One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. The issues themselves may have no intrinsic connection with each other. They may range from military spending to drug laws to monetary policy to education. Yet the same familiar faces can be found glaring at each other from opposite sides of the political fence, again and again.
—Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is widely regarded as one of the greatest living economists, but one of his greatest research projects has little to do with supply and demand. Instead, it deals with political ideology. And even though Sowell’s expertise lies elsewhere, the book he wrote to explain why “the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues,” A Conflict of Visions, is undeniably persuasive. In fact, Steven Pinker, a Harvard cognitive scientist who tends to disagree with Sowell in political matters, regarded Sowell’s research as the best ever done on the topic.
Clarity of expression is rarely found among academics, but Sowell is an exception. As he puts it, “Visions are the foundations on which theories are built.” He shows that conflicting visions of human nature stand behind all political arguments.
Sowell contrasts two visions: the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. The constrained vision holds that people are severely limited. Not only are they mortal, but they have limited knowledge—and limited morality. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, “It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies—ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the Institutor, Man.”
People who have the constrained vision don’t think this is a situation to be lamented or transformed. Rather, they see it as an inescapable fact of life. The constraints of human nature are, like the force of gravity, a part of this world. Laws and institutions must be designed with those constraints in mind if they are to work.
The U.S. Constitution is just one example of a law made to reflect the constrained vision. Many of its features, such as the separation of powers, are designed to make governing more difficult. Rather than create a government that could act swiftly and decisively, the Founding Fathers instituted checks and balances to slow and weaken federal agency. They did so because they were highly aware of the constraints on human nature.
What would an unconstrained government look like? In the extreme, it would take the form of rule by one person. After all, a single monarch—or dictator—would face no resistance to their swift and decisive action.
The fact that billions of people have in fact been governed by unconstrained government is an indication of the enduring appeal of the unconstrained vision. As the name would indicate, the unconstrained vision views human nature as essentially limitless in its potential for knowledge and beneficence. In this vision, in Sowell’s words, “Man is, in short, ‘perfectible’—meaning continually improvable rather than capable of actually reaching absolute perfection.”
Though no one would argue that any currently living person is perfect, people who have accepted the unconstrained vision believe that man’s essence is good and that any imperfections evident today are due to social conditions. If those conditions were removed—say, by uploading human beings to cyberspace—then the underlying constraints would fade away.
Sowell’s argument is bolstered by a carefully researched treasure trove of quotes from the great thinkers that have contributed to both traditions, from Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Milton Friedman and George Bernard Shaw. Yet though his work is powerful, it remains accessible throughout. It is a must-read for anyone who wants to make sense of today’s political controversies.
—
Image credit: public domain (Thomas Sowell)
