TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
02.01.2008
Obama's Soft Paternalism

David Leonhardt has a very good piece in today's New York Times taking a look at the (relatively minor) philosophical differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on economic issues. Key takeaway:

The easiest way to describe Senator Clinton’s philosophy is to say that she believes in the promise of narrowly tailored government policies, like focused tax cuts. She has more faith that government can do what it sets out to do, which is a traditionally liberal view. Yet she also subscribes to the conservative idea that people respond rationally to financial incentives.

Senator Obama’s ideas, on the other hand, draw heavily on behavioral economics, a left-leaning academic movement that has challenged traditional neoclassical economics over the last few decades. Behavioral economists consider an abiding faith in rationality to be wishful thinking. To Mr. Obama, a simpler program--one less likely to confuse people--is often a smarter program.

The two approaches can be viewed in part (if, perhaps, not entirely) as two sides of the same coin. People do respond to incentives--and one incentive they face leads them to avoid spending the time it takes to acquire the information needed to behave in a purely rational manner. As a result, "soft paternalism" (or "libertarian paternalism")--in which government helps structure the choices individauls face so that the default option is the "right" one--tends to look increasingly attractive. Apparently Obama has reached the same conclusion:

The problem with Mrs. Clinton's savings plan, according to the Obama view, is that many people won’t save even when they are offered subsidies to do so. After all, many workers who are eligible for 401(k) matching funds don’t take advantage of them now.

So Mr. Obama would instead require companies to deduct money automatically from their employees’ paychecks and place it in a savings account the employee owned. Employees could opt out of the program. But if they did nothing, they would end up saving money. It’s an idea that comes directly from academic research showing that savings rates have jumped when individual companies have adopted such plans.

One of this leading proponents (pdf) of this approach is TNR contributing editor Cass Sunstein, a friend and former colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago Law School, so that may be where Obama picked it up.

--Josh Patashnik

Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:46 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Wandreycer1 said:

The glories of the rugged-individualist driven marketplace have given us such successes as the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the rape of California (remember that?), the current health care mess, airplanes reeking of urine as they sit on runways for hours, social security surplus for baby boomers given to rich people, etc.

I think it's pretty clear that dialouge of the last 20 years or so - with its think tank code words (soft paternalism) is so tired that it lacks meaning anymore. How about if we stick with what works and screw the verbage? Call it whatever you want, I think deducting 401K money eventually saves me tax money and makes pragmatic policy sense. That's good enough for me.  It sounds like thoughtful governing to me, what a concept.

January 2, 2008 3:52 PM

vanwurs said:

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.  In a contest within the Democratic party, Hillary has a kind of prior claim to the loyalty and affection (by way of her husband, probably) of blue collar voters that, at this point in time, exceeds Obama's.  But once that contest is over, and if Obama wins it, those Democrats will most likely establish a new loyalty for Obama, since he will represent their party and their interests.

Outside the party, there is very little evidence to indicate that Hillary has any appeal to blue collar folks who consider themselves "Independent" or "Republican", and to the degree that those kind of voters are historically "Reagan" Democrats, they might actually have some serious and long standing issues with her.  (rightly or wrongly...that's just the history she labors under.)

Obama, on the other hand, if he were the nominee, would not have that baggage to carry around with regard to non-affilliated blue collar voters, and to the degree that they are inclined this year to be philosophically attracted to the left, he's got the easy going, fresh faced, open minded, accessable liberalism that would be more likely to attract them than Hillary's polarizing reputation, history and style.  Rightly or wrongly.

January 2, 2008 3:59 PM

vanwurs said:

ooops!  I attatched that comment to the wrong post.  (I blame in on the new TNR computer logistics.  They suck in every way...long lags between submitting and publishing.)  It should be on the "Why Hillary could win swing voters" post above this.

NEVER MIND.

January 2, 2008 4:12 PM

stgla said:

I like wandreycer's take, "thoughtful governing."  My sense has been that that characterizes Obama's positions on a range of domestic issues, including education (teacher pay).

January 2, 2008 6:07 PM