Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Publication
Basic Books (2007), Edition: Revised, Paperback, 352 pages
Description
Politics. Nonfiction. HTML: Controversies in politics arise from many sources, but the conlficts that endure for generations or centuries show a remarkably consistent pattern. In this book, which the author calls a "culmination of thirty years of work in the history of ideas," Sowell attempts to explain the ideological difference between liberals and conservatives as a disagreement over the moral potential inherent in nature. Those who see that potential as limited prefer to constrain governmental authority, he argues. They feel that reform is difficult and often dangerous, and they put their faith in family, custom, law, and traditional institutions. Conversely, those who have faith in human nature prefer to remove institutional and traditional constraints. Controversies over such diverse issues as criminal justice, income distribution, or war and peace repeatedly show an ideological divide along the lines of these two conflicting visions..… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member markmobley
This book was a seminal event for me. It put into words many things that I sensed I believed, but had no words to describe. It taught me things about thinking, about going back to the root and following thoughts to their logical conclusions.
The book digs at the roots of the differences between
It exposes the dangers of policy by emotion, making policy choices based on what seems good, but gets us back to judge policy not by intent but by result. It goes back to the very definition of conservative and liberal, not as a party affilition, connotation, or label given by the opposition, but root beliefs that drive decisions.
It challenged me to look at why I did things, why I made the choices I made. It challenged me to look at what I really believed and make choices from that foundation.
If you are a talk-show conservative, you need to read this book. The level of thinking of most hosts is extremely shallow. If not, they give it to us in bite-sized pieces for easy digestion. Don't go through life not knowing why you believe what you proclaim to believe.
If you are a liberal, you need to read this book. It will help you understand the underpinnings of the decisions that conservatives make or should be making. It will challenge you to look hard at the foundations of your thought processes. Perhaps it will open some dialogue and cure our current polarization.
The book digs at the roots of the differences between
Show More
conservative and liberal thinking. It is not a political hack piece that is intended to get a certain party elected, but a political philosophy that has been digested over many years of thought and put down as a wake-up call for us.It exposes the dangers of policy by emotion, making policy choices based on what seems good, but gets us back to judge policy not by intent but by result. It goes back to the very definition of conservative and liberal, not as a party affilition, connotation, or label given by the opposition, but root beliefs that drive decisions.
It challenged me to look at why I did things, why I made the choices I made. It challenged me to look at what I really believed and make choices from that foundation.
If you are a talk-show conservative, you need to read this book. The level of thinking of most hosts is extremely shallow. If not, they give it to us in bite-sized pieces for easy digestion. Don't go through life not knowing why you believe what you proclaim to believe.
If you are a liberal, you need to read this book. It will help you understand the underpinnings of the decisions that conservatives make or should be making. It will challenge you to look hard at the foundations of your thought processes. Perhaps it will open some dialogue and cure our current polarization.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jahn
The author defines and contrasts what he sees as the basic values of conservatives and liberals (social democrats in European terms). He is himself a conservative, and the book is of course not neutral. The author makes a very good case for ascribing elitism and totalitarianism to the left: the
Still good enough an idea for another roll out, but a normal business leader would not in private declare himself without any actual dominance over others (he would laugh at the idea!), and if the author had reached for historical elitist ideas on the right to match the ugly quotations he has found on the left, he shouldn't have had to strain himself. The accusation against much of the right as believing in inherited privileges as justly God-given, although here given a wide evasion, is easy to substantiate. Being a cynic, I heard myself throughout the book repeating Céline's much used words on the political divide: "same difference!"
The central point in any conservatism or libertarianism versus welfare state debate is the equal opportunity question, or if you like: the question of “barriers to market entry” as regards individuals. Mr Sowell first neatly sidesteps the problem in presenting the idea that the products of the privileged are something the unprivileged can all enjoy. Not a bad idea, although of limited applicability I will claim. But then he goes on to say that while the left is for “result equality,” the right is for “process equality,” and while that idea is understandable, it doesn’t answer the problem at hand. The privileges of those that enjoy “affirmative action” are a forced result, and as such a destruction of “process equality,” fine, I’ll buy that. But privileges inherited seems to me to be every bit as much a forced result, and every bit as disruptive to a “process equality” as the state enforced result. We are all allowed to pay our way through expensive schools,- claiming that the poor are therefore allowed to go to expensive schools is nonsense, but seeing this nonsense-freedom as possibly disrupted by state aid is worse… The trick seems to be to start from a process beginning, or its end, as it suits you.
