Yea!!! I've heard a little of his ideas about Libertarian Paternalism. I fancy myself a bit of a Liberaltarian (Brink Lindsey's word, I think) so I'm excited to hear what he has to say about that...I need to get his book, "Nudge." Sunstein seems like a very nimble and original thinker. He and Martha Nussbaum, what a couple! Nussbaum is one of my favorite philosophers.

This was recorded on February 19 - before the news got out. Cass Sunstein is leaving Chicago for Harvard.
Wall Street Journal Q&A
Chicago Tribune
Boston Globe
Brian Leiter's blog which broke the story
Harvard announcement
Humorous story in the HLS Record Martha Nussbaum is staying at Chicago. Which has led to much speculation and discussion. Nussbaum and Sunstein are/were a couple. I was surprised that Sunstein made the move. I expected him to make a move after the election - to the Obama administration. Someone in the know told me that he did not think Cass would be happy at Harvard. Chicago is small - only 590 students vs 1800 at Harvard. Chicago has 124 on its faculty, Harvard 284. Sunstein said a bigger place would be nice. But the people at Chicago are very comfortable. They really like the place and each other - no matter what their political persuasion. Harvard has fiefdoms. Harvard's Dean, Elena Kagan, came to HLS from Chicago and has been making a lot of changes - reflective of Chicago's style, not its politics. It may be hard to do that at a larger school.

It's hard to say the following without sort of supporting Cass's claim about the reinforcement mechanism, but for the record: I do believe the far right went first in drifting to the extreme. I do believe they were better organized, and importantly, better financed. I do believe some of their views and tactics are far more objectionable to the American ideal than almost anything uttered or done by the far left. I do believe that George W. Bush is a terrible president, and did not receive, and still has not received, anywhere near the appropriate amount of scrutiny, skepticism, or criticism from the mainstream media. I believe that the recent organization by the left, in large part via the Web, has been a necessary counterweight. I believe it has been a net good for the country, no pun intended. I think it is a mistake for Cass to think that there is any significant degree of undeserved disrespect for Bush, Cheney, et al -- this has been an administration that was given 95% carte blanche to deal with events post-9/11, but insisted on grabbing the last 5%, often in the most arrogant and secretive fashion. I would bet a large amount of money that, should

Brendan, This diavlog was recorded the day that the announcement was made that Sunstein was leaving Chicago for Harvard. I am amazed that Cass went ahead with it. As you can tell from the diavlog, he is incredibly polite. I don't know if Henry knew what was going on but there were good reasons for the hard deadline to end the diavlog. Even after the decision has been made, it still must have been incredibly difficult and emotional for Cass to tell all his colleagues. This is a part of an email he sent to them:

Everything I know, I have learned at the University of Chicago Law School. It is an amazing institution. It is a unique combination of high standards, curiosity, intellectual excitement, refusal to follow the herd, focus, generosity, personal kindness, intensity, desire to get it right, a nonsense-free zone, toughness, gentleness, amusement, and a sense of fun amidst it all -- and much more.

The University of Chicago Law School was an astoundingly good place back in 1981, when I arrived. Miraculously, it is even better now -- a stronger institution today than it has been at any time during my years here.

I'm with Henry. Sure, human beings tend to try to confirm their own biases, and any invention will have good and bad uses. But the hyperlink, by vastly reducing the cost of seeking out the document commented upon by the document one is reading is more likely to expose people to more points of view, to break down the walls between viewpoints. And then blogs too, by combining many posts on many different subjects have the same effect. If someone follows even an approving link to Sullivan's blog, say, he may stay to read the stuff on Sullivan's blog that he'd disagree with.
And surely part of what makes some blogs so popular is that they are quirky and unpredictable.
Links also make writers a bit more accountable -- if a writer completely misrepresents someone else on paper, he's much more likely to get away with it than if he's expected to link to the original article and that article is only a click away.
Certainly the ease of following links has made it easier for me to be open-minded. Something I'd add (that hasn't been mentioned

Quoting bjkeefe:
I think Cass Sunstein makes reasonable points about echo chambers in the abstract, but that he is being disingenuous, or at least, is bending over backwards in an excessive fashion to maintain an appearance of neutrality. I don't find his point of view very helpful. Perhaps his thoughts will be of some use to someone who has had little exposure to the Web, but for this audience, much of what he said sounded obvious, and some of it sounded naive.

