. Rather than supporting Sunstein for his libertarian-leaning views on regulation, many conservatives have subjected him to a smear campaign.  As is typical of right wing smear campaigns, they take selections from his writings out of context and apply totally different meanings to them. The ditto heads who follow the right, but never actually read the views which are being distorted, then repeat the smears.

While such smear campaigns based upon misinformation are a common strategy of the right, David Weigel found that a handful of conservatives have considered Sunstein’s views and are frustrated by the attacks on him. Many independents such as myself, who oppose the policies of the Republicans but do not necessarily support the typical Democratic agenda, saw the influence of people such as Sunstein on Obama as a welcome change from typical Democratic views. Some conservatives realize that, even if they don’t completely agree with Sunstein’s views, his views are far friendlier to libertarian beliefs than those of many other liberal Democrats:

In January, the libertarian blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds wrote a hearty endorsement of Sunstein, telling readers that the nomination “shows that the Obama Administration is perhaps willing to look at new and less intrusive approaches to regulation.” Today, he sees the lengthy campaign against Sunstein as an unflattering example of “how the messed-up appointments process works.”

“I think he should be confirmed,” Reynolds told TWI. “Do I think Sunstein will push a hunting ban? No. Do I think he’s sympathetic to hunting, particularly? No. But what Obama appointee is likely to be? As the Van Jones affair indicates, there are a lot of people worthy of more concern than Sunstein. If I were advising Republicans, I’d tell them to focus their attentions elsewhere.”

That advice was echoed by Ed Morrissey, a conservative blogger at HotAir.com, which published dozens of posts about Jones until he finally withdrew. “I’d prefer to see someone more conservative or moderate in [Sunstein’s] position,” said Morrissey, “if it should exist at all. I’m not going to endorse Sunstein, but don’t think that he presents a good target for Republicans to attack. I think that there is a big problem with lumping the ‘czars’ in with those like Sunstein who need Senate approval and have Congressional oversight.”

Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at George Mason University, has written at the popular Volokh Conspiracy lawblog that “the czar system does circumvent the regular appointment and confirmation process.” Like Morrissey and Reynolds, he was critical of Beck and other Sunstein critics.

“Sunstein has nothing to do with the ‘czars’ or the problems with the ‘czars,’” said Somin. “The ironic thing is that anybody else who might be appointed to this job would be less qualified, and more liberal. I disagree with what Sunstein writes in ‘Nudge.’ But what he advocates is not as bad as the views likely to be held by other people who could run [the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs].”

Ed Morrissey responds to the article here.

Much of the article also deals with the appointment of a variety of “czars” in the executive branch who do not need to be confirmed by the Senate. The manner in which a single Senator can block an appointment based upon fallacious arguments demonstrates why, right or wrong, there is such a desire to circumvent the confirmation process. Possibly frustration over not being able to block some appointees in the Senate has led to a greater desire to block Obama appointees who do require Senate confimation such as Sunstein.This includes the usual false attacks from the totally irrational Glenn Beck:

In the face of that criticism, hardened by the “czars” controversy, Sunstein’s supporters remain frustrated by their lack of progress. Richard Epstein, a libertarian-leaning law professor at the University of Chicago who edited a book about the 2000 election with Sunstein, told TWI that he supported Sunstein’s nomination “notwithstanding the many substantive disagreements between us.”

“The Beck stuff,” said Epstein, “is well over the top.”

9 Comments

  1. 1
    Pat Marentis says:

    This Cass Sunstein fellow should not be in a policy making position without vetting. It’s a form of cheating when both parties work outside of the established rules including back room handshake deals. Czars are just a different flavor of lobbyists.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Pat,

    What makes you think he is not subject to vetting? Right wingers at least need to get the basic facts straight before attacking.

    Sunstein is not a “czar.” He is subject to Senate confirmation, but the right wingers are blocking him based upon attacks which lack substance. While the “czar” system has its flaws, they are nothing like lobbyists, It is a way to fill jobs in the administrative branch without facing the types of attacks people like Sunstein (who does require Senate confirmation) are subjected to. Far too many posts are left vacant because of such political games.

  3. 3
    Anonymous says:

    Have you read cat sunsteins book?? It’s not a smear campain it’s the truth. I guess truth doesn’t matter anymore, or people don’t care about America anymore. It baffles me how you are willing to deffend radical beliefs such as his.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Yes, I’ve read his book. It is nothing like the right wingers are claiming. People who support Sunstein care about America and increasing our freedom, in contrast to the authoritarian right.

  5. 5
    Eclectic Radical says:

    “It baffles me how you are willing to deffend radical beliefs such as his.”
     
    ‘Radical’ has become a dirty word in American politics, much like ‘liberal.’ Both are words with very specific economic/philosophical defintions and very vague and general political definitions.
     
    To the best of my knowledge, Sunstein is not a Radical. He’s a civil libertarian and a fairly typical monetarist, but with an understanding of the pragmatic use of government regulation when necessary while believing unnecessary regulation is worse than under-regulation and one must err on the side of caution… unless I’ve totally misunderstood his positions.
     
    I find it interesting, however, that Morrisey makes a comparison between Sunstein and Bolton and claimsthe latter creates a precedent for the former. John Bolton was challenged for the appointment to the position of UN Ambassasor because he does not believe the UN is a valid organization with which the United States should be affiliated. This is not just a ‘political position’ as it relates to his appointment to the UN ambassadorship, but a question as to whether he can do his job in good faith considering that he does not believe in the validity of the very basis for his job’s existence.
     
    It’s also worth nothing that Bolton was ultimately confirmed as UN Ambassador, despite these questions. It was his nomination as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that was held up and then shot down. This was not because of ‘political belief’ but because of a wide selection of politically motivated legal opinions totally at odds with a plain language reading of American law and the spirit of common law.
     

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    I don’t care if someone wants to call Sunstein’s views radical. What does matter is discussing his actual views as opposed to the distortions being spread by many right wingers. He has a number of good ideas, regardless of whether you want to consider them radical changes. Even when I don’t agree with him, he is the sort of person who is valuable having around to throw out different ideas–sort of the Team of Rivals idea.

  7. 7
    Eclectic Radical says:

    “I don’t care if someone wants to call Sunstein’s views radical.”
     
    I do, for one pretty big reason.
     
    The movers and shakers of movement conservatism are increasingly attacking bread-and-butter mainstream liberals (Hilda Solis), centrists (Sonya Sotomayor), and even center-rightists (the president and Sunstein) as dangerous representatives of the lunatic left wing fringe while moving the center closer and closer to the far right in their debates. The center-right, center, and center-left have not been able to develop a political strategy to fight this rightward shift of the center in the public dialogue. I don’t believe it’s because the majority of Americans are really that right wing. If that were the case, it wouldn’t have mattered that Bush was a total incompetent. They’d have elected John McCain on faith. So the truth of the political landscape needs to be reinjected into the debate.
     

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Calling ideas radical is one thing–not necessarily good or bad. That is not the same as calling centrists “dangerous representatives of the lunatic left wing fringe.” Sunstein has ideas which are different than the solutions usually proposed. You can them radical or call them variations on libertarian beliefs. Either is fine with me as long as the ideas are considered on their merits as opposed to being distorted as the right wing is doing.

  9. 9
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Well, said distortion is quite specifically what I’m talking about.

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment