The Worst of Both Worlds

Julian Sanchez of Reason Magazine has a compelling article (I call it a must read but it’s sure to rile the sensibilities of many of you) about how the contemporary “right” has adopted the worst of the contemporary left.

He begins by supporting Francis Fukuyama’s rejection of neoconservatism but he goes a great deal further tying Fukuyama’s thesis to Thomas Sowell’s (explicitly anti-liberal) classic A Conflict of Visions:

What is striking about this characterization is its extraordinary resemblance to the worldview economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell describes in his conservative classic A Conflict of Visions as the “unconstrained vision” of man and politics—a worldview that Sowell, here and in his more polemical follow-up The Vision of the Anointed, typically regards as distinctive of the left.

On the “constrained” or “tragic” vision, Sowell explains, we are all embedded in phenomenally complex social systems that embody the evolved, inexpressible experience of many generations. Human nature is largely resistant to change and frequently troublesome. Broad and ambitious plans for social improvement—especially when they propose bettering not just human conditions but humanity itself—are to be regarded warily, because the knowledge explicitly available to even the wisest individual or group is dwarfed by the implicit wisdom of our evolved traditions. As Sowell puts it, “the particular cultural expressions of human needs peculiar to specific societies are not seen as being readily and beneficially changeable by forcible intervention.” In the “unconstrained” vision as exemplified by William Godwin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, by contrast, human nature is fundamentally benign and cooperative, spoiled rather than tamed by society. Rational reform, spearheaded by an enlightened class, is the remedy for the psychic corruption wrought by superstition and blind adherence to custom.

Sanches goes on to make a great argument against the neoconservative ideal manifest in the current Iraq policy and the rather wishful thinking inherent in the unconstrained vision. He also spend a great deal according these flaws and contradictions to George Bush:

Even when it appears to be most traditional, contemporary conservatism bears the imprimatur of the unconstrained vision. When, at a primary debate before the 2000 elections, Bush averred that his favorite political philosopher was “Christ, because he changed my heart,” most supposed that the candidate was either exploiting an opportunity to trumpet his religiosity or simply couldn’t think of an actual political philosopher. But taken at face value, it is a surprisingly telling comment: It implies that the function of political philosophy is to change hearts.

Bush’s defenses of his faith-based initiatives, for example, are redolent with the rhetoric of changed hearts, affirming that social programs are to be not merely ameliorative but transformative. Consonant with the constrained vision, Bush frequently recognizes that government is not equipped to undertake that sort of task directly, without intermediation by more local groups with a more direct understanding of the communities they serve. Yet he retains the core faith in government’s competence to steer a process that relies more on improving people than on improving the incentives people face. His Healthy Marriage Initiative recognizes, as thinkers guided by the constrained vision will, the importance of an evolved social institution, but seeks to manage it with the benefit of up-to-date social science. The No Child Left Behind act is meant to ensure the accountability of public schools—which sounds conservative enough—but it implements accountability to a set of centralized standards and measures, rather than local actors with more direct access to the needs and circumstances of children.

He says a great deal more, but his conclusion (and by no means does ths spoil the reading of the entire piece) comes to this:

None of this is to say that all good flows from the politics of the constrained vision and all ills from the unconstrained view. For my taste—and that of most libertarians, I suspect—Sowell’s constrained vision in its purer forms is probably a shade too constrained, too ready to assume that old customs continue to serve their traditional functions under changed circumstances. But it is the worst features of the unconstrained vision—its hubris, its pretense to omnicompetence—that have taken hold of the right. And if there is wisdom in each of the two perspectives, it should be worrying that, for all the other differences between the major parties, between progressives and conservatives, in this one fundamental way the political landscape increasingly offers only half the picture—different refractions of the same unconstrained vision. With the waning of the constrained perspective’s tempering influence, we’re left with a political vision that’s dangerously double.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 at 8:46 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.