Liberals and conservatives; unconstrained v. constrained visions; elite v. cultural knowledge

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Interesting article examining Thomas Sowell's work in A Conflict of Visions.

Thomas Sowell, Political Conflict, and Madmen in Authority - Econlib

The role of rationally articulated ideas may be quite modest in its effect on a given election, a legislative vote, or an action of a head of state. Yet the atmosphere in which such decisions take place may be dominated by a particular vision—or by a particular conflict of visions. Where...

www.econlib.org

Partial summary:

According to Sowell, "visions" are the foundations on which theories are built. A "vision" is a predisposition to see the human condition in a particular way. It cannot be proven or disproven. It is more like a hunch or a “gut feeling” than it is like an exercise in logic or factual verification.

An unconstrained vision suggests a world in which all problems can be solved. By contrast, a constrained vision deals in trade-offs rather than solutions. The constrained vision posits a world in which some human conflict is inevitable, and the best that one can hope for is a resolution that is peaceful and not too grossly unfair.

The article's author suggests a better way to look at it is cultural vs. elite knowledge, or if you favor or have an instinct for one of these, it will lead you to the corresponding "vision."

Liberals favor elite knowledge and tend to have unconstrained visions. Conservatives favor cultural knowledge and tend to have constrained visions.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Interesting article examining Thomas Sowell's work in A Conflict of Visions.

Thomas Sowell, Political Conflict, and Madmen in Authority - Econlib

The role of rationally articulated ideas may be quite modest in its effect on a given election, a legislative vote, or an action of a head of state. Yet the atmosphere in which such decisions take place may be dominated by a particular vision—or by a particular conflict of visions. Where...

www.econlib.org

Partial summary:

According to Sowell, "visions" are the foundations on which theories are built. A "vision" is a predisposition to see the human condition in a particular way. It cannot be proven or disproven. It is more like a hunch or a “gut feeling” than it is like an exercise in logic or factual verification.

An unconstrained vision suggests a world in which all problems can be solved. By contrast, a constrained vision deals in trade-offs rather than solutions. The constrained vision posits a world in which some human conflict is inevitable, and the best that one can hope for is a resolution that is peaceful and not too grossly unfair.

The article's author suggests a better way to look at it is cultural vs. elite knowledge, or if you favor or have an instinct for one of these, it will lead you to the corresponding "vision."

Liberals favor elite knowledge and tend to have unconstrained visions. Conservatives favor cultural knowledge and tend to have constrained visions.

Not sure I follow the argument here.

I think the unconstrained side where all problems are solvable is liberal with no room for conservatives. The example would be the perfect society and utopia imbedded in collectivism and Marxism.

I think both liberals and conservatives find a home on the constrained side. The example would be tge American Revolution. That produced a decidedly constrained world view. Our whole system is set up for dispute resolution through trade offs, compromise, and negotiation. Yet within this framework work, there are liberal and conservative views about how to proceed.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Not sure I follow the argument here.

I think the unconstrained side where all problems are solvable is liberal with no room for conservatives. The example would be the perfect society and utopia imbedded in collectivism and Marxism.

I think both liberals and conservatives find a home on the constrained side. The example would be tge American Revolution. That produced a decidedly constrained world view. Our whole system is set up for dispute resolution through trade offs, compromise, and negotiation. Yet within this framework work, there are liberal and conservative views about how to proceed.

For sure. I made a quick summary from the article. But I'm sure Sowell is not a binary thinker, and doesn't think these views perfectly overlap current political inclinations.

Try reading the article for more nuance and the book for the best version of the argument. Sowell's a decent writer for an academic.

 

[TomEric4756]

For sure. I made a quick summary from the article. But I'm sure Sowell is not a binary thinker, and doesn't think these views perfectly overlap current political inclinations.

Try reading the article for more nuance and the book for the best version of the argument. Sowell's a decent writer for an academic.

Yes, he is quite a writer.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Interesting article examining Thomas Sowell's work in A Conflict of Visions.

Thomas Sowell, Political Conflict, and Madmen in Authority - Econlib

The role of rationally articulated ideas may be quite modest in its effect on a given election, a legislative vote, or an action of a head of state. Yet the atmosphere in which such decisions take place may be dominated by a particular vision—or by a particular conflict of visions. Where...

www.econlib.org

Partial summary:

According to Sowell, "visions" are the foundations on which theories are built. A "vision" is a predisposition to see the human condition in a particular way. It cannot be proven or disproven. It is more like a hunch or a “gut feeling” than it is like an exercise in logic or factual verification.

An unconstrained vision suggests a world in which all problems can be solved. By contrast, a constrained vision deals in trade-offs rather than solutions. The constrained vision posits a world in which some human conflict is inevitable, and the best that one can hope for is a resolution that is peaceful and not too grossly unfair.

The article's author suggests a better way to look at it is cultural vs. elite knowledge, or if you favor or have an instinct for one of these, it will lead you to the corresponding "vision."

Liberals favor elite knowledge and tend to have unconstrained visions. Conservatives favor cultural knowledge and tend to have constrained visions.

Words I am unaccustomed to, I think Sowell is right. I think liberals are both more likely to think the Star Trek future is possible and preferable.

An issue example, AGW. Liberals are far more, "we can beat it with a concerted effort to renewables." Conservatives are far more, "We can manage its impact by, for example, just moving more inland."

As to trusting experts, that one seems painfully obvious.

 

[NPT]

Words I am unaccustomed to, I think Sowell is right. I think liberals are both more likely to think the Star Trek future is possible and preferable.

An issue example, AGW. Liberals are far more, "we can beat it with a concerted effort to renewables." Conservatives are far more, "We can manage its impact by, for example, just moving more inland."

As to trusting experts, that one seems painfully obvious.

I think on AGW most conservatives I know think we can beat it also but they don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water and that's the way they look at how liberals want to solve the problem.
Conservatives have a more "leave well enough alone" approach whereas liberals want to change things and a lot of times it's just to make them feel better because they did something. On the other hand both neither liberals or conervatives want to change things once they get things the way they want them. For example, if the the Supreme Court was balanced to the liberal side consersatives would be screaming and the liberals would be content.