Posted by Todd Zywicki:
Unconstrained Conservatives (and Constrained Liberals):
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_19-2008_10_25.shtml#1224882497
[1]Peter Robinson's column on Thomas Sowell and "A Conflict of
Visions" focused me on a point that I hadn't thought of previously. A
Conflict of Visions originally was written back in the 1980s and
Peter's idea in the interview was to try to frame the 2008 election
through the lens of the constrained and unconstrained visions, so some
larger principles were obscured.
For those who haven't read the book, but want the one paragraph
summary, a [2]book review by Charles Murray captures the distinction
tolerably well (although quite oversimplified):
Its thesis: The policy arguments between liberals and
conservatives, socialists and libertarians, do not arise just from
differences in priorities regarding freedom, equality, and
security. At root, they draw from different conceptions of the
nature of man. The Left holds an unconstrained vision: Given the
right political and economic arrangements, human beings can be
improved, even perfected. Success is defined by what people have
the potential of becoming, not by people as they are. The Right
holds a constrained vision: People come to society with innate
characteristics that cannot be reshaped and must instead be
accommodated. Success in political and economic policy must be
defined in light of those innate characteristics.
The "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions often map onto
"conservative" and "liberal" ideologies. But not invariably. And a
point that I hadn't really thought of previously was that one of the
strange things about George W. Bush is that in many ways although he
calls himself a conservative (I express no opinion here whether that
is accurate) I think his fundamental vision is an unconstrained
vision. Some of his signature initiatives such as "No Child Left
Behind" and the Iraq War animated by really quite a utopian
mindset--the former by a really bold assumption about the intellectual
capabilities of every child the latter by the aspiration of
nation-building. What is important is not whether he was right or
wrong in these cases (the nature of a conflict of visions is that they
are different, not correct or incorrect), but rather that they reflect
an unconstrained vision of the world.
It is also possible to be a liberal with a constrained vision--Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, I think was a good example of a liberal with a
constrained vision. As perhaps was Harry Truman, although I know less
about his particular policies.
Sowell dumps on Obama as a prototype of an unconstrained vision and
Robinson's questions frame McCain as a constrained vision guy. But
while I think this is accurate with respect to Obama, McCain is far
from a pure exemplar of the constrained vision. In particular,
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform is a prototype of an
unconstrained vision--the utopian belief that we can take
self-interest out of politics and that if left to their own devices
politicians will pursue the "public interest" in an unbiased manner.
It would be hard to think of a better example of legislation inspired
by an unconstrained vision. Similarly, McCain's apparent belief that
the financial crisis was caused by some "greedy" bad guys on Wall
Street doing bad things is almost a parody of the unconstrained
vision.
I note one other point in passing--I recall when the book was
published, libertarians criticized it because they thought that Sowell
had left them out by focusing on what they read as just conservative
and liberal ideologies. I think that this criticism is misplaced.
Visions cut deeper than political ideologies. Political libertarians
tend to fall into Sowell's two categories. Libertarians of a
Hayek/Friedman bent are fundamentally constrained vision people,
seeing the world through the lens of scarcity, conflict, and
tradeoffs. Rights-based libertarians of a Rand/Nozick bent I think are
generally unconstrained vision, seeing the world as largely in harmony
and cooperation. Of course, they borrow from one another, but I think
that libertarians are generally animated by one of the two visions.
The real point of Sowell's book, is just to describe these visions,
not to prove that one or the other is "correct."
BTW, the Robinson column was the aftermath of an interview that Peter
did with Sowell last week that I happened to be able to see when it
was being filmed (I understand that it will go up on the National
Review Online website at some point). Sowell mentioned to me that
"Conflict of Visions" was his favorite book and that when he set out
to write it, he thought that "Conflict of Visions" would be as long as
"Knowledge and Decisions" turned out to be and vice-versa. His
personal graciousness and humility were really touching as well.
I also asked Sowell whether he had ever come across Robert Pirsig's
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I think that Pirsig's
distinction between the "classical" and the "romantic" view is
conceptually similar to Sowell's distinction between the constrained
and unconstrained visions. He said he had not read it.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_19-2008_10_25.shtml#1224870175
2. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
