Customer Reviews:
 Useful for understanding why party affiliations. March 3, 2010
Ed L. Harrison
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I found this book useful for understanding why some people are Democrats while others are Republicans. I found Sowell descriptions of Republicans a little left of center (negative) for my liking.
But, let me put my understanding in my own words...
Why do some people vote Democrat while others vote Republican?
It has to do with their different world visions...as Sowell points out!
Imagine a malleable, clay sculpture of the Mona Lisa rendered with the same propinquity as the original painting by Leonardo da Vinci - except it's in 3D.
The Republican would see the clay statue as a masterful expression of exquisite beauty and sheer genius, that has withstood the test of time, an exceptional expression for the ages, a model for the future, and uniquely worthy of preserving. The Republican would carefully and respectfully put the sculpture in an oven to protect and fix it's form.
The Democrat (Progressive) would see the clay sculpture as still malleable, and would be foolish enough to think that he, using his (perceived) superior intellect, could render an even more masterful expression than da Vinci himself! Da Vinci would be seen by the Democrat as not in tune with modern times, and would be dismissed as irrelevant to the modern and evolving world.
Now, substitute the "Constitution" for "clay sculpture" in the above scenario, ignore America's unique history and place in the world, and you have it - what makes some people Republicans and some people Democrats!
Democrats (Progressives) ignore the uniqueness of America; believe Big Government is best for solving problems; distrust capitalism (in spite of the fact that it's the only model that's worked and is being emulated by world governments that previously embraced Communism); prefer to transfer power to an all knowing, all powerful central government that manages all aspects of life, commerce, education, taxing, justice, and social engineering...think of placing trust and allegiance in the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain - no transparenty there!!!
They seem ignorant that this model has failed every time it was tried - Russia, China, East Berlin vs. West Berlin, Cuba, Eastern Bloc countries under the USSR's thumb, etc.! But, facts like these are dismissed, history is rewritten or ignored, and they are drawn to likeminded outlets that reinforce their prejudices.
And their "model" is blind to its flaw...which I believe was purposefully ignored by its originators, since it didn't fit their theory: The Law of Unintended Consequences! Specifically, the self-interested capitalist creates jobs...that produces income and security for its employees...that enables them to provide for their families...and that all generates tax revenues for government which provides essentials for the town, county, state, and federal government. But, they only see the "evil", self-interested, risk-taking entrepreneur...not the benefits that pay for everything; yea, everything! And keep voting for the same tried-and-failed ideology.
None is so blind as he who will not see.
Anyway, the book made me think and crystallize my thinking...which is why the book is worth reading.
 Puzzle solved November 19, 2009
J. Pellitteri (Albany, NY USA)
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
I have always wondered the psychological reasons why different political views see the same situation so differently yet each so consistently. Why do liberals most often attack conservatives as stupid or mean? Why do conservatives fight less ardently for their political goals? This book explains from several different angles the two main strains of thought that make up the modern political struggle. Are the solutions to all our problems just to revise our system of government and put the smartest people in power? This is essentially the "liberal"( under the current definition) view. The other side feels that there are no select few people that know best how to run things and that life is a series of trade-offs. The solution is to work a trade-off that best solves the situation. After reading this book the debate makes so much sense. I now know why the liberals think that 600 or so lawyers in Washington should be trusted more that every other American making their own decisions. Just yesterday a government panel was telling us that mammograms before 50 and every year are a waste of money. You see if you crunch the numbers, it's cheaper to treat a few more patients that weren't caught early than to spend on all these extra tests that find nothing. The everyday common person is going to want to over-test to be sure. How stupid! The 600 lawyers came up with the idea of borrowing $4,500 from the Chinese to give to car buyers, if they would buy a new car and completely destroy their old car. Destroy it so that the parts could not even be used. Doesn't a new car have to be created to replace that car? Doesn't it use energy to create that new car?
I'm convinced that Thomas Sowell is one of the few smart people that could run this country, but he's smart enough to know it is not the answer.
A Pox on both these views October 15, 2009
Samantha Atkins
2 out of 16 found this review helpful
It is possible to believe that humans can progress, even radically progress without believing in idealistic ungrounded fairy tales. We stand today on the verge of technology capable of changing the very nature of what it means to be human. So an analysis limited to the the immutable limitations of human beings on the one hand or denying any such limitations on the other is a bit limited. What is needed is a moving moment by moment realism as to the current limits while working to overcome as many of those limits as possible. It is not an either-or.
And what of man as heroic rather than man as flawed anyway?
Brilliant Thesis from a Brilliant Thinker October 4, 2009
ironman96 (Ohio)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
This is a 5 star book solely on the basis of its brilliant thesis. Dr. Sowell argues that the political divide can be attributed to humanity's understanding of how the world works and human nature. This understanding can be categorized by two visions, the unconstrained vision and the constrained vision. Those with the constrained vision see humanity and society as imperfect but with rules, traditions, and policies able to provide as much freedom and equality as possible within those constraints. Those with the unconstrained vision see humanity and society as something that can be continually perfected to achieve a specific result. Basically, the unconstrained vision puts you on the left, the constrained vision mostly puts you on the right. Although Dr. Sowell has his own political views, he treats both sides evenhandedly in this book. Dr. Sowell brings in quotes from Condorcet and Godwin of the unconstrained vision and Burke and Hayek of the constrained vision to help illustrate his points. For those interested in the whys of politics and the philosophy behind it, I highly recommend this book. However, since this is very academic, others may prefer the author's other book, "The Vision of the Anointed" which is more readable.
Not as Simple as it seems June 18, 2009
Aretae (Chicago, IL)
18 out of 20 found this review helpful
On reading the entire block of 60-odd reviews, I find that more than half of them, even while admiring Sowell's evenhandedness, misstate the carefulness of the book's positions. In the an attempt to pay tribute to the brilliance of this (rather dense, historical & philosophical ) book, I'll try to correct this.
This book presents two visions of the world. However, contrary to most of the reviewers, the difference is not about Liberals vs. Conservatives. It is about the difference between two visions of the world, and each of the visions is found in most parties in the political spectrum.
The two visions are metaphysical, pre-scientific points of view regarding how the world works. In one view (Unconstrained), people can drive change, intentions matter, and this could improve the world. In the other view (Constrained), people will always be (somewhat) bad, only results and processes matter, and improvements always involve tradeoffs.
Sowell first acknowledges that no vision is purely Constrained or Unconstrained. And then he explicitly does not connect the dots to (modern, US) liberal vs. conservative visions. And he doesn't do so for the basic reason that it really isn't that simple.
Instead of attempting to place "Conservative" vs. "Liberal" positions on top of Sowell's 2 visions, let us look instead at every issue, and determine whether our own individual intuitions are that (a) it is a problem, and that (b) human beings can solve or meliorate, via coordinated political action, this paricular problem without creating other (potentially worse) problems. This is the issue. And the arguments for or against most actions can come from both positions.
Examples from the War in Iraq.
Against (Constrained): The military cannot solve a complex social problem.
Against (Unconstrained): War is evil. Don't start one.
For (Constrained): There will be horrible tradeoffs, but war is better than the (worse) other options of not warring.
For (Unconstrained): Saddam is a blight upon Iraq, they will be better without him.
I have attempted to point out that not all conservative positions are constrained, and not all liberal positions are unconstrained. Rather, different people have different understandings of the world, and these often lead to different conclusions. Using Sowell's brilliant dichotomy, people may improve their understanding of the issues facing the world, though hopefully not replace entirely any other charitable understandings.
|
