A CONFLICT OF VISIONS 
                                  by Thomas Sowell 

"Mad as the sea and wind when both contend."  -- Hamlet 

   "They're talking apples and oranges!" is a familiar frustrated cry from bystanders listening to a furious discussion.  It means that while the two sides seem to be arguing about the same thing, they probably aren't. 
   For example, when Democrats in Congress denounce the "unacceptable costs" of  President Bush's tax cut proposal, the Democrats are stating their belief that government would be 
negligent in its duties if it allowed a reduction in the flow of money to Washington -- money which the Democrats confidently believe they spend wisely to create and fund important improvements in our society 

   President Bush and his supporters in Congress argue that tax cuts, leaving more money in the hands of those who earn it, create -- through investments, savings and purchases -- capital which creates more jobs, and ultimately a total increase in wealth. In fact, conservatives have proven that tax cuts invariably increase the amount of money flowing to Washington for Congress to spend. 
   If more U.S. dollars will go to the politicians when taxes are reduced, why would the Democrats object? 
   Thomas Sowell's  book "A Conflict of Visions" goes a long way towards unraveling such  conundrums.  He provides an explanation for why liberals and conservatives often seem to talk at cross purposes with each other, and why sometimes their proposals seem to be at cross purposes with their own stated goals. 

   Sowell begins by defining what he means by "vision."  It is the "gut feeling," the "almost instinctive sense of what things are and how they work", and fundamentally it is an assumption about causes -- specifically, why do men behave as they do?  Sowell says: "We 
all have visions. They are the silent shapers of our thoughts." 
   "Visions may be moral, political, economic, religious, or social.  In these or other realms, we sacrifice for our visions and sometimes, if need be, face ruin rather than betray them. Where visions conflict, whole societies may be torn apart. Conflicts of interests dominate the short run, but conflicts of visions dominate history." 
   And Sowell adds: "We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them." 

  This book is an invitation to examine our personal visions, to tease out those underlying the rhetoric of politicians and others who want our support, and to become acquainted with the historical roots of two powerful, opposing visions that struggle for dominance in our society 
today. 
   In the late eighteenth century two revolutions shook the world.  The American colonies fought a conventional war and successfully threw off British control, establishing a new nation based on a Constitution that was the fullest formal expression ever devised of the ancient vision of man as the innately imperfect, selfish author of his own behavior. The new government made obeisance to the combined wisdom of its citizens and hemmed itself about with checks and balances. 

   The French Revolution was a brutal civil war that toppled their monarchy and established an aristocracy of intellectuals who believed that men behaved badly only because they were governed badly, not because they were by nature imperfect.  A rational, well-educated, well-
spoken elite would make laws that prescribed appropriate behaviors and attitudes, eventually creating a heavenly society. 
   The expectation was that under the correct leadership and guidance, and force when necessary, human beings could throw off the shackles of the past, thus gradually freeing-up their "true" nature -- unselfish, sacrificing their personal interests for the benefit of others, thoughtful, generous, not ambitious for dominance, not envious, never dissatisfied or cruel. 

   The intellectuals believed that what got in the way of people's progress were the traditions, customs, and institutions handed down through the centuries, including the incentives men had devised to entice individuals into acting for the common good. The intellectuals would lift the burden of those hindrances off the backs of mankind. 
   In addition, the French intellectuals believed that a government which is good, led by morally superior, disinterested men sincerely devoted to the improvement of its citizens, needs no foolish "checks and balances" because such a government would be benevolent, certainly not 
a danger. Citizens would accept this leadership and the ordering of their daily lives for their own, ultimate, good, and hopefully would do so voluntarily. 

   When liberal Democrats (the heirs of the French intellectuals) use words such as fidelity, sincerity, freedom, equality, justice, even power -- they mean very different things than when they are used by conservative Republicans (heirs of the American Federalists). When liberals talk about knowledge, they are referring to what an elite of highly intelligent people have studied and grasped and rationally, cleverly articulated.. For conservatives,  knowledge is the vast accumulated wisdom that has been handed down through the centuries, usually not 
articulated, or even thought about consciously, but just "known", tested and retested against reality by vast numbers of generations. 

  Who questions that marriage is the best possible basis of a family; or that children are more likely to thrive within families with both a mother and a father?   Sowell reminds us that in power relationships, such as between a parent and child, or between a doctor and his patient, we forbid sexual activity.  These are examples of the tested wisdom of the ages, precisely the sort of knowledge rejected by the intellectuals. They might eventually agree with these positions, but only after studying them, and articulating their conclusions -- and perhaps only after the failure of experimental arrangements they promote or prescribe. 

   Sowell warns that societies are not laboratories, where the scientist can throw out an unsuccessful batch and start over fresh.  He says "...the biological continuity of the human race means that experiments which fail cannot be begun over again from scratch...We can never know what Germany would be like today if there had been no Hitler, or how Western civilizaton would have developed had there been no decline and fall of the Roman Empire." 

   But the French intellectuals confidently experimented in France. They did fail, and often, leaving behind them a trail of violence and death.  Their vision inspired further experimentation -- in Germany, Russia, and Italy, all of which failed but long after their societies suffered horrendously. The intellectuals, however, consider failure, whether mild or deadly, merely the opportunity for further study, fine-tuning their theories, altering their methods of getting complaince from 'the masses', ever-renewing their efforts toward releasing the perfection they believe to be basic to man's nature. 

   The United States, a nation as imperfect as man himself but with a system of government that takes into account those imperfections and turns them to the good of society as a whole, has not failed, but continues to thrive, and is today the most successful nation on the Earth, economically and in terms of individual freedoms.  Freedoms, that is, as defined by  those who believe that man is constrained by  his nature from ever achieving perfection. 

   Conservatives have a deep distrust of the elite intellectuals (as did the founding fathers), not because of any disagreement about the presence of ills in our society but because the remedies proposed by the intellectuals require the transfer of a tremendous amount of power 
into very few hands to accomplish. It is no part of the belief system of conservativism that any man, regardless of intellectual brilliance, is wiser than the collective wisdom of all of society. In fact,  for conservatives, an intellectual is no wiser about what is best for society than an ordinary workingman. 

   When the Democrats demand an increase in tax rates, even with the knowledge that tax cuts would increase the amount of money going to Washington, their goal is not just money, but also a willing acknowledgement from us that they are smarter about spending our money than we are. That is actually a hefty transfer of personal power. We need to pay close attention to what the liberals say, to test their messages and the visions underlying them. 
   Hundreds of generations have done the work of testing new visions, new theories, new ideas, and now its our turn. Thomas Sowell's book is a  useful resource for assisting us in that process. 

© 2003 Peggy Whitcomb