Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

welcome to uncommon knowledge I'm Peter Robinson Thomas soul has studied and taught economics intellectual history and social policy at institutions that include Cornell UCLA and Amherst now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution dr. Sol has published more than a dozen book many more than a dozen books actually I was just too lazy to count them all well the one with which we will concern ourselves today his classic work first published in 1987 and then republished last year a conflict of visions segment one the two visions let me quote from a conflict of visions quote when interests are at stake the parties directly affected usually understand what the issue is however when there is a conflict of visions those most powerfully affected by a particular vision may be the least aware of its underlying assumptions explain that distinction between interests and visions Oh interests are articulated there the people who have particularly interest interest know what they are I know what they're trying to do if you're a farmer in Iowa you want the ethanol subsidy but you'll get a higher price for your corn absolutely all right all right with visions is different these are the implicit assumptions with which you operate you may not articulate them even to yourself but you're assuming certain things when you when you talk or when you think and sell them or those things are spelled out now in in a conflict of visions you talk about two fundamentally different visions and two these two fundamental divisions underlie an enormous amount of the Western political tradition yes the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision let me take a stab at a type definition of each and then you correct it for me under the constrained vision whom you an example an exemplar would be Adam Smith human nature is flawed but it's fixed and the question is how do we erect institutions that contain our flaws and permit us to live in the best possible society given in effect the Fallen nature of or the fallen character of human nature absolutely so human when you say constrained it's a vision of human nature itself human nature is fixed flawed and therefore we operate within constraints the constraints human nature itself provides unconstrained is human nature itself is malleable and you say that Rousseau man is born free but everywhere he is in Chains that's the classic statement of the unconstraint yeah would you explain that yes that that the things that we suffer are coordinate those with the unconstrained visions it's because of the failure of other people to be as wise or as Noble as themselves because there are no inherent reason for us to be unhappy so one looks at pain and difficulty in the world and says well this is the way life is let's it will never eliminate it let's be wise and prudent and direct institutions that make life as much better as possible that's constrained yes the unconstrained vision looks at pain and suffering and says we must remake the world there are institutions causing this pain and suffering oh absolutely okay now let me give you another quotation to two great revolutions in the 18th century in France and in America can be viewed as applications of these differing visions explain that one well in France the idea was that if you simply put the right people in charge and created the right institutions of them need all these problems would go away in the United States it was assumed from the outset that there were very limited things you could do and what you needed to do above all was to minimize the damage done by the flaws of human nature this is why they the United States for example has this constitution so much lamented by some of those who believe in the French Revolution in which this group is is offset by that group and nobody can sort of run while if you believe that what you need is to have the right leaders who love the people and so on a messiah isn't worried then that then you're then your problems are solved but if you don't believe there is any any political Messiah and you believe that you have to make sure that all people are restrained and what they are able to do then you have the separation of power you have elections you have constitutions you have all kinds of things him and you in a condor say who was the great supporter of the French Revolution could not understand why they were why there was a separation of powers and not even when at the end of the end of his life he was all but really thrown into prison where he continued to write about why the Americans have have this separation of proud and of course if they're going to separation the Prowse he wouldn't be rotting in prison right right could I just you've got a France as the unconstrained vision 18th century America is the constrained vision founding fathers the constrained vision could I ask if it goes even farther back what comes to mind is karl popper's the open society and its enemies there's a famous chapter in there in which he contrasts Plato whom he views as a radical the man who wants ruled by the philosopher Kings with Aristotle whom he fused as a kind of piecemeal reformer what you get in Plato is the impulse to start anew and what you get in Aristotle is the impulse to accept the given nough sub things and make one change see how it works another change see house is in other words I guess what I'm getting at is is there some sense in which these two visions can be traced all the way through the Western trail absolutely that's not that's a fair statement yes all right now in this country you talked about France versus the United States but what about Americans versus Americans John Adams versus Tom Jefferson Thomas Jefferson for example is that a fair contrast atoms would be constrained Jefferson unconstrained to some extent yes Oh Jefferson woman when the complaint were made