Tweet
HOW THE US GOVERNMENT 'NUDGES' ITS ARMENIANS
Daily Sabah, Turkey
Nov 5 2014
by Tal Buenos
ISTANBUL -- Who generates the accusation of genocide against Turkey? It
is a misconception to think that Armenians have masterminded
this long lasting anti-Turkish campaign. The Armenian polemic is
primarily an American issue. The accusation against Turkey serves
American interests in two main ways; it keeps some skeletons of the
Anglo-American imperialist past in the closet and it functions as
a big stick in the U.S.'s present dealings with Turkey. Turkey's
many spheres of influence are of high importance to the U.S., which
throughout the latter half of the 20th century and to this day has
often needed Turkish cooperation in regional affairs. However, because
of Turkey's unique cultural history, it is not perceived in the U.S.
as a natural ally, like the U.K. or Australia, but rather as requiring
a "carrot and stick" approach.
A universal characterization of the events as genocide could lead
to major property and compensation claims against Turkey as well as
severely harm the Turkish image in world history. Such a universal
characterization may very well become a reality if the U.S. issues
a formal declaration that the events were genocide, begins working
toward having this view be shared by other countries and officially
be put into writing through international organizations.
The status quo in U.S.-Turkey relations means that the U.S. cannot
be too obvious in its use of the Armenian polemic as a stick against
Turkey for that would lead to a worsening in the working relationship
between the two governments. Correspondingly, the U.S. does not seek
to make any formal declarations that what happened to Armenians was
genocide for that would negate the mobilizing utility of the stick and
the very idea of benefiting from an alliance with Turkey. Therefore,
the ideal presentation of the stick for the U.S. is to maintain
the relevance and significance of the Armenian polemic without it
appearing as instigated and controlled by the U.S. government.
How has this been done? The U.S. government has been "nudging"
the American public - in particular Armenian-Americans - toward
a belief that they are making their own historiographical choices
when in truth they are following a mapped out plan. The concept of
"nudging" was first introduced in the context of behavioral economics
by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their 2008 work, "Nudge:
Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness." They argued
that a parental-like management of individuals' choices is legitimate
and even preferable when it leads to decisions that are conducive
to their well-being. Nudging might mean that individuals may be led
to make choices that are not clearly expressive of their wishes or
best interest. Moreover, it seems as though Sunstein had in mind a
governmental application of nudges. Following the publication of the
book, he was appointed the Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs under President Barack Obama with whom he had
shared the same law faculty at the University of Chicago. Just prior
to assuming the White House position that he would hold until 2012,
Sunstein argued that the nudge idea - through the prodding of experts -
should be used on behalf of government interests.
In the context of how to ward off "problems" of conspiracy theories
against the U.S. government, Sunstein, together with Adrian Vermeule,
suggested in an article titled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures"
in The Journal of Political Philosophy 17/2 in 2009: The government
can partially circumvent these problems if it enlists credible
independent experts in the effort to rebut the theories. There is
a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price
of credibility is that the government cannot be seen to control
the independent experts. Although the government can supply these
independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into
action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove
self-defeating if it is exposed - as witnessed in the humiliating
disclosures showing that apparently independent opinions on scientific
and regulatory questions were in fact paid for by think-tanks with
ties to the Bush administration.
It is important to notice three main aspects of this shocking quote
by a man who was on his way to a lofty position in the U.S. government.
1) the use of "credible independent experts" is offered as a solution
and a modus operandi for the U.S. government; 2) the successful
blend of "credibility" and "control" is only achieved if secrecy is
maintained and the public does not know that the alleged independent
experts are U.S. government-dependent; 3) the problem with this
practice, as in the case of the Bush administration, is not the act
of manipulating the public, but rather it is getting caught in the act.
Sunstein may not have invented this concept, but articulated it and
advanced it through the term "nudge," and he still does. Another book
on nudging by Sunstein was recently published. Sunstein also recently
produced a book on conspiracy theories, though it does not contain
the article from which the above quote is taken.
One of the most famous "choice architects" of the Armenian polemic
or "credible independent experts" on genocide is Samantha Power, who
wrote "A Problem from Hell" (2002) and would later marry Sunstein. By
describing Turks as "perpetrators," Armenians as symbols of morality
and the British as a force for good in what might be the most popular
book on genocide Power disseminated information that works in the U.S.
government's favor. She made it seem as if the U.S. is destined to
play the role of judge and savior in atrocities, highlighting the term
genocide to cover up great power instigation of conflict. The term
genocide is not currently equipped to be applied to great powers as
the main actors in setting up local massacres. Power wrote her book
without academic training in Ottoman history and without caring to
learn whether her discussion of Raphael Lemkin presented fiction as
fact. Despite the book's lack of academic integrity, it was catapulted
to, and by, a Pulitzer Prize and now Power is advocating the U.S.
government's interests officially as its ambassador to the U.N. in
New York.
