Mark D. White

Mark D. White

Not long ago, in my chapter for Essays on Philosophy, Politics & Economics: Integration & Common Research Projects, edited by Christi Favor, Gerald Gaus, and Julian Lamont, I wrote the following as a cautionary tale regarding the political implications of "libertarian paternalism" (or "nudges"):

Suppose the members of a local election board, who are charged with designing the ballot for an upcoming presidential election, “know” who the local voters should choose, based on what is good for them, and are afraid they might choose the other candidate based on emotional appeals and negative advertising. So they use BLE [behavioral law and economics] principles to structure the ballot in such a way that more voters will “choose” the “right” candidate. They are still free to choose the “wrong” candidate, but the ballot was designed to lead the voters to the “right” conclusion—the candidate that represents their “true interests.” I hope this “nudge” seems less benign and illustrates the danger of BLE policies when taken beyond the realm of more personal choices like saving… (p. 212) 

Little did I know that this precise type of voter manipulation–albeit tremendously obvious and clumsy–may have been practiced by none other than Adolf Hitler. Dan Ariely brings us this news:

Hitler seems to have had a few of these tricks up his sleeve as well, as seen here in this 1938 voting ballot:

Translation: ”Referendum and Großdeutscher Reichstag; Ballot; Do you agree with the reunification of Austria with the German Reich that was enacted on 13 March 1938 and do you vote for the party of our leader; Adolf Hitler?; Yes; No”

And before anyone says it, this is not a facile attempt on my part to link those with whom I disagree to Hitler; I abhor such rhetorical tomfoolery. It is not the identity of the perpetrator here that interested me, but rather the use of nudging in the election process–such as it was–and its correspondence with what I wrote.