about the people who are innocent people killed during the course of the French Revolution he said that I I would rather that half the world be destroyed and that it should fail but of course as it went on Jefferson backed away and he did turn ultimately against it all right so what you get and he had a more unconstrained vision so but not totally because what I'd like to do now is turn to these two visions as they play out in contemporary American politics but before I do that I want to make sure I understand you your vision is that the founding fathers the fundamental institutions of the United States reflect the constrained vision absolutely and that therefore what you get within the American tradition is degrees of the constrained or the unconstrained vision you don't get clean sharp disagreements or is that untrue oh you do get you do get it there the whole erosion of the Constitution largely by the court is the notion that no we have to look out for the public interest and therefore we won't worry about the constraints of the Constitution as much as some people would like all right which takes us to segment two two visions of the law the constrained vision of the law and here I quote a conflict of visions Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed it when he declared the life of the law has not been logic it has been experience close quote yes how is he giving expression to the constrained vision there that there is no one who from sheer intellectual power can tell you what the law ought to be that we learn from trial and error simply because we're not capable of learning everything just by figuring it all out in advance the unconstrained vision of the law here you quote John Stuart Mill quote to look at legal precedents was I'm quoting you in Mills view to make and here you quote mill an absurd sacrifice of present ends to antiquated means yeah close quote how is he giving voice to the unconstrained well this is this is the notion that we need someone to come along and update the law from from his own intellectual resources rather than from the actual experience of millions of people in generation after generation no one believes the law should remain fixed as it was at some given point in the past the question is who shall have the authority to change that law and with what constraints on that person so that person is not just giving vent to his own feelings or imaginings or theories all right let me give you a couple of quotations John McCain in the presidential debate of October 16th on the kinds of judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court quote I will find the best people in the oddest in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution and not legislating from the bench close quote Barack Obama during the same debate if a woman is out there trying to raise a family trying to support her family and is being treated unfairly then the court has to stand up if nobody else will and that's the kind of judge I want that's unconstrained that somehow earlier they're people with with with the judicial Rose on who can just decide these things at heart which among other things would mean we would no longer really have law you would discover once you got into the courtroom in front of the judge you would then discover what the decision is but you'd have no clue beforehand so that would a full embrace of the unconstrained vision which Barack Obama seems intent on would overturn the fundamental basis of American law which is a nation of laws not of men absolutely a nation of law of men of judges yes all right a September of this year the Rasmussen polling company asked this question should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what's written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice close quote 82% of McCain supporters said the Preem court should basis decisions on the Constitution 29% of Obama supporters agree 11% of McCain supporters said the Supreme Court should make its decisions on fairness 49% of Obama supporters said that it should now here's the question you've said McCain constrained Obama unconstrained but what this would seem to indicate this polling data that this is not just a debate taking place among politicians or American elites it's reached very deep into the American but absolutely forty-nine percent of Americans think the Supreme Court of Obama supporters for excuse me 49% of Obama supporters exactly say the so does that startled you does it alarm you it doesn't start on me it depresses me but you know this has been going on for a long time people complain about a court decision on the basis that that that they wished it turned out differently but that isn't the judges job it was a wonderful case I wish I could remember the title of it which Clarence Thomas said that he really agreed with the position taken by one of the litigants in the case but that he wasn't there to decide that issue he was there to decide what did the law say and the law said otherwise and so he voted against them you see the same thing in Oliver Wendell Holmes where in a number of cases he makes very cutting disparagement of one of the litigants in the case and then votes in favor of room because I'm not here to decide what the merit is and one of his one of his decisions he said I am not at liberty to discuss the the Justice of the Act the act is what it is and once I know what that is that's that's the decision I have to make well then if you see well one more question you're the you write the unconstrained vision again I'm quoting you has tended historically toward creating more equalized economic and social conditions in society even if the means chosen imply great inequality in the right to decide such issues and choose such means close quote inequality and the right to decide issues does that tell us why the left in the United States seems so much more comfortable with having