A Conflict of Visions

Rating:
Summary: A book for the intelligent mind
Review: Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" is a remarkable book. The author's objective portrayal of the two conflicting visions, their premises, their history and their wide ranging implications and ramifications is an excellent education for all who have a serious interest in social and economic policies, as well as politics.

Like Dr. Sowell's other books, "A Conflict of Visions" was the product of meticulous research, objective analysis and much original thought. In my opinion, few people in the public arena today are as brilliant and as well informed as Dr. Sowell.

If you ever wondered why the same two camps of voices combat each other on issue after issue, in politics, in law, in economics and in social policies, if you ever wondered why no unequivocal truth emerged from the conflicting premises through more than 200 years of war and peace, and if you ever wondered (this is the kicker!) why one side's vitriolic portrayal of the other side met with a generally benevolent counter portrayal, you will find the answers in Dr. Sowell's theory of conflicting visions. Reading this book is like discovering Newtonian mechanics.

"A Conflict of Visions" is not an easy read. However, you won't soon forget its ideas.

Rating:
Summary: Cleaving conservatives, compassionates: conflicting concepts
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Sowell goes straight to the roots of ideological conflict
Review: Why do the supposedly "intolerant" seem more tolerant of disagreement than the "tolerant"? From the time I began to think critically about politics, I was puzzled by the different ways in which people of the left and right saw each other. When I argued with a conservative, I was always treated with civility by my opponent; we could agree to disagree about a given topic, and then go on to something else. But when I argued with a liberal, I often would be personally criticized for my lack of compassion. Since my intentions were good regardless of the side of the debate that I was on, I couldn't figure out why one side saw me as misguided, but the other saw me as mean and unfeeling -- or, to put it another way, why those on the left, who preached "tolerance," seemed so intolerant of disagreement.

Dr. Sowell's book was a revelation. It seems that this civility gap, as I like to call it, is quite old. It stems from the "conflict of visions" for which the book is named. People of the "constrained" vision see limits to what human beings -- and particularly government -- can accomplish. Hence they do not try to solve every problem for every person. They see attempts to solve unsolvable problems as idealistic and misguided, but in no way evil. People of the "unconstrained" vision, on the other hand, believe that all problems can be solved if everyone is virtuous enough. So they see people of the "constrained" vision -- who seem to them unwilling even to try -- as lacking in virtue.

To show just how old this conflict is and how it has not changed in many generations, Dr. Sowell presents a debate between some leading thinkers of the late 18th century. Dr. Sowell researches and writes like a genuine scholar as opposed to a political pundit, and although from his other books we know where his heart lies, in "A Conflict Of Visions" he is careful to present the debate in a balanced fashion. After you read "A Conflict Of Visions," what you see on TV and in the newspaper will make more sense than before. Enjoy.