Book Review, The Vision of the Anointed, Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, by Thomas Sowell, 260pp plus index and notes, Basic Books, 1995
This book can be considered a follow-up to Sowell's earlier book, A Conflict of Visions. In the first book Sowell describes what he calls the constrained and the unconstrained visions but strives to take a neutral stance. In this one he makes no pretense of neutrality but describes the problems arising from the unconstrained vision and how some of its adherents successfully ignore those problems. Along with Sowells later book, The Quest for Cosmic Justice (2001), these books form, not an official trilogy, but at least a triad of books defining these differences and taking to task those who would blindly accept the unconstrained vision. I’ll not review the third book, any readers I have are probably already tired of three straight book reviews. However I also recommend that book.
And indeed (as Sowell describes) much of the problem is blind acceptance of ideas spawned by the unconstrained vision. Contrary evidence is likely to be ignored, dismissed as “isolated anomalies,” or those presenting it called “simplistic” or worse. The big problem is not that the unconstrained are wrong; people have been wrong, often spectacularly wrong, throughout history. The problem is that they are disconnected from empirical checks on their ideas. That allows the damage to continue unchecked.
Who are “the anointed?” According to Sowell they are the self-appointed intellectual elite, firm believers in the unconstrained vision. They regard themselves as of superior morality and wisdom. They think of themselves as the rescuers of the race. As a consequence of this attitude they tend to regard their opponents as benighted, immoral, greedy, or stupid. Because of this self-image they are unable to consider that they could be wrong and someone from among the “benighted” right. In fact it would destroy their self-image to admit to being wrong so they go to great lengths to discredit any evidence contrary to their beliefs.
Examples of the anointed would include Ralph Nader, William Godwin, Antoine-Nicolas Condorcte, and Earl Warren.
Because of their self-image of being the rescuers of benighted humanity, the anointed tend to regard ordinary perceptions as wrong. There is no superiority in accepting what regular people believe, so they find ways to reject it. One way they do that is by adopting as “mascots” those most people reject, such as criminals. They find all sorts of ways to blame society for the anti-social acts of the few, ignoring the possibility that a thief might steal because he wants an easier way to obtain what he seeks.
At the same time they regard as criminals those most of us think of as productive such as business people. If “society” is at fault for the problems of their mascots, then these representatives of society must take the blame.
And of course like all rescuers, they need a reason for their rescue missions. A typical event would proceed through four steps:
Stage 1, the “crisis.” Assertions of great danger to which the masses are oblivious. This is presented as a crisis even though it has not been getting worse and in fact the situation may be improving. For example, the “war on poverty” was proposed by Kennedy and Johnson, even though poverty had been on the decline for decades at the time.
Stage 2, a “solution” is presented as necessary and includes promises of how it will solve the problem. Opponents point out the likely bad effects but their objections are called absurd, simplistic, or simply dismissed. Exactly that happened when the war on poverty was proposed with a promise that it would reduce dependence on government handouts.
Stage 3, the results. Policies are instituted leading to the bad effects the opponents forecast but not the promised improvement. Again the war on poverty is one example; dependence on government programs increased rather than decreasing.
Stage 4, the response. The bad effects and lack of success are ignored, or blamed on complexities, or the claim is made that it would have been worse without the policy. Of course no documentation is provided for why it would have been worse. As is typical, in the war on poverty, the target was moved after the fact with proponents claiming that it was a success because, counting government handouts, it reduced poverty even though it failed to meet its original goal of reducing those handouts. Later even that new target was not met as poverty increased even counting government largess.
This book presents many more examples of how the anointed ignore evidence, misuse statistics and refuse to pay attention to results. They do little real thinking but a lot of talking. However the biggest problem is divorce from reality and empirical evidence. There is a big difference between the effect of a mistake corrected when it is found to be a mistake, and a mistake perpetuated indefinitely in spite of evidence that it is a mistake.
This book has much more than I can include in a review of any reasonable length. I strongly recommend it to everyone.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Showing posts with label vision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vision. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A Conflict of Visions, Part 2
Continuing the review of A Conflict of Visions, Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell, I’ll look at some of the specific ways different visions affect our thinking. It is not feasible in this review to describe all the concepts this book treats, so a couple of examples will have to do.