Prior to writing the book, Power came under the mentorship of Morton
Abramowitz as an intern at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace. Abramowitz, then the president of the think tank organization,
had previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1989 to
1991 and as assistant secretary of State for Intelligence and Research
from 1985 to 1989). After Power, his protégé, nudged
the American public - and especially motivated Armenian-Americans -
into thinking that they are making the right historical and emotional
choices about what happened in Anatolia in 1915 and 1916, Abramowitz,
along with Henri J. Barkey, could raise the stick and write in the
November/December 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs that "The AKP [Justice
and Development Party] government [.] has failed to come to grips
with the question of whether the Ottomans' treatment of the Armenians
a century ago constituted a genocide." Who has been raising this
question from behind the scenes? Who wants this question to be asked?
In another article, "The Never-Ending Armenian Genocide Resolution,"
posted online on March 19, 2010 on The National Interest, Abramowitz
provided a clear view of the trickery. Once notions of genocide
have been created, Abramowitz could then write as if he is merely
describing the public mood and the existing political pressures. He
described the routine of the congressional resolutions as an outside
observer, but continued the nudging of the public by claiming, as if
reporting, that "The Turks vehemently deny genocide occurred" and that
"Turkish governments complain bitterly when resolutions are introduced
in other countries." He also associated the Turkish government with
emotional labels such as "rage" and "anger," while he coolly continued
to reap the fruits of a nudged public and a biased discourse. He was
not taking away people's choice by telling them what to think, but
he was nudging them in that direction by saying that "Most Americans
who pay attention to the issue probably sympathize with the Armenians
and believe historical evidence supports their claim of genocide." The
American trick is not to make an accusation of genocide, but to create
an image of history by using the words "Armenian" and "genocide"
together to establish a common phrase, as he did in this article.
The nudging of the American public, and mainly that of Armenians,
has been going on for decades through many "choice architects" - some
less obvious than others. The field of genocide study has its share of
seemingly independent credible experts. The New York Times functions
as both source and space for "choice architects." The newspaper's
high status allows for the nudging of readers to form a world view
of politics and history according to its opinions and areas of focus.
Furthermore, experts cite its articles from World War I as if they were
fair reports even though they were reserved for pro-British wartime
propaganda. The World War I mini-series, "1914-1918: The Great War and
the Shaping of the 20th Century" that came out in 1996 was supported
by the governments of the U.S. and U.K. It was produced by the BBC
and the Imperial War Museum as well as by KCET in Los Angeles, the
same company that produced the annual "Armenia Fund Telethon" that
collected money for the construction of a highway that would connect
Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. The fact that this product, in which
Turks are accused of genocide, was distributed by the American Public
Broadcasting Service, means that one branch of the U.S. government
enabled the diplomatic branch of the U.S. government to say to Turkey:
the public seems to think that Turks committed genocide.
As a result, the public is continuously nudged away from historical
fact, Turks are vilified and the U.S. government continues to act as if
it is doing Turkey a political favor by holding off public pressure,
which was generated by the U.S. government itself via nudges. After
years of being nudged into passionate beliefs and political activity
in the U.S., some Armenian lobbyists might be "choice architects"
themselves, but most Armenians are simply nudged toward a twisted
view of their people's history.
Nudges such as this are a danger to any democracy, even the proud
American one, and may be interpreted as policies of a "submerged
state," as defined by Suzanne Mettler in her 2011 book "The Submerged
State." She described such policies of "soft paternalism" as having a
"stealth presence in the lives of most Americans." She warned that
"the submerged state threatens to undermine the basic principles
encapsulated in the idea of 'government of the people, by the people,
for the people.' "
If, by nudging, the U.S. government is implementing its policies
stealthily, then while American citizens may maintain their freedom
of choice, they are limited in their view of what their government
is actually doing and are therefore kept under-informed or even
misinformed. Prior to being able to make decisions about government
freely, citizens must be able to form an opinion about government
performance. Even if the U.S. government is under the impression
that this Armenian nudge is beneficial to its citizens because
of national interest, such a policy presents a compromise of core
democratic values.
