Crybabies Everywhere

Thomas Sowell sheds some crocodile tears over the healthcare reform bill:

The corrupt manner in which this massive legislation was rammed through Congress, without any of the committee hearings or extended debates that most landmark legislation has had, has provided a roadmap for pushing through more such sweeping legislation in utter defiance of what the public wants....

The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a road map for how other "historic" changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

Legislation passing with sixty votes in the Senate - a bona fide supermajority - and a majority vote in the House? With the majority party repeatedly trying to get the minority to join in the debate? With the President coordinating a meeting with the minority party to try to bring them on board? I'm sure all of the Founding Fathers would agree that this is the absolute death of democracy. Wow. If passing bills with sixty votes in the Senate and a majority in the House takes off as a precedent, we'll pretty soon have, um, laws?

Ah, yes, I recall all of Sowell's columns lamenting the passage of Bush's tax cuts through reconciliation (i.e., a mere majority vote in the Senate) and that he would advocate for the privatization of Social Security but, alas, the will of the people prevented any such action. Or... not.

To think, as recently as 2007 Sowell was bragging about the economic boon brought about by Bush's tax cuts. The man truly is the philosopher of our time - the best thing short of a second coming.

Mamet's a French Name, Right?

If David Mamet is reading this, any thoughts on the latest from "our greatest contemporary philosopher"?

"Our Greatest Contemporary Philosopher" Speaks

Following up on David Mamet, maybe I should have gone with the parody I contemplated in footnote 1:

I was tempted to write a piece about Mamet's early work being performed the Organic Theater and, well, basically drawing as many parallels I could between Mamet's background and Jonah Goldberg's notions of a "liberal fascist." Such a piece would be entitled, "I used to be a liberal fascist, but it turns out I was a conservative the whole time." That, of course, would be intended as a poke in the eye of those who gush over both this essay and Goldberg's book, but they wouldn't get it and everybody else would be bored.

Because I just discovered (via Glenn Kenny) the great philosopher's edict on liberal fascism:

Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss — and a major loss.

Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.

Right.... Brilliant.

"My Favorite Philosopher Is Thomas Sowell"

A number of years ago I wrote an entry, "My Favorite Philosopher Is Jesus", that took a jaundiced view of Thomas Sowell's In A Conflict of Visions, an effort to categorize political philosophies into two categories, "constrained" and "unconstrained". As is typical of this type of work, that really translates into "people like me," and "everybody else", with "everybody else" being wrong. Oh, I know, Sowell's proponents argue that he avoids saying, "all those who adhere to an 'unconstrained vision' are wrong," but how dumb would you actually have to be not to discern that message?

The title to that post is, of course, alluding to the conservative's conservative, George W. Bush, describing Jesus as his "favorite philosopher". If G.W. reflects the "constrained vision" to which Sowell would have us aspire, may his favorite philosopher help us.

The other day when I was browsing weblogs, I saw a post on Talking Points Memo,

David Mamet: Why I am no longer a 'brain-dead liberal.'

Okay, I thought, I'll bite.¹ And at the other end of the link I found an intriguing essay written by a man who, although unquestionably bright, has spent sixty years on the planet without spending any discernible time contemplating politics. It's an analysis I might expect from an undergraduate student, who for the first time has come to realize that there is a lot of nuance in the world around him (but better written).

None of the other weblogs I read mentioned this essay. That's perhaps not surprising, given that there's really not much to it. So I did a blog search to find out what others were saying. The first thing I learned was that the essay was given prominent treatment by the Drudge Report - that explains the original link, and also explains the second thing I learned. It's all over the right-leaning blogosphere, with typical expressions being that it is a "brilliant piece of writing", "welcome to the real world", and "liberals are going to hate you for this."² And thus David Mamet is welcomed into the world of shallow politics, a world in which he presently belongs.

I don't mean that as an insult of David Mamet, but it is his own admission that he spent sixty years on the planet without reconsidering political assumptions that were self-contradictory³, at odds with each other⁴, at odds with his body of work⁵, and at odds with the way he lives his life⁶. If he truly believed himself to be a "liberal" throughout those sixty years, he deserves his self-applied label. And while his "awakening" may put him on par with the right-wing bloggers who gush over his essay, I don't think you can read it without the sense that when it comes to political philosophy he is not only far from the deep waters - he is still splashing around in the kiddie pool. A high school student could shred his facile comparison of George W. Bush to J.F.K.

The line that told me exactly where Mamet is coming from was this:

I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.⁷

I doubt I would be the first to point out to him that you can have a profound understanding of economic theory and still be an unabashed liberal. Or maybe I would. But his comment on Sowell provided a context for his entire piece - he read In A Conflict of Visions and, without a second thought, swallowed the theory of "unconstrained" versus "constrained" visions.

This also gives me something of a chuckle, in terms of the warm embrace Mamet is receiving from the right-wing blogosphere. How many among them have read Sowell? How many of that tiny group would describe Sowell as "our greatest contemporary philosopher"? Sowell has written some very good stuff during his career, but his brand of (paleo-)conservativism isn't particularly fashionable. And more to the point, perhaps out of a newfound awareness of the limitations of his understanding, Mamet does not actually embrace a new political label. His conclusion, which like the endings of many of his plays leaves many questions unanswered, is,

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler.

That is to say, he seems to be categorizing himself as some form of centrist - somebody who is now sufficiently politically aware to know that everybody else is "mooing" but not quite sure where to stand (other than by the water cooler). Perhaps after a bit more reading and a bit more thinking, he'll realize that his reluctance to join one or the other of Sowell's political camps results from the fact that Sowell has it wