A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (1987) Thomas Sowell

Evolution vs. Revolution; Processes vs. Outcomes

Reality is far too complex to be understood by one human mind; enter visions, which are like maps.  Details the “constrained vision”, which views humanity as being constrained by certain innate human qualities, and the “unconstrained vision”, which sees the potential of humanity as endless, and thus, the goal of government is to fix said humanity.  Adam Smith thought this a foolish endeavor; example of if everyone died in China, how would it impact each of us, vs. losing our pinky (most would be more sad about the lost finger).  Thus, in this view, people do the right thing for payoffs, to moral principles, concepts of honor and nobility, rather than simply out of love for one another.  The constrained vision tries to work within what it sees as human nature, to produce a series of desirable tradeoffs, which will not cure all of humanity’s ails.  The unconstrained vision, in contrast, seeks the highest solutions and best ideals to fix all of humanity’s problems.  The constrained vision sees the “best” as the enemy of the good, as the best is not possible.  Here, it is about what ones intentions are; that is virtue, regardless of the result.  Many political ideologies of the unconstrained vision call for a transitory period that might be otherwise considered unacceptable, but it is okay for the sake of the vision.  The dichotomy of the two visions does not encompass every ideology, but Sowell says a remarkable number of political ideas do fit into one box or the other.  Thus, there is both the problem of what is perceived to be, and what the moral values ought to be to fix said problems.  The two visions do not even agree on the language with words such as equality and justice.  The constrained vision wants equality in processes, which is perceived as justice – it is a process focused vision.  The unconstrained vision wants equality in outcomes, which is justice, even if it requires injustice via processes to produce said more equal outcomes.  Thus, the unconstrained vision is based on a moral imperative, which can lead to promotion of the unconstrained vision as being generally more righteous, and can lead to condescension of the constrained vision; this has been documented throughout history -- points to Shaw calling working class detestable people with no right to live, and Rousseau calling the masses stupid, pusillanimous invalids.  How much one person can know leads to opposite conclusions regarding who is to make the best social decisions; the masses, or the elite.  Likewise, there has been a moral outrage on the left, questioning the right’s humanity, calling them single-minded, etc.  The constrained vision bases its knowledge off of the history of mankind, while the unconstrained vision bases it entirely off of the reason of the individual.  Author purports that normal people do not have the time nor inclination to delve so deeply into so many issues as to be able to effectively “Reason” on them.  The unconstrained vision calls for a more exalted elite to lead the masses to salvation.  Foolish and immoral sources explain the World’s evils, to the unconstrained; wiser, more moral and human policies are the solution; the constrained vision sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited choices available, given man’s moral and intellectual shortcomings, relying on marketplace, tradition, and families, process that evolve rather than are designed.  Evolution vs. Revolution.  The constrained vision sees duty to ones various roles in society; the unconstrained vision sees it as a duty to directly benefit mankind.  Says the constrained vision is not a static vision of the social process; its central principle is evolution, as with language, but it is not subject to a new master plan, with incremental changes.  “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation” -Edmund Burke.  “Tradition is not something constant but the product of a process of selection guided not by reason but by success.” -Hayek.  Injustices in the constrained vision are inevitable; which process will result in the least of them.  Injustice accepted in the unconstrained vision is unconscionable.  At an extreme, constrained vision says “My country, right or wrong” while unconstrained vision is a “citizen of the World”; thus, patriotism and treason can become meaningless, while it is extremely important to the constrained.  More rights for particular groups can make those groups worse off, claims Sowell (I.e. raising minimum wage, standards for housing conditions).  The achievements of the elite in their intellect, morality, or dedication to the social good demonstrates to the unconstrained vision the possibilities of humanity; thus the revolution must be led by this elite, to defeat those who benefit from the current order.  The two visions are doomed to be adversaries; constrained thinks it is impossible to base thinking off rationality, while the unconstrained thinks it impossible to think off of traditions and mores.  Some visions offer a hybrid approach; I.e. Fascism, which invokes characteristics of the constrained vision of patriotism, authority, and willingness to fight, with no obligation to respect law, tradition, or decency. “It was certainly true: that nothing like an equality of property existed: that an inequality would exist as long as liberty existed, and that it would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself” -Alexander Hamilton.  Hayek said there are irremediable inequalities, just as there is irremediable ignorance on everyone’s part.  Friedman points to how much the normal man has benefitted from technological progress (I.e. modern plumbing, television, ready made clothes) -- the rich could already have all of these things, before progress, they just had to pay people to do them.  “Some unworthy will succeed and some worthy will fail... partly on achievements and partly on mere chance” –Hayek.  Adam Smith thought little of businessmen, pointing out how aristocracy, royalty, and the privileged or mighty in general were foolishly worshipped by the masses, even to the point of imitating their vices.  “It is only when estimating the potential intelligence of human beings that those with the unconstrained vision have a higher estimate than those with the constrained vision.  When estimating the current intelligence of human beings, those with the unconstrained vision tend to estimate a lower mean and a greater variance.”  The constrained vision sees war as inevitable; the unconstrained vision sees it as caused by institutions.  Thus, it has to do where the evil is located; if it is in people and institutions, it can be fixed and removed.  Likewise, people commit crime because they are people to the constrained vision.  Insofar as country-level development, the constrained vision seeks to explain prosperity, while unconstrained seeks to explain poverty.  PT Bauer rejects “condescension toward the ordinary people of the third world, that they are helpless, and do not know what is good for them.”  The constrained vision says power is the power to reduce someone’s options; unconstrained says it is to get A to do B.  Hayek sees social justice as a dangerous expansion of government power, where it makes discretionary determinations in domains once except from power; thus paving the “Road to Serfdom.” Falsified data points to just how much people believe in their own visions, I.e Malthus population theory – humanity still hasn’t destroyed itself as predicted. Evasion and misperceptions can drive mistaken visions as well; visions can talk over one another’s heads.  “A scientific paradigm which encounters discordant evidence is not usually abandoned in favor of nihilistic agnosticism, but is instead patched up and complicated until there is another paradigm to replace it.” -- the true believer.  Thus, complexion can become a protection against evidence.  The truth may lie with the vision, it may lie in between, it may lie in the other side; we do not know, the only way to know is to formulate a hypothesis and test with evidence.  Beliefs about social causation are hard to test due to the complication that is society.  New information can shake someone’s vision, but may not shake the underlying moral values; thus, what can easily change is perception of who or what is doing whatever, and why.  Given the complexity of society, people cannot even agree on the reasons that gave rise to Hitler, or to the rise and fall of Rome.  Points to people on both sides who had no real vested interest in either vision – economists were not actual businessmen (Adam Smith, Thomas Friedman, and Hayek); many on the left have been quite rich.  Is it really rooted in a desire for self-preservation?  “The moral impulse driving each vision cannot be jettisoned for the sake of winning, without making the victory meaningless.”  What is the morally desirable goal?