It seemed ironic to me to be cautioning about self-selection on this site, where I come precisely for the diversity of views (and the civility with which they're exchanged.) Are we civil, various people self-selecting into an echo-chamber of agreeable disagreement? Huh? I think this echo-chamber extremism concern is pretty much balderdash. One can "choose"--to pick a verb--not to confine oneself to such groups. Are people so inclined to choose (or to choose not to choose) in danger of becoming extremists? Am I being sucked unawares into the dark cult of Blogginnogginpiscivorous? Heh. Moreover, people are various in themselves. I go all over the web for various things, following various interests. I contain multitudes (as does everybody else who is just

To me the echo chamber argument seems lightly ironic coming from tenured academia.

Quoting ogieogie:
One can "choose"--to pick a verb--not to confine oneself to such groups. Are people so inclined to choose (or to choose not to choose) in danger of becoming extremists? Am I being sucked unawares into the dark cult of Blogginnogginpiscivorous?

You and your liberal "all gods are equal/all gods are one" theological mishmash! You must CHOOSE between the dark cult of piscivorous and the seemly and reasonable adoration of the one true Bloggin' Noggin!
[Thunderclap!]

I have chosen a different cult. Guess which one.

ohc: Love the sig! Maybe we should all adopt this as an appendage to our names. Think that would defuse the wingnut effort to make a big deal out of Obama's middle name, or would it reinforce their paranoia that stealth Islamofascist brainwashing is already at work?

thprop: I don't dispute Cass's politeness. He was a marvel of decorum (as was Henry), and I thoroughly enjoyed this diavlog (except for one part, maybe). I did not know that about his announced departure. I can accept it as an explanation for the hard deadline (and consequent lack of answer to the last question), and also as a possible explanation for some distraction on his part. Still, the main points of my criticism still stand, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe that he wasn't saying pretty much what he would have said on any other day.

ogieogie:

Are we civil, various people self-selecting into an echo-chamber of agreeable disagreement? Huh?

Yes! And when some newbie comes along and tries to agree in an uncivil manner, we really let him have it! Polite dispute! Both barrels!

bjkeefe, Before I get into my reason for posting this reply, I would like to make clear that I agree that the right-wing perfected the contemporary echo-chamber assembly before the left even got started. And when you consider right-wing propaganda, it seems especially shameless, relatively speaking. To top it all off, it seems that the crazies on the right have more influence on the Republican Party than crazies on the left have on the Democratic Party. Therefore, right-wing crazies end up having more impact. I base on this on the last 25 or so years in political discourse. Now, the reason I wrote this response is to ask: why does this matter to Cass Sunstein's argument? I don't know why he's under any obligation to say that one side is more historically at fault than another, at least in recent history. He said that there have been times in history that the left was more organized and damaging (which is an empirical statement, either it's right or wrong) but that he doesn't want to get into the history very deeply. The way he said this, it seems that he was heading off the claim that the right

I would have liked to hear his opinion about how to deal with the Michigan and Florida issue. Anyone besides me think he artfully dodged that question by going on at length about the super-delegates?

Yes. If Clinton manages to pull back into contention, this will become an explosive issue that damages the Democratic party. Explosive because there's no fair way to resolve it. I think most Democrats are holding their breath and hoping this situation does not develop. Going even further, I think he dodged the super-delegate issue. Surely the purpose of the super delegates is not to parrot the primary election results. Why have them at all? They are there to provide their best adult judgment, and in a situation where there is not an obvious winner, they certainly should be expected to throw the election one way or another. If the race is tight, this could make the Democratic party uncomfortable. Regardless of whether the super-delegates reinforce or repudiate the voters, there's something vaguely un-democratic about it. Finally, I have a minor objection to Henry's complaining about these "American" idiosyncrasies when they are really Party issues.

crazies on the right have more influence on the Republican Party

I assume you accept that McCain's nomination does not advance this statement.

I agree that McCain's nomination does not advance the statement, but McCain's nomination is not necessarily inconsistent with the statement either, so where does that leave us?

Noggin, this time you got it completely right.

I leaves us wondering what was your point about the extremes. I think people wring their hands about the extremes, but their influence is overrated, both on the left and right.

I would wonder about my point about extremes if you had said something that contradicted it. Since you didn't, I don't wonder what my point is. If you're still wondering, just consult my original post.

