A Conflict of Visions

Rating:
Summary: Sowell is the soul of our time
Review: This book has only gained by the passage of time since it was written. It is clear that his analysis of the huge separation between those who view man as "constrained" vs the modern Liberal viewpoint has only grown deeper. He actually makes the best case I have read for the Liberal position, and it is still sorely lacking. I am so grateful that he lives and writes.

Rating:
Summary: clarity of thought
Review: This book is extremely well organized and the logic of thought is excellent. The issue and the core of the problem are so well defined and the single line of argument is being bulit step by step. People often argue on political issues without knowing what're the counterpart's assumptions, and this book offers a clear explaination of the source of the conflict. The same kind of conflict of visions actually not only exists in the US, as I was thinking about the difference btw. confucianism and Taoism in ancient China and the assumptions used by both sides (constrained and unconstrained visions) is strikingly similar to today's left and right's parties. This book leads me to think of things I've never thought about, and the clarity of thought is the hallmark of Dr. Sowell, whether you agree with him or not.

Rating:
Summary: Superb explanation of two polar thought processes
Review: This book is superbly written. It's tone has an intellectual bent but not stuffy and dry. The theories postulated jump from the pages as facts we see over and over on a daily basis. Like it or not, we each lean toward a particular school of thought in politics, economics, law, education, etc...indeed in daily life. Mr. Sowell explains why it seems these processes all can be categotized into only two schools of thought, "constrained" and "un-constrained". As I read this book, I was completely taken by how absolutely correct his postulations are. This book explains why the "other side" acts as it does in all facets of life. It has shown to me that the other side ( in my case the other side being the "un-constrained" side...liberals) doesn't always oppose us out of malice. They always oppose us out of malice, tempered with the fact that that's just the way they think. I re-read the book during Gulf War II and as I watch the shrill screeches of the war protestors on TV the truths stated in this book come through with astounding clarity and relevance. As you watch a political debate, the book's ideas will come to mind. As you hear a legal point debated before the Supreme Court, you will remember passages and quotes from the book. It was simply a joy to read such a masterfully presented piece of work.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent insight but shaky development and premise
Review: This book makes a compelling argument. It claims that there is an underlying systematicity to who lies on which sides of arguments of the last 200-300 years of Western political and social theory. He makes (admittedly fluid) categorizations of "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions, which are views on the nature of man. The argument is tremendously illuminating.

However, there are some severe caveats:

1. He doesn't consider seriously any social theorists that aren't basically economists (or Marxists, but they don't really accept that there is a social theory independent of an economic theory). For example, he mentions Max Weber only once.

2. (and this is related to one). He develops hypothetical positions for each of the polarities of visions that he proposes. Because these are polarities, not instances, the positions are caricatures. His caricatures of the unconstrained vision are substantially more shallow and less generous than those of the constrained (where he puts himself).

Examples of questions that I think he would have trouble with: (a) from the point of view of a constrained vision, why do "social scientific" accounts have descriptive force or descriptive adequacy? (b) From the constrained vision, why is behavior patterned culturally?

I think that Henry Kissinger hints to a more compelling and complete account of these kinds of phenomena in his Years of Renewal. The fundamental difference is that Kissinger views the contraint as not on human nature but on the human capacity to act. There is only so much that can be achieved, and a person has to establish priorities (which are "trade offs") so that he can act at all. This is a fundamental shift from an ideational perspective to a pragmatic one based in action. Furthermore, this allows things like culture in the door. This is the classic dilemma of Western thought, and especially the specific traditions that economic analysis has developed out of.

Rating:
Summary: This is the one book that should be read by every American.
Review: This book traces the history of the modern Conservative and Liberal "visions" from their beginnings about 200 years ago to the present day. Both views are treated in an apparently even handed maner, with any conclusions left to the reader. The results, however, may come as a revelation to many readers, since the differences explain many of the reasons for the seeming decline of morals and values in America today, and the apparent corruption of our political system. In particular, the book answers questions such as why are Conservatives judged by higher (or at least different) standards than their Liberal counterparts; why do some politicians feel free to lie to their constituents if it serves their ends; why has our Constitution been ignored by our lawmakers, and why does it continue to be ignored; what is the difference between Communism and Socialism; and why do some politicians consider themselves to be the so-called "elite" who know what is best for their fellow Americans. In short, this book is a MUST READ for anyone desiring to understand today's America and what makes it tick.

Rating:
Summary: Good Read
Review: This book was helpful in seeing other sides of issues. It enforced my belief that most people are attempting to do what is right. They have logically come to their visions of what is right based on differernt premises. One minor detraction is Sowell's altruistic contention that both visions do and should do what is best for society rather than what is best for oneself. He mostly ignores rational individualism as moral.

Rating:
Summary: Political opinion is like a bowel movement; we all have one.
Review: This book's value is in it's exploration of the history of political philosophy. It explores the ideas that have been offered but in a way less obvious and to the point as Francione's HOW TO SAVE AMERICA AND THE WORLD.

It is a good reference book if you wish to study the various viewpoints on political matters. But it lacks the logical examination of the reasons behind many of those views. Also it is redundant in many areas and could have been much shorter. I found myself becoming bored and had to scan rather than read many portions

Rating:
Summary: Insightful look at the war of ideas...
Review: This is an insightful look by the renowned conservative historian and economist at George Mason University, Thomas Sowell. It probes the on-going cultural war of ideas between the Left and Right. I also recommend the Vision of the Annointed by Sowell and Intellectuals by Paul Johnson.

Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking work from a world class mind
Review: This is one of those rare books that long after you're done reading it, you keep reflecting on as you think about issues, hear arguments, read about contemporary topics and respond to points raised by those with whom you disagree. It is also a fresh insight into the shear breadth of range of Thomas Sowell, the man. I have given copies of the book to friends and family, of both liberal and conservative persuasions. The book does much to iluminate foundations of how our own perspectives are shaped as well as those who see the world differently. Sowell also does a fine job of keeping his own views out of the book. He lays out both perspectives in a clear and unbiased way.

I recommend it thoroughly to anyone who wants to have a stronger basis for his or her own views and wants to better understand the perspective of others.

Rating:
Summary: A Tremendous Achievement
Review: Thomas Sowell begins the book by asking us why the same people seem to be on opposite sides of every issue, even when the issues themselves seem to be unrelated. His thesis is a CONFLICT OF VISIONS. He believes that political thought can be broken into two different camps. With some crossover and a few exceptions, people either subscribe to the constrained vision or the unconstrained vision.

The constrained vision believes that people have natural flaws and our resources are better spent designing society with those flaws in mind. The unconstrained vision believes that man can be molded and perfected with the right instruction and society should spend their resources to reach that end.

Sowell does an excellent job in explaining that most current ideas have their origins, at least somewhat, in philosophies that are over 100 years old. My favorite bit is Adam Smith's idea that supposes you were told every person in China was killed. Smith argues that you might feel immediate surprise and maybe even some faint remorse, but it would be nothing compared to the worry you'd feel if you'd lost end of your little finger. Smith's idea is that it's neither good nor bad that man is self-interested, but that societies would be much more productive if they recognized that truth, and worked with it, instead of spending their resources trying to change man's nature, which Smith believed was impossible.

You won't soon forget this work.