* PhD candidate at the University of Utah's Department of Political
Science
http://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/2014/11/05/how-the-us-government-nudges-its-armenians
From: Baghdasarian
Daily Sabah, Turkey
Nov 5 2014
by Tal Buenos
ISTANBUL -- Who generates the accusation of genocide against Turkey? It
is a misconception to think that Armenians have masterminded
this long lasting anti-Turkish campaign. The Armenian polemic is
primarily an American issue. The accusation against Turkey serves
American interests in two main ways; it keeps some skeletons of the
Anglo-American imperialist past in the closet and it functions as
a big stick in the U.S.'s present dealings with Turkey. Turkey's
many spheres of influence are of high importance to the U.S., which
throughout the latter half of the 20th century and to this day has
often needed Turkish cooperation in regional affairs. However, because
of Turkey's unique cultural history, it is not perceived in the U.S.
as a natural ally, like the U.K. or Australia, but rather as requiring
a "carrot and stick" approach.
A universal characterization of the events as genocide could lead
to major property and compensation claims against Turkey as well as
severely harm the Turkish image in world history. Such a universal
characterization may very well become a reality if the U.S. issues
a formal declaration that the events were genocide, begins working
toward having this view be shared by other countries and officially
be put into writing through international organizations.
The status quo in U.S.-Turkey relations means that the U.S. cannot
be too obvious in its use of the Armenian polemic as a stick against
Turkey for that would lead to a worsening in the working relationship
between the two governments. Correspondingly, the U.S. does not seek
to make any formal declarations that what happened to Armenians was
genocide for that would negate the mobilizing utility of the stick and
the very idea of benefiting from an alliance with Turkey. Therefore,
the ideal presentation of the stick for the U.S. is to maintain
the relevance and significance of the Armenian polemic without it
appearing as instigated and controlled by the U.S. government.
How has this been done? The U.S. government has been "nudging"
the American public - in particular Armenian-Americans - toward
a belief that they are making their own historiographical choices
when in truth they are following a mapped out plan. The concept of
"nudging" was first introduced in the context of behavioral economics
by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their 2008 work, "Nudge:
Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness." They argued
that a parental-like management of individuals' choices is legitimate
and even preferable when it leads to decisions that are conducive
to their well-being. Nudging might mean that individuals may be led
to make choices that are not clearly expressive of their wishes or
best interest. Moreover, it seems as though Sunstein had in mind a
governmental application of nudges. Following the publication of the
book, he was appointed the Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs under President Barack Obama with whom he had
shared the same law faculty at the University of Chicago. Just prior
to assuming the White House position that he would hold until 2012,
Sunstein argued that the nudge idea - through the prodding of experts -
should be used on behalf of government interests.
In the context of how to ward off "problems" of conspiracy theories
against the U.S. government, Sunstein, together with Adrian Vermeule,
suggested in an article titled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures"
in The Journal of Political Philosophy 17/2 in 2009: The government
can partially circumvent these problems if it enlists credible
independent experts in the effort to rebut the theories. There is
a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price
of credibility is that the government cannot be seen to control
the independent experts. Although the government can supply these
independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into
action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove
self-defeating if it is exposed - as witnessed in the humiliating
disclosures showing that apparently independent opinions on scientific
and regulatory questions were in fact paid for by think-tanks with
ties to the Bush administration.
It is important to notice three main aspects of this shocking quote
by a man who was on his way to a lofty position in the U.S. government.
1) the use of "credible independent experts" is offered as a solution
and a modus operandi for the U.S. government; 2) the successful
blend of "credibility" and "control" is only achieved if secrecy is
maintained and the public does not know that the alleged independent
experts are U.S. government-dependent; 3) the problem with this
practice, as in the case of the Bush administration, is not the act
of manipulating the public, but rather it is getting caught in the act.
Sunstein may not have invented this concept, but articulated it and
advanced it through the term "nudge," and he still does. Another book
on nudging by Sunstein was recently published. Sunstein also recently
produced a book on conspiracy theories, though it does not contain
the article from which the above quote is taken.
One of the most famous "choice architects" of the Armenian polemic
or "credible independent experts" on genocide is Samantha Power, who
wrote "A Problem from Hell" (2002) and would later marry Sunstein. By
describing Turks as "perpetrators," Armenians as symbols of morality
and the British as a force for good in what might be the most popular
book on genocide Power disseminated information that works in the U.S.
government's favor. She made it seem as if the U.S. is destined to
play the role of judge and savior in atrocities, highlighting the term
genocide to cover up great power instigation of conflict. The term
genocide is not currently equipped to be applied to great powers as
the main actors in setting up local massacres. Power wrote her book
without academic training in Ottoman history and without caring to
learn whether her discussion of Raphael Lemkin presented fiction as
fact. Despite the book's lack of academic integrity, it was catapulted
to, and by, a Pulitzer Prize and now Power is advocating the U.S.
government's interests officially as its ambassador to the U.N. in
New York.