Jay J: First, thanks for your preliminary remarks (which I have not reproduced here, out of some twisted sense of conserving electrons).

Now, the reason I wrote this response is to ask: why does this [right vs. left aspect] matter to Cass Sunstein's argument?

It mattered to me because Cass seemed to be making an argument of equivalence between the right- and left-wing "echo chambers."

I don't know why he's under any obligation to say that one side is more historically at fault than another, at least in recent history.

I agree; he is under no obligation, and in any case, it's probably not a question of "fault." My main point was that I thought he was mistaken to ignore the reality that is, and has long been, the Vast Right-Wing Noise Machine.

Professor Sunstein conceded many of Henry Farrell's points, which seem similar to many of the points being made in the comment section. Since Sunstein conceded many of the points, and how the netroots and the like may have many positive benefits, it seems like Sunstein wants his concerns to have a seat at the table, rather than to rebuke any particular movement.

I did not hear the concession as clearly as[/right]

Simon: Regarding your thoughts on super-delegates: Except for the part of me that is ready to burn down any obstacle that prevents Obama from being nominated, I can see the point of the super-delegates, at least in the abstract. As we learned in Civics 101, the Senate was designed to be a body less subject to momentary whims. I can see the super-delegates cast in the same light: to be the wise old folks who apply some brakes to a temporarily crazed populace. I agree: it is not very democratic. On the other hand, neither is much of anything about our electoral system. It is a republic -- we elect our electors, loosely speaking, and they are supposed to provide a buffer against the herd mentality. I have sympathies for both points of view, again, mostly in the abstract.

Finally, I have a minor objection to Henry's complaining about these "American" idiosyncrasies when they are really Party issues.

Well, yes. But on the other hand, they are American party issues. I don't blame Henry for feeling as though he's landed on another planet. The state-by-state variations on the rules have left me feeling like a stranger in a strange land, too. And that's really another aspect

Simon:

I assume you accept that McCain's nomination does not advance this statement [that, as Jay said, "crazies on the right have more influence on the Republican Party."]

I think it's reasonable to explain the eventual ascension of McCain as the result of a least-objectionable-to-all choice bubbling to the top because the crazies canceled each other out by appealing to different kinds of crazies (Huckabee: religious crazies, Giuliani: war & terror crazies, Tancredo: xenophobic crazies, Romney: swayable by Plast-O-Sheen propaganda crazies, Paul: Just Fucking Crazy Crazies). I think it's also reasonable to explain McCain by saying there weren't any crazies sufficiently crazy enough to appeal to the crazies (huckabee: too much care about the poor, Giuliani: too liberal and too morally bankrupt, Tancredo: too monotonic, Romney: not credibly crazy, Paul: well, I got nothing here). Both are over-simplifications, but I gotta go along with Jay here: the fact that McCain won this one doesn't disprove a whole lot about the extremists in the Republican Party. I suppose it's fair to speculate that his win speaks to the decline in power of the crazies, whether due to infighting or self-destruction or seven years of failure by the Crazy-in-Chief, I can't say. But I, for one, am not about to bet one red cent on the idea that they might be gone for good. It's going

I meant to bow down earlier, but I was frozen in awe before the majesty that is, and has always been, and will always be, the reigning Philosopher Queen.

Thanks, Simon!
It occurs to me that I neglected to draw attention (as I'd meant to) to the fact that, though he invokes Jane Jacobs's essentially democratic view of cities as places where people are thrown together to learn from each other, his model of the newspaper is much more unidirectional: an elite of reporters and editors puts something together for the consumer.
I think I'd like the "elite" to be better able to learn from us ordinary citizens -- and for that matter I'd rather learn things directly from those who really know things, not just what some reporter decides most people would like to know.
Jane Jacobs's idea was that cities are NOT engineered as wholes, and that its a good thing they're not. Architects and city planners are not really in a position to know how to provide the goods that arise naturally from the interplay of social forces, including supply and demand. Papers ARE more or less engineered. When Sunstein laments the lack of an editor for the internet or the blogosphere, isn't that the equivalent of lamenting the absence of the overbearing arhitects and city planners

I concede your central point about Cass's argument (paragraph 2) is a good one. I was just questioning your first paragraph preamble about the far right having undue influence. That's very hard to prove, and may even be meaningless. I deny the existence of an absolute metric for left or right. If crazies are organized and effective at persuasion, how do you prove they are really the crazy ones? The best one can do is survey the general population, identify the center, and call it "The Center". Anything else is, well, undemocratic.

