The latest Commentary features Christine Rosen?s assessment of those behavioral economists ? or ?libertarian paternalists? ? who?ve attracted so much attention in the Obama administration:
The new behaviorism also differs from more draconian forms of social engineering in that it poses as nonjudgmental, cloaking its exhortations in the pristine laboratory coat of science rather than caustic moral censure. It views people as mechanical and thus susceptible to some behavioral tinkering, and in this sense it is a far less pessimistic or deterministic view of man than the one offered by genetic science, for example. We?re not ignorant; we are merely laboring under assumptions based on ?imperfect information.? We?re not undisciplined losers intent on achieving instant gratification; we have simply adopted too many ?time-inconsistent preferences? for our own good.
But if choice architecture is an appealing euphemism, it is also misleading, for the new behaviorism isn?t interested in protecting people?s freedom to choose. On the contrary. Its core principle is the idea that only by allowing an expert elite to limit choices can individuals learn to break their bad habits. Contemporary behaviorists want to nudge us, but not merely to make us happier, better people. They have specific hopes for the social effects this nudging will achieve: fewer smokers, thinner Americans, higher savings rates.
