Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
131 of 134 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Cleaving conservatives, compassionates: conflicting concepts, July 29, 2003
Why do liberals berate conservatives as hard-hearted, morally repugnant, selfish caricatures of cartoon fatcats; while conservative will grant the liberals' their good intentions but remind them that road to hell is apved thusly by their wooly-headed, ivory tower schemes? And why are liberals castigiated as slick, short-sighted, and interest group-driven, while conservatives are lampooned as dumb, corrupt and morally evil?These are just two of the questions tangentially answered by Thomas Sowell in this important book on the taxonomy and structure of our political debate. This work is sure to stand for the remainder of the century as *the* reference point from which dueling political frameworks are engaged. Sowell's main thesis is that contrasting visions of human capability, knowledge, perfection, and self-interest underlie two very different visions of humanity, and it is on these visions that political ideology, debate, and worldview rest. Sowell's two visions are named, rather unhelpfully, the constrained and the unconstrained vision. No gold star here for Sowell on Marketing. So instead, I'll use Pinker's terminology, as I was introduced to this book via Steven Pinker's Blank Slate. The Tragic (constrained) vision of human nature views man as possessing foibles, incentives, and the desire to act in his own self-interest. The Tragic "sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings." Thus, the perfection of governance in the Tragic Vision is the American Revolution with its checks and balances. Further, history should guide us, as the unknowable tradeoffs between different policies and procedures have been ironed out through unstated practice. The Utopians are to be scorned for their theoretical leanings that have little to do with the real world: "Hobbes regarded universities as places where fashionable but insignificant words flourished and added that `there is nothing so absurd, but may be found in the books of Philosophers." The Utopian (unconstrained) vision holds that man has not yet achieved his full moral potential, and that that potential is essentially perfectible. It is "foolish and immoral choices explain the evils of the world - and that wiser or more moral and humane social policies are the solution." So while there are incentives that actually work in the here and now, this fact is somewhat irrelevant to the achievement of true justice. The Utopian holds that "potential is very different from the actual, and that means exist to improve human nature toward its potential, or that such means can be evolved or discovered, so that man will do the right thing for the right reason, rather than for ulterior psychic or economic rewards." So the Utopian "promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solution" in the hopes of achieving this perfect man. And if the masses are slow in catching on, then it is the role of the intellectual vanguard to lead them there - even if in the short run, the masses are unhappy with the results because they have not yet achieved the ability to see the future. Their thought is that reason should guide us, but reason as determined by the best and brightest: professors, government workers, elected and unelected officials. In this regard, the French Revolution with its lofty ideals and disposal of the past is the perfection of governance. Sowell, who is the Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at Stanford, certainly has his preferences in this debate, but keeps them entirely off-page here and lays out, in a remarkably even-handed portrayal his case. Political visions are uncommonly linked across diverse fields of inquiry, that these two competing political visions have been dominant in the last two centuries (to throw in a bit of materialism here - perhaps due to the Industrial Revolution?), and extending from initial premises, each is a logical, coherent, cogent interpretation of the world that nonetheless conflicts absolutely with its counterpart. The implications are fascinating: "While believers in the unconstrained vision seek the special causes of war, poverty, and crime, believers in the constrained vision seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society. "While the constrained vision sees human nature as essentially unchanged across the ages and around the world, the particular cultural expressions of human needs peculiar to specific societies are not seen as being readily and beneficially changeable by forcible intervention. By contrast, those with the unconstrained vision tend to view human nature as beneficially changeable and social customs as expendable holdovers from the past." In sum, this will be the groundwork for philosophical and political discussions for generations to come. Sowell has quite clearly pointed out the different premises. Now it is up to us to understand, argue, and resolve.