Quoting bjkeefe: I meant to bow down earlier, but I was frozen in awe before the majesty that is, and has always been, and will always be, the reigning Philosopher Queen.

Very appropriate -- I am truly awful!

I can see the point of the super-delegates

Sure, I'm not opposed to representative democracy. I just can't understand the people who think they know an algorithm that the super-delegates should follow.

I don't blame Henry for feeling as though he's landed on another planet.

You mean he's not from Venus?

Yeah. Please replace "reigning" with "raging." ;^)

Quoting Simon Willard: Sure, I'm not opposed to representative democracy. I just can't understand the people who think they know an algorithm that the super-delegates should follow.

I don't think there is one, nor do I think there ever was meant to be one. This is one of those "use best judgment" things that is both the bane and beauty of uncodifiable humanity.

You mean he's not from Venus?

Do not speak ill of Henry. My suppressed Irish heritage will be vengeful.

BN: I buy the part about cities, but I do have to say, one element of Cass's argument that I really agreed with was his newspaper-related thinking (although, again, hardly an original thought). I think there is a real serendipity available from reading a print newspaper, even as I grant the existence of another kind of serendipity available from link-hopping online. I also assign a lot of worth to the notion of a trained and experienced group of people picking the stories that comprise "the news." Do they have biases, suffer from groupthink, and screw up regularly? Sure. But I do note that one of the ongoing efforts online is to create aggregation and recommendation services -- people do value other people making recommendations for them. There's something to be said for the wisdom of the crowd; there's also something to be said for professionalism. I don't want to read only what I get if I have to design all my own filters, and I'd be lost if I tried to focus on areas that I only know just enough about to think that I might be interested in. It doesn't have to be an either/or, fortunately. I'm delighted to have both the MSM and

Simon Willard, I think there may not be enough space to argue this point if we don't already agree on it. I mean, I think it's clear that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc, have more influence than the netroots and Air America. But again, if that's not already something we agree on, then we probably start from places too different to reconcile here. In any case, I'm probably the one most sympathetic (as far as quasi-leftists who see a vast "right-wing noise machine," as bjkeefe called it) to the idea that the left has a similar echo chamber, and I've had a few run ins with them actually, to the extent that I may as well have been John Birch, for all they cared. As for them being "crazies" and influential, I don't see a contradiction there. Crazy doesn't necessarily refer to their organizational competence or even their views, but rather their tactics and approach. As for John McCain, I didn't say the right-wing echo chamber sets policy, or that the GOP takes its marching orders from their echo chamber. If I had, then the fact that John McCain will be the nominee would contradict that. But since I simply said that the right-wing echo chamber

Brendan,
You seem to assume Sunstein is using the two different metaphors in opposition to each other. I hear him as sliding from one to the other without making a distinction. I was noting that the effect of this slide is to assume that the only (or best) way to achieve serendipity is through central planning and that people learning from each other really amounts to the great unwashed masses learning from the elite.
I would like the "elite" to learn a bit from the unwashed masses (including those "masses" who happen to be experts in something other than journalism). THAT is what we had too little of before and what the internet/blogosphere adds to what existed before. I never said that the increased ability to talk back and turn what had been a lecture into a conversation meant that the masses could start lecturing instead and tell the journalists to just shut up.
If Sunstein is NOT really slipping between these two models in the way I thought, but is perhaps opposing the two, then my objection is not relevant.

BN:

You seem to assume Sunstein is using the two different metaphors in opposition to each other. I hear him as sliding from one to the other without making a distinction.

Fair enough, and I think there's a lot of accuracy to your perception. On the other hand, he did go on for some time in such a way as to make it sound to me like he was preferring print newspapers to e-papers, and seemed to be using this as a metaphor as well. I agree that he wasn't being at all absolutist about any of this; I merely picked up on the newspaper thing because I did agree with him that there are different kinds of serendipitous experiences available from the different formats. I continue to believe that there will continue to be value in people who have a particular interest or specialty aggregating information for others. I don't, of course, believe this is the only way to go.

I was noting that the effect of this slide is to assume that the only (or best) way to achieve serendipity is through central planning and that people learning from each other