I wish it was otherwise, but I see complete “process equality” as obtainable only with a new start from scratch every instant. (In fairness to the author it should be said that, outside education aided by the "GI bill," he himself is largely self-made.)
I consider the book quite clarifying of the views of the "tradeoffs considering economist conservative," although his opponents may be a bit too conveniently posed. Mr Sowell tries to argue all his claims, he generally does that quite well, and I believe the book can be enjoyed by anybody, wherever they’re stationed on the right-left scale.
Show More
self-declared "moral and intellectual elite" making dangerous “surrogate decisions” based on flimsy theories for the ignorant masses. This in clear contrast to the small increments of change in "evolutionary tradition," and the Smithian “invisible hand” that coordinates the work of a mass of different experts, who are all of equal human value, are all without the total oversight demanded of a “philosopher-king-politician” - but in aggregate price-able knowledge are absolutely fabulous.Still good enough an idea for another roll out, but a normal business leader would not in private declare himself without any actual dominance over others (he would laugh at the idea!), and if the author had reached for historical elitist ideas on the right to match the ugly quotations he has found on the left, he shouldn't have had to strain himself. The accusation against much of the right as believing in inherited privileges as justly God-given, although here given a wide evasion, is easy to substantiate. Being a cynic, I heard myself throughout the book repeating Céline's much used words on the political divide: "same difference!"
The central point in any conservatism or libertarianism versus welfare state debate is the equal opportunity question, or if you like: the question of “barriers to market entry” as regards individuals. Mr Sowell first neatly sidesteps the problem in presenting the idea that the products of the privileged are something the unprivileged can all enjoy. Not a bad idea, although of limited applicability I will claim. But then he goes on to say that while the left is for “result equality,” the right is for “process equality,” and while that idea is understandable, it doesn’t answer the problem at hand. The privileges of those that enjoy “affirmative action” are a forced result, and as such a destruction of “process equality,” fine, I’ll buy that. But privileges inherited seems to me to be every bit as much a forced result, and every bit as disruptive to a “process equality” as the state enforced result. We are all allowed to pay our way through expensive schools,- claiming that the poor are therefore allowed to go to expensive schools is nonsense, but seeing this nonsense-freedom as possibly disrupted by state aid is worse… The trick seems to be to start from a process beginning, or its end, as it suits you.
I wish it was otherwise, but I see complete “process equality” as obtainable only with a new start from scratch every instant. (In fairness to the author it should be said that, outside education aided by the "GI bill," he himself is largely self-made.)
I consider the book quite clarifying of the views of the "tradeoffs considering economist conservative," although his opponents may be a bit too conveniently posed. Mr Sowell tries to argue all his claims, he generally does that quite well, and I believe the book can be enjoyed by anybody, wherever they’re stationed on the right-left scale.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jpsnow
I can see why Sowell considers this among his best three works. In A conflict of Visions, he presents a generalized philosophical model that frames every major economic and political viewpoint. He references many prominent thinker on both sides of his model, which is based not on left vs. right,
Show More
nor authoritarian vs. libertarian, but instead on constrained vs. the unconstrained visions. So many ideological discussions about politics, religion, trade, and social justice would be far more enlightening if participants had considered them within the context of Sowell's brilliant and well-written analysis. Show Less
LibraryThing member SamTekoa
Kind of a difficult read. Helpful in understanding political dialogue or anyother social behavior viewpoint.
LibraryThing member applemcg
the first few chapters held my attention. Sowell's treatment of constrained and unconstrained vision were sufficient. Intellectual and erudite, but not captivating.
On first glance,unconstrained and constrained appear to be the liberal and conservative sides of the discussion. Sowell points out
On first glance,unconstrained and constrained appear to be the liberal and conservative sides of the discussion. Sowell points out
Show More
where those quick assignments may be flipped, but the droll manner, and wouldn't hold my attention. My last bookmark, the start of chapter 5: Varieties and Dynamics of Visions was sufficient. I'm too much the pragmatist to worry about deeper motivation. I'd agree with Sowell that a value statement like "the most good for the most people" is more difficult to measure than the most wealth for the most people, but it may be a more important objective. Especially in finding agreement about the "most good" Show Less
LibraryThing member librisissimo
Sowell is a highly respected economist and columnist. He is also one of a few prominent black conservatives in academia.
Original publication date
1987