courts make social oh that's what's going on absolutely that they want equality of outcomes and they will choose how to make the outcomes equal but they don't want equality of choice on the part of the people themselves a man many of the liberals say that they're for the family because they're for creating all kinds of goodies to give to families but they want to take away the family's fundamental function which is making decisions for members of the family itself particularly the younger members who aren't yet grown in the current political context and we're taping this program just two weeks before the election how do you see what opportunity is there for those who believe in the constrained vision as regards the law to to advance their view to advance the constrained vision and beat back the unconstrained vision I guess you argue for uh as you do for other things but I think what happens is that many people vote they don't think that far ahead they think I like this guy and so on they don't think what kind of judges he will be putting on the court on the federal bench who will be there twenty and thirty years from now will return loose criminals let's say right twenty or thirty years right right well I know that you have some reservations about John McCain as a candidate and we'll come to some of those I suspect us actually I've got some questions intentionally to provoke you dr. Sol but would you say that on this issue alone that the next president is likely to be able to nominate two or three justices to the so absolutely that's decisive for you yes yes all right okay segment three two visions of war the constrained vision and again I'm quoting from your book a conflict divisions war is seen as originating in human nature and being contained by institutions the unconstrained vision those with the unconstrained vision tend to explain war in terms of either misunderstandings or of hostile or Parana paranoid emotions raised to such a pitch as to override rationality yes is it fair to say that the constrained vision is not surprised by war but the unconstrained vision is always a little startled when a war breaks out oh absolutely that you can take this back to the Federalists where they said no oh why do we think that the thirteen colonies will make war on each other if they're not united and the end the answer was because that's what countries have always done and so it's not a question of and it's not just war it's war its poverty its crime all those are things which people with the unconstrained vision spiel means explaining whereas people with a constrained vision think what needs explaining is how do we sustain peace how do we have law and order uh you know how do we have morality how would you interpret then I think it's I can't remember whether Robert Kennedy was quoting someone else or whether this was original well original to him or to his speech writers the quotation is something like I see some see the world and ask why I see what could be and ask why not yes yes that's a kind of mush that's the unconstrained vision in a nutshell ooh hi all right John McCain in February 2003 quote this is the constrained and unconstrained vision as they apply to the question of warfare in this age liberating oppressed peoples from tyranny from the tyranny of those who would do us harm serves not only narrow national interests but the ordered progress of freedom close quote Barack Obama in August of last year quote in the first 100 days of my administration I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle I will make clear that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future and that we need their efforts to defeat the prophets of hate and violence close quote what do you make of those two I think Barack Obama has a lot more faith in the verbal interactions than that I would that's the unconstraint vision oh absolutely oh you you see it but what he's what he's proposing under the guise of change it's what was what has been tried for decade for two decades between the two world war wars and which failed disastrously and helping to bring on the Second World War look well that brings up another point is it fair to say that the constrained vision is more aware of history that somehow rather there's an appreciation of and even a hunger for historical understanding searching for precedent what has worked before most things won't work therefore we must discover we must work especially hard to discover what has worked in the past and in the unconstrained vision is there something you don't say this in the book this is a question that I'm on which I'm taking a total flyer here but is there something almost anti-intellectual about the unconstrained vision and unwillingness to look at the large facts of history there's an unwillingness to look at the facts of history and it's anti-intellectual in a sense of intellectual processes unfortunately it's all too characteristic of intellectuals as an occupational category between the two world was it was the leading intellectuals of the Western world who talked the biggest nonsense I mean it was Bertrand Russell who said that the Britain should disarm you know while Hitler was building up this military machine across the channel and in France as well and Russell was by no means yelling when in England so why why would this be why would the unconstrained vision prove so particularly appealing to intellectuals I think we could say if I said to you what would you expect a survey of the faculties of the top 100 academic institutions in the United States to show if we could come up with a set of questions that would show whether the faculty adhere to the constraint or the unconstraint vision we you and I would both expect a huge majority to subscribe to the Uncas come why why is that appealing to intellectuals that is that is a tough one uh but I think that uh I guess the short answer is they imagine that