Why is it that conservatives and liberals have a hard time agreeing on anything? Clearly there is something very different about the way we see the world. Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions - Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles attempts to describe these two very different worldviews. Sowell is a conservative economist and while most of his books promote conservatism, I think he's even handed in this book. Here's his take, I'm interested to see if you guys agree or disagree.
Sowell's argument is that the basic difference is that conservatives ("constrained vision") see human nature as unchanging and fundamentally selfish while liberals ("unconstrained vision") see human nature as something that can be changed and improved. These opposing visions then have very different ideas about how society and government should function.
Conservatives then see society as constantly evolving as people, using limited resources and limited reason, establish a society that correctly harnesses man's true nature. Limited government with checks and balances is seen as an ideal system, as politicians and the elite are not exempt from man's basic, selfish nature. Capitalism recognizes the role of incentives in behavior and rewards self interested people for creating goods and services that help others. Justice requires procedural fairness and not results-based fairness.
Liberals on the other hand, think that people can be brought closer to their potential by instituting wiser and more moral policies. They believe that people can be conditioned to do the right thing for the right reason, rather than out of self interest. While conservatives seek the best trade off using limited resources, liberals seek an equitable solution. The elite, with their superior wisdom and morals, should guide the masses toward a more perfect society. Even if there is procedural fairness, there can't be justice is there is too much inequality.
Most people are not all the way in either camp, but does this sound about right?
4 comments:
That looks like a fascinating book, and yea, that sounds about right to me. Of course, I'm sure he "unpacks" it a bit more on the page. I remember hearing my Dad speak highly of Sowell's writing in the W.S. Journal.
Also, he kind of looks like an older Steve Urkel (sp?). Those specs are bad ass.
He unpacks it alright. Sowell takes you through the competing visions of people throughout history like Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, William Godwin, Rosseau, Alexander Hamilton, John Kenneth Galbraith, etc. Kind of academic feel, not a super easy read, but pretty interesting.
Do you think this kind of thing helps you understand the other side? The competing "visions" are so different that I think liberals and conservatives argue past each other most of the time. They are often arguing for or against things that the other regards as inconsequential.
I think understanding the history behind the two sides is potentially helpful. I've been almost willfully ignorant of politics for too long, so it's like a breath of fresh air to me. Although I haven't read the book, maybe Sowell's definition of the "visions" is a bit rigid? I'd assume they'd have to be a bit condensed for the book, since you'd go crazy trying to describe every little nuance.
Post a Comment