Prior to writing the book, Power came under the mentorship of Morton
Abramowitz as an intern at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace. Abramowitz, then the president of the think tank organization,
had previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1989 to
1991 and as assistant secretary of State for Intelligence and Research
from 1985 to 1989). After Power, his protégé, nudged
the American public - and especially motivated Armenian-Americans -
into thinking that they are making the right historical and emotional
choices about what happened in Anatolia in 1915 and 1916, Abramowitz,
along with Henri J. Barkey, could raise the stick and write in the
November/December 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs that "The AKP [Justice
and Development Party] government [.] has failed to come to grips
with the question of whether the Ottomans' treatment of the Armenians
a century ago constituted a genocide." Who has been raising this
question from behind the scenes? Who wants this question to be asked?
In another article, "The Never-Ending Armenian Genocide Resolution,"
posted online on March 19, 2010 on The National Interest, Abramowitz
provided a clear view of the trickery. Once notions of genocide
have been created, Abramowitz could then write as if he is merely
describing the public mood and the existing political pressures. He
described the routine of the congressional resolutions as an outside
observer, but continued the nudging of the public by claiming, as if
reporting, that "The Turks vehemently deny genocide occurred" and that
"Turkish governments complain bitterly when resolutions are introduced
in other countries." He also associated the Turkish government with
emotional labels such as "rage" and "anger," while he coolly continued
to reap the fruits of a nudged public and a biased discourse. He was
not taking away people's choice by telling them what to think, but
he was nudging them in that direction by saying that "Most Americans
who pay attention to the issue probably sympathize with the Armenians
and believe historical evidence supports their claim of genocide." The
American trick is not to make an accusation of genocide, but to create
an image of history by using the words "Armenian" and "genocide"
together to establish a common phrase, as he did in this article.
The nudging of the American public, and mainly that of Armenians,
has been going on for decades through many "choice architects" - some
less obvious than others. The field of genocide study has its share of
seemingly independent credible experts. The New York Times functions
as both source and space for "choice architects." The newspaper's
high status allows for the nudging of readers to form a world view
of politics and history according to its opinions and areas of focus.
Furthermore, experts cite its articles from World War I as if they were
fair reports even though they were reserved for pro-British wartime
propaganda. The World War I mini-series, "1914-1918: The Great War and
the Shaping of the 20th Century" that came out in 1996 was supported
by the governments of the U.S. and U.K. It was produced by the BBC
and the Imperial War Museum as well as by KCET in Los Angeles, the
same company that produced the annual "Armenia Fund Telethon" that
collected money for the construction of a highway that would connect
Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. The fact that this product, in which
Turks are accused of genocide, was distributed by the American Public
Broadcasting Service, means that one branch of the U.S. government
enabled the diplomatic branch of the U.S. government to say to Turkey:
the public seems to think that Turks committed genocide.
As a result, the public is continuously nudged away from historical
fact, Turks are vilified and the U.S. government continues to act as if
it is doing Turkey a political favor by holding off public pressure,
which was generated by the U.S. government itself via nudges. After
years of being nudged into passionate beliefs and political activity
in the U.S., some Armenian lobbyists might be "choice architects"
themselves, but most Armenians are simply nudged toward a twisted
view of their people's history.
Nudges such as this are a danger to any democracy, even the proud
American one, and may be interpreted as policies of a "submerged
state," as defined by Suzanne Mettler in her 2011 book "The Submerged
State." She described such policies of "soft paternalism" as having a
"stealth presence in the lives of most Americans." She warned that
"the submerged state threatens to undermine the basic principles
encapsulated in the idea of 'government of the people, by the people,
for the people.' "
If, by nudging, the U.S. government is implementing its policies
stealthily, then while American citizens may maintain their freedom
of choice, they are limited in their view of what their government
is actually doing and are therefore kept under-informed or even
misinformed. Prior to being able to make decisions about government
freely, citizens must be able to form an opinion about government
performance. Even if the U.S. government is under the impression
that this Armenian nudge is beneficial to its citizens because
of national interest, such a policy presents a compromise of core
democratic values.
* PhD candidate at the University of Utah's Department of Political
Science
http://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/2014/11/05/how-the-us-government-nudges-its-armenians
From: Baghdasarian