One is the concept of equality. In the constrained view, equality means equal opportunity consistent with a person's ability and resources. As long as we do not remove the options different people have, they have equality, everybody has a chance to try whatever he wants with the opportunity to compete fairly. The unconstrained view, on the other hand, seeks equality of outcome. It is not enough to allow everyone to apply for a job and be selected on merit. Instead we must be certain that all have an equal chance to get it. In this vision, a 120-pound woman should have the same right to be a firefighter as a 200-pound man who can carry twice as much fire hose as can she.
The unconstrained view focuses on outcome, trying to make the outcome of everything be what those with this view believe it should be. However the constrained view tends to focus on the process, desiring a process that gives everyone a chance. In the constrained view, the 120-pound woman is welcome to try to become a firefighter but she must demonstrate the same ability as the 200-pound man.
Another example is the idea of knowledge and reason. In the extreme unconstrained view, we know nothing except what we can learn by our reason; the customs and knowledge of the ages are considered suspect or worse. However the constrained vision views individual or even group reason as suspect since no person or group of people can have all knowledge, nor is their reasoning ability or morality likely to be perfect. The constrained vision tends to believe that we should pay a great deal of attention to the accumulated wisdom of the ages and change the practices derived therefrom only carefully.
In this book Sowell follows many writers from the past and present with Adam Smith being the archetype of the constrained vision and William Godwin that for the unconstrained. He also regards the American Revolution with its resulting constitutionally limited government as a result of the constrained view and the French revolution as a result of the unconstrained view.
In summary, the unconstrained vision sees mankind (or at least the elite) as capable of managing, essentially micromanaging, our entire economy and society and morally equipped to do so. The constrained vision views that idea as the height of arrogance. Society is so complex as to be beyond our ability to manage all the details, especially the details of the lives of others. In the constrained view, each person manages his own affairs within the limits imposed by a society that has developed those limits over centuries of experience (though the societal constraints are constantly changing).
This leads those with the constrained vision to be strong supporters of individual freedom and responsibility, believing that each person should earn his own way and be accountable for his own errors and crimes. Criminals, the poor etc. are that way because of individual choices they made. On the other hand, those with the unconstrained vision tend to think that “society” is responsible for everything. Crime exists because society caused it. Poverty exists because of defects in society – defects those with the unconstrained vision believe themselves capable of correcting.
The result of these visions is that people tend to be quite consistent in their beliefs on a variety of issues. Those with the constrained vision tend to want limited government, penalties for criminals, military preparation to protect against national enemies etc. However those with the unconstrained vision tend to prefer powerful government, rehabilitation for criminals, negotiation instead of military power etc. In both cases, their unexamined visions govern how they think about all those issues.
This book is so dense with information that a review of reasonable length cannot do justice to it. To really “get it” you need to read it. All and in all, it is an excellent book, one I believe every politically active citizen should read. In fact if I had my way it would be required reading in every high school in the country. It will help each side understand the other in many of our conflicts.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
One is the concept of equality. In the constrained view, equality means equal opportunity consistent with a person's ability and resources. As long as we do not remove the options different people have, they have equality, everybody has a chance to try whatever he wants with the opportunity to compete fairly. The unconstrained view, on the other hand, seeks equality of outcome. It is not enough to allow everyone to apply for a job and be selected on merit. Instead we must be certain that all have an equal chance to get it. In this vision, a 120-pound woman should have the same right to be a firefighter as a 200-pound man who can carry twice as much fire hose as can she.
The unconstrained view focuses on outcome, trying to make the outcome of everything be what those with this view believe it should be. However the constrained view tends to focus on the process, desiring a process that gives everyone a chance. In the constrained view, the 120-pound woman is welcome to try to become a firefighter but she must demonstrate the same ability as the 200-pound man.
Another example is the idea of knowledge and reason. In the extreme unconstrained view, we know nothing except what we can learn by our reason; the customs and knowledge of the ages are considered suspect or worse. However the constrained vision views individual or even group reason as suspect since no person or group of people can have all knowledge, nor is their reasoning ability or morality likely to be perfect. The constrained vision tends to believe that we should pay a great deal of attention to the accumulated wisdom of the ages and change the practices derived therefrom only carefully.
In this book Sowell follows many writers from the past and present with Adam Smith being the archetype of the constrained vision and William Godwin that for the unconstrained. He also regards the American Revolution with its resulting constitutionally limited government as a result of the constrained view and the French revolution as a result of the unconstrained view.
In summary, the unconstrained vision sees mankind (or at least the elite) as capable of managing, essentially micromanaging, our entire economy and society and morally equipped to do so. The constrained vision views that idea as the height of arrogance. Society is so complex as to be beyond our ability to manage all the details, especially the details of the lives of others. In the constrained view, each person manages his own affairs within the limits imposed by a society that has developed those limits over centuries of experience (though the societal constraints are constantly changing).