good people like themselves can make this thing go and if it hasn't worked in the past it's only because they haven't had the right people doing it other words communism would have worked if it hadn't been for Stalin you know but of course once you have a system like communism people like Stalin are the ones who will come to the fore all right back to a warfare and defense Barack Obama's plan for defense spending as of last year quoting I'm quoting him quoting a speech I'll stop spending 9 billion a month in Iraq I will cut tens of billions in wasteful spending I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems I will not weaponize space I will slow our development of future combat systems and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to avoid unnecessary spending close quote well that's great out of the 30s there were people who were saying Britain should not Bush the British Labour Party in the early to mid 30s voted consistently against defense spending and they argued that our security does not allow us does not depend on armaments but on disarmament and so when when when Chamberlain went to Munich to talk to Hitler it wasn't just his own party the Conservatives who applauded him when he came back it was it is the Labour and liberals as well he was he was probably the most lionized man among Western leaders perhaps of the past century John McCain you've just compared Barack Obama to Chamberlain I'm going to see if I can get you to compare John McCain to Churchill how's that that a little bit harder go boy all right I'll give it I'll take it take a shot at John McCain it's very hard to find at least I found it hard to find an elaborated defense spending plan and McCain's website and campaign of proposed but he has at least at one point advocated an across-the-board federal spending freeze but accepted defense spending from that freeze and he would also this is a quotation from a recent speech increase the size of the US Army and Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750 thousand troops to nine hundred thousand troops close quote so what you get in John McCain this I think is fair to say even if I can't find a specific proposal to get you to comment on the notion that here's federal spending and here's defense spending and it occupies because it must a privileged position within the structure yeah the federal spending what do you make of that well I think he recognized that you have to survive before you do anything else alright so that's right she's just good common sense yes and McCain doesn't strike you as two belligerent defending yourself is not belligerent all right all right two visions of the economy again I'm going to begin by quoting from a conflict of visions the constrained vision sees market economies as responsive to systemic forces the interaction of innumerable individual choices and performances the unconstrained vision argues that this is not how the economy operates that it is currently obeying the power of particular interests and should therefore be made in future to obey the power of the public interest yes quote explain that well they imagine that they can define the public interest by themselves where is it a market of each individual defines his own interests himself and acts accordingly and interacting with other people are accommodating other people and competing with other people all right a couple of quotations here this time I'm not going to contrast McCain with Obama I'm going to begin with a quotation here it is we who live in free market societies believe that growth prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment are created from the bottom up not the government down let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people close quote Ronald Reagan yes I thought so you did all right now John McCain on September 15th the American people are being threatened today because of greed and corruption that some engaged in on Wall Street and that we have got to fix close quote what do you make of what's going on in the Republican Party well I'm begging to became a decline when people ask me why am I going to vote for McCain rather than Obama it's because I prefer disaster to catastrophe all right you're not supposed to throw things at me from which I have to use valuable time to recover Tom all right here listen to an exchange between Barack Obama and Joe vertol bakker now known universally as Joe the Plumber this took place on October 11th Joe the Plumber your new tax plan is going to tax me more isn't it Barack Obama it's not that I want to punish your success I just want to make sure that everybody who's behind you that they've got a chance to success too I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody close quote what do you make of that one oh I think it's it's it's classic the left uh ideology uh and then by the way he's spreading he wants to spread Joe the plumbers wealth around he's not spreading his wealth around we all know about his half-brother in Africa who is a living in dire poverty uh it's all it's been fascinating to me these various people who want to spend the taxpayers money but who when it comes to charitable giving and so forth are their own have no idea good that I don't know if you're for me with a study that's been done of liberals and conservatives donating money and giving time as volunteers and and donating blood and so on and contrary to what everybody expected the conservatives do more all those things the study showed that if if everyone donated blood at the same rate at which conservatives donate blood that'd be 45% more blood donated in the United States than there is and also weren't you struck by the Joe Biden's tax forms when they were released he's had an income that's roughly tripled that of Sarah Palin and yet his charitable contributions have been much smaller absolutely absolutely right let me ask you let me try with John McCain one more time to assertions he made in the very same five minute radio talk this both come from radio talking about tober xviii quote at least in Europe the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut it's just another government giveaway close quote excuse me this is not from the radio talk but it's from a rally he gave on the same day and he was talking about the need to address the financial crisis by buying up mortgages quote we need to give you a mortgage that you can afford so you can realize the American dream of owning your home close quote so what which vision does John McCain represent uh he represents whichever one occurs there at the moment all right it's a he he has what thoughts the doesn't call they a versatility of convictions or but here's the argument the argument would be look John McCain's in a tight spot he's trailing he's fundamentally the constrained vision that is to say he fundamentally supports free markets and his record shows a overwhelming majority of the times where there's a vote in Congress that can be recorded as free market or anti-free market he's on the free-market side he's maneuvering here be realistic Tom soul politicians have to do that cut the man a little slack well if I if I were in his in his camp perhaps I would say that my job is not to cut him any slack my job is to inform the people who read what I have to say all right back to Barack Obama you mentioned the I think you would call it a naive view of world affairs that he places a great deal of faith in a kind in rhetoric the have rhetoric to solve global problems this reminds you of the 1930s it remind you of Neville Chamberlain I read you a quotation of the notion of spreading the wealth around and again you said that's perfectly pure socialist doctrine from the 1930s is it would you argue that this man is the most left-wing or the the purest embrace of the unconstrained vision that we've seen in American politics since since when since the New Deal since American politics really yes yes I mean even FDR you know pulled back on some things but Obama really he does have the unconstrained vision which is really an elitist vision it says I know what is the best to be done and I will do it when he says I will change the world you realize this is a man who's actually accomplished nothing other than advancing his career through rhetoric and he it reminds me of a sophomore in college you know who thinks that he can run the world because he's never had to run anything and you can believe that only until you have personal responsibility for consequences and that's when it gives you a little bit of humility why don't the American people see through that isn't that the fundamental bet that the founders made that the consent that that voters would see through ultimately they see through nonsense yes without that that was before nonsense became a large part of the curriculum of our educational institutions all right segment 5 the two visions and the nature of the campaign again I begin by quoting from a conflict of visions those with a constrained vision have tended to be less concerned with promoting economic and social equality but more concerned with the dangers of an inequality of power producing and articulate ruling elite of rationalists close quote that gets to build Buckley's famous quotation about he rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phonebook than by the Harvard faculty that's the point right yes if you perform a google search on obama plus the word professorial you'll get more than 62,000 hits what does that suggest to you what's that what's going on here we need to go to the phone book where the wise again I'm quoting from a conflict of visions where the wise and conscientious individual is conceived to be competent to shape outcomes directly had this is this is the unconstraint vision I Barack Obama know what's best for you this is the way you put in a moment ago then his sincerity is crucial sincerity is so central to an unconstrained vision that it is not readily conceded to adversaries close quote that goes back at least 200 years that well that people who have the constrained vision understand that people will make mistakes and so therefore when someone says something they disagree with that to them is just when one of the examples of it they don't face you no need to question his sincerity or honesty or whatever but with for those with the unconstrained vision what they what they believe seems so obviously true that if you're standing in the way of it either you must be incredibly stupid utterly uninformed or simply dishonest let me read you a few of the terms that have been used to describe Sarah Palin liar Andrew Sullivan cancer David Brooks oh yes Jesus Freak Bill Maher reactionary katha pollitt zealot Maureen Dowd is that part of what's going on here yes yes they people people like that find it very hard to believe that someone else could honestly sincerely and intelligently reach a different conclusion they talk about how complex the world is but it never seems to be complex enough that other people could have read the same evidence they looked at and come up with a different conclusion the implicit visions again you write in your conclusion divide controversialists at all levels and across the boundaries of the law the economy and the society close quote the constrained vision versus the unconstrained vision how is an informed American to choose between those two visions I suppose you would require thank you butter first of all which is what a lot of people don't do or I mean there there are there are people who simply react because they like the way someone sounds and unfortunately more and more such people vote so it's a question of Education in one sense yes another sense no I think before so many people with the colleges and universities common sense was probably much more wise why is that why is that why is that we keep coming back to higher education as a kind of pollutant in the American political system that's that's been a theme of our conversation why what's going on that without that that's that's a tough one I that's my that's my next book which is about intellectuals oh really yes yes but what have you what do you what conclusions have you reached so far that all that all the incentives are for people or intellectuals in the sense of which I would define the term uh to venture beyond what they are competent to do that is we know that that was the manatee mighty was a linguist now Noam Chomsky no we know the man is a landmark figure in the study of linguistics yes but what we would never have heard of him if he stuck to linguistics true now we know that our wonderful colleague mr. Ehrlich is Paul Ehrlich here yes yes uh has reputation in entomology but we would never have heard of him if he has stuck to entomology and so all the incentives ought to go beyond what you are competent to deal with and to just assume it because you're wonderful at this that this makes you sort of a general philosopher-king alright if the current polls hold the Wall Street Journal in quoting The Wall Street Journal now declared in an editorial last week Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4th and Democrats will consolidate their congressional majorities though we doubt most Americans realize it the journal continues this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in US history close quote would you agree with that absolutely and and and and the repercussions extend either the fact that they were made will create disasters in the economy I think will appeal by comparison to what they will do in terms of countries acquiring nuclear weapons and turning those over to terrorists which is the point of no return once that happened right right do you I was talking about this with a colleague of ours the other day Thom mccurdy who's an economist here at the Hoover Institution and Tom said well remember what happened when Bill Clinton became president his point is the American people are about to get an extreme illustration of the way government intervention messes things up Bill Clinton offered only a mild illustration and yet even under Bill Clinton it was only two years before Republicans before there was enough of a backlash response that Republicans took both houses of Congress away and and and the man was it boxed in from that point forward that's a pretty optimistic reading of what might happen I'm very very optimistic yes because uh there are there is such thing as a point of no return and if and if in those in those two first two years Iran gets nuclear weapons we will be at that point of no return and then the next generation will live under that same threat and as far out as the eye can see and sometimes people get more very clever say it's just as well to let these guys get in the air and describe right right then we'll win on the backlights people say that when Hitler was arising in Germany and many of those people who said that died in the concentration camps so uh which which is a smaller tragedy than a nation dying in a sense before the primaries had ended you wrote Hillary Clinton versus John McCain I wouldn't know whether to vote libertarian or move to Australia now we know it's Barack Obama versus John McCain you'll vote for John McCain but hold your nose what is your what's your father the difference is that the Clinton Clintons had the saving grace of utter lack of principle which meant that when the women I saw which way the political winds were blowing that's the way they'd go there cause what they've been saying before this man has been a far left ideologue for twenty years and I and not just a matter of ideology I mean people who are truly vile people we're not talking about just people have a certain fill areas that bill I mean a corn I mean we're talking thuggery as the way to get your ideas across uh you know a father flagel you know you go down the list uh and I judge people by what they've done not by what they say particularly when what they say is the direct opposite of what they've done so that I know I think this man really does believe that he that he can change the world and people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere a crooked politicians final question let's suppose that the Wall Street Journal is right let's suppose that Barack Obama wins and that the Democrats pick up increase their majorities in both the House and the Senate let's suppose all of that what would be your advice to young people dedicated to free markets individual liberty and broadly speaking to the constrained vision that you write about in a conflict divisions what do you do if something like this happens you do whatever you whatever whatever you find you can do under those conditions which you can only learn by experience but it's a little like saying what advice to give to someone on death row when they come to take them down to the gas chamber um Tom I'm trying very hard here to find a question to end the show on and up but I don't seem to I don't seem to be sick well the other the when one good thing is that economist predictions have been proven wrong before and you can always hope that this one will be one of those many predictions dr. Thomas sole author of a conflict of visions and author of the forthcoming second edition of another classic book you wrote applied economics this will be out in January yes dr. Thomas soul thank you very much thank you for uncommon knowledge I'm Peter Robinson thanks for joining us

Channel: Hoover Institution

Views: 519,090

Rating: 4.8894362 out of 5

Keywords: HooverInstitutionUK, Sowell, visions, war, conflicts, economics, constrained, unconstrained, McCain, Obama

Id: OGvYqaxSPp4

Length: 37min 38sec (2258 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 04 2008