|
|
|
90 of 92 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Wonderful Analysis of How Core Beliefs Differ, July 14, 2000
Any thoughtful observer of political and social discourse is forced to note the ironies and disjuncts in specific beliefs from time to time. Conservatives often support restrictions on behavior in order to effect security, while liberals preach freedom but are happy to truncate it in order to marshall the resources to support their favored victim classes. Either side, if honestly introspective, ought to be troubled about why this is. Thomas Sowell, one of America's most thoughtful and intellectually honest commentators explains just why this is and traces the origin of the question to the Enlightenment and post-enlightenment thinkers before and shortly after the French Revolution. He describes the key dichotomy as between the "constrained" and "unconstrained" views of human nature, which view mankind as flawed or perfectable, respectively. Another author describing comparable distinctions in international relations, Robert Kaplan, uses the terms Realist and Idealist to discuss the same cleavage. In setting this out, Sowell manages to produce a genuinely Aristotelian approach to modern thought that is extremely worth reading. What's more, he does all of this in a very readable, approachable prose that it more enjoyable to read than any text on such deep subjects ought to be. It's one of the very few books that improves the reader while giving pleasure in doing so.
|
|
|
63 of 63 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Philosophies Behind the History. , January 19, 2005
Dr. Thomas Sowell's book, "A Conflict of Visions" is an attempt to explore the primary, if unarticulated, philosophy of historical conservatism and liberalism. His thesis is that conservatism has a tradition of operating by a vision of humans that sees them as 'constrained.' Some characteristics of this view are:
(1) Humans have generally selfish natures.
(2) Human reason, while valuable, is quite limited.
(3) Because of this, society grows by evolution, not central deliberate planning.
(4) Social decisions generally involve not 'solutions' but 'trade-offs' (how much good for how much downside?)
(5) Procedural fairness, rather than results-based fairness, is the key to a just society.
Conversely, Sowell writes that the liberal tradition operates on a vision of humankind that is 'unconstrained.' Features include:
(1)Human selfishness is a quality that can be overcome by reason and education.
(2) Human reason, when used properly, can trump human impulses, emotions, and feelings.
(3)The planned society is best. Non-planned societies = chaos.
(4) While policy trade-offs might be a good short term solution, reason can discover true solutions that are equitable to all.
(5)Procedural fairness is not fair so long as disperate outcomes result.
Sowell backs up his thesis with impressive research, citations, and quotes. This is refreshing becuase it makes sure he is not simply creating strawmen. From the conservative side, his quites tend to come from Edmunde Burke, Adam Smith, Freidrich Hayek, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. From the liberal side, his quotes tend to come from William Godwin, Marquis de Condorcet, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Ronald Dworkin. (As one who has read all of these authors, I can assure the readers that there are no strawmen here.)
The only murky part of the book is that Sowell makes this vision sound too simplistic. While he acknowledges that not all thinkers will fall into either one or the other category (and even has a chapter on Marx and Mill - two thinkers that borrow from both sides), some of his choices of people and quotes to exempify each 'side' are less clean-cut than one might like.
As a libertarian, it is strange to me to see Edmunde Burke (who valued tradition more than most anything) Friedrich Hayek (who valued the innovation of capitalism more than anything) in the same group. (And Holmes is not necessarily the best jurist to exemplify 'strict construction' of the contitution). [It would have been interesting to see, then, an appendix on the ideological divorce of libertarianism and conservatism.] On the other 'side,' I kept thinking that, although William Godwin might be a good example of someone who believed reason to be virtually omnipotent, he was also a liability to Sowell's case, as Godwin did not believe in a planned society whatever and in fact, was an anarchist who was against planning in any form!
While the examples aren't perfect, Sowell didn't intend them to be. All in all, it is a good book and I think Sowell's argument is a good one, and for the most part, true. For some other books in a similar vain - exploring the ideological divide between sides - try George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" and E.J. Dionne's "Why Americans Hate Politics."
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Thomas Sowell
by Mark R. Levin
by Thomas Sowell
by Amity Shlaes
See all Editorial Reviews