This leads those with the constrained vision to be strong supporters of individual freedom and responsibility, believing that each person should earn his own way and be accountable for his own errors and crimes. Criminals, the poor etc. are that way because of individual choices they made. On the other hand, those with the unconstrained vision tend to think that “society” is responsible for everything. Crime exists because society caused it. Poverty exists because of defects in society – defects those with the unconstrained vision believe themselves capable of correcting.
The result of these visions is that people tend to be quite consistent in their beliefs on a variety of issues. Those with the constrained vision tend to want limited government, penalties for criminals, military preparation to protect against national enemies etc. However those with the unconstrained vision tend to prefer powerful government, rehabilitation for criminals, negotiation instead of military power etc. In both cases, their unexamined visions govern how they think about all those issues.
This book is so dense with information that a review of reasonable length cannot do justice to it. To really “get it” you need to read it. All and in all, it is an excellent book, one I believe every politically active citizen should read. In fact if I had my way it would be required reading in every high school in the country. It will help each side understand the other in many of our conflicts.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Monday, August 31, 2009
A Conflict of Visions, Part 1
In my last blog I discussed the different kinds of rights, rights to be free from certain types government interference compared to rights to something someone else must work for. I'm going to follow up with a review of a book that explains many of the reasons some want to restrict our rights to protection while others believe we should have rights to what others produce. The book is, A Conflict of Visions, Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell, 232pp plus notes and index, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1987
Though relatively old, this book is still fresh and provides insights into the roots of many differences in our world today. It explains reasons why people of different political persuasions often talk past each other, each considering the other either immoral or stupid, perhaps both. Because of unexamined visions, they see the world very differently and even give different meanings to the same words.
Sowell's expressed intent here is not to support either vision but to get people to think about and understand them. “We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them. The purpose of this book is to think about them.” While that may not lead to agreement, it should at least lead to more productive discussion. I believe he does a good job of maintaining neutrality in this book. His later book, The Vision of the Anointed takes a different stance, much in favor of what he calls the constrained vision. I intend to review that book next.
A vision, as used in this book, is a mental map of our world, especially of the nature of people in that world. As with all maps, it cannot include every detail of that world but must be simplified to those parts the vision holder takes as most important and representative of the world. There are an unlimited number of available visions, possibly as many as there are people on earth. However we can simplify these by categorizing them as “constrained” or “unconstrained.” Of course this is not an either-or situation, there is really a continuum of visions between the extremes. There are also hybrid visions (such as Marxism) which consider part of the world (the past) to be constrained and part (the future) unconstrained.
These visions are generally unexamined and most people don't even realize that their thinking is based more or less on one of them. However much of their world-view is the direct result of which vision they accept. That especially applies to political beliefs.
The constrained vision regards man as imperfect, both morally and intellectually. Though this vision does recognize the opportunity and need for improvement, it holds that human imperfection must be considered in all public activities. Each person contributes best in his sphere of competence and the end result is that society evolves in such a way that it works. Nobody is competent in everything but the total knowledge spread throughout the populace is greater than any small group of experts could ever posses. This vision also holds that we cannot trust everybody to be moral, even the so-called elites. Therefore people with the constrained vision usually reject the idea that an elite should rule or make decisions for everybody. They also tend to pay attention to trade-offs since they do not expect perfection. If a trade-off brings improvement, that is what should be done.
The unconstrained vision regards man as potentially perfectible on this earth, again both morally and intellectually. Indeed the unconstrained view tends to equate the intellectual with the moral, believing that reason will lead to morality. Though this vision recognizes current imperfections, it tends to hold that they are correctable and often assumes that they will soon be corrected. In this view, the elite will teach the masses and bring everybody up to their level of articulated wisdom and ability. Thus those who accept the unconstrained vision often ignore human weaknesses in their efforts to build a new society.
Further, the unconstrained view holds that it is the current institutions that stand in the way of that perfection and that it is the duty of the intellectually advanced to break down those obstacles, over the objections of the masses if necessary, and indeed by force if that is what it takes. This leads naturally to a belief that society is responsible for most actions and a rejection of individual responsibility. It also promotes acceptance of an intellectual elite who should be the surrogate decision-makers for the world. That of course is consistent with an elitist big government controlling most or all of the affairs of our lives. The unconstrained vision tends to reject trade-offs, seeking perfection instead. It regards a trade-off as an obstacle to the real solution.
The constrained view, on the other hand, holds that no person or small group of people is wise and knowledgeable enough to make all decisions for everybody. Even if they were, there is no assurance of the morality of such a person or group, so we cannot trust them to act in the best interest of their fellowman. In this view, each person is capable in his/her own area and should make decisions based on that ability, not as directed by some remote authority. This view is more consistent with a limited government philosophy.
These two visions tend to dominate much of our public discussion. Which vision a person accepts correlates with his conception of knowledge, morality, power, rationality, freedom, and law. Most of the book is devoted to exploration of how these concepts are affected by constrained vs. unconstrained visions.
(To be continued, including some specific examples of how the two different visions affect what people believe.)
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Though relatively old, this book is still fresh and provides insights into the roots of many differences in our world today. It explains reasons why people of different political persuasions often talk past each other, each considering the other either immoral or stupid, perhaps both. Because of unexamined visions, they see the world very differently and even give different meanings to the same words.
Sowell's expressed intent here is not to support either vision but to get people to think about and understand them. “We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them. The purpose of this book is to think about them.” While that may not lead to agreement, it should at least lead to more productive discussion. I believe he does a good job of maintaining neutrality in this book. His later book, The Vision of the Anointed takes a different stance, much in favor of what he calls the constrained vision. I intend to review that book next.
A vision, as used in this book, is a mental map of our world, especially of the nature of people in that world. As with all maps, it cannot include every detail of that world but must be simplified to those parts the vision holder takes as most important and representative of the world. There are an unlimited number of available visions, possibly as many as there are people on earth. However we can simplify these by categorizing them as “constrained” or “unconstrained.” Of course this is not an either-or situation, there is really a continuum of visions between the extremes. There are also hybrid visions (such as Marxism) which consider part of the world (the past) to be constrained and part (the future) unconstrained.
These visions are generally unexamined and most people don't even realize that their thinking is based more or less on one of them. However much of their world-view is the direct result of which vision they accept. That especially applies to political beliefs.
The constrained vision regards man as imperfect, both morally and intellectually. Though this vision does recognize the opportunity and need for improvement, it holds that human imperfection must be considered in all public activities. Each person contributes best in his sphere of competence and the end result is that society evolves in such a way that it works. Nobody is competent in everything but the total knowledge spread throughout the populace is greater than any small group of experts could ever posses. This vision also holds that we cannot trust everybody to be moral, even the so-called elites. Therefore people with the constrained vision usually reject the idea that an elite should rule or make decisions for everybody. They also tend to pay attention to trade-offs since they do not expect perfection. If a trade-off brings improvement, that is what should be done.
The unconstrained vision regards man as potentially perfectible on this earth, again both morally and intellectually. Indeed the unconstrained view tends to equate the intellectual with the moral, believing that reason will lead to morality. Though this vision recognizes current imperfections, it tends to hold that they are correctable and often assumes that they will soon be corrected. In this view, the elite will teach the masses and bring everybody up to their level of articulated wisdom and ability. Thus those who accept the unconstrained vision often ignore human weaknesses in their efforts to build a new society.
Further, the unconstrained view holds that it is the current institutions that stand in the way of that perfection and that it is the duty of the intellectually advanced to break down those obstacles, over the objections of the masses if necessary, and indeed by force if that is what it takes. This leads naturally to a belief that society is responsible for most actions and a rejection of individual responsibility. It also promotes acceptance of an intellectual elite who should be the surrogate decision-makers for the world. That of course is consistent with an elitist big government controlling most or all of the affairs of our lives. The unconstrained vision tends to reject trade-offs, seeking perfection instead. It regards a trade-off as an obstacle to the real solution.
The constrained view, on the other hand, holds that no person or small group of people is wise and knowledgeable enough to make all decisions for everybody. Even if they were, there is no assurance of the morality of such a person or group, so we cannot trust them to act in the best interest of their fellowman. In this view, each person is capable in his/her own area and should make decisions based on that ability, not as directed by some remote authority. This view is more consistent with a limited government philosophy.
These two visions tend to dominate much of our public discussion. Which vision a person accepts correlates with his conception of knowledge, morality, power, rationality, freedom, and law. Most of the book is devoted to exploration of how these concepts are affected by constrained vs. unconstrained visions.
(To be continued, including some specific examples of how the two different visions affect what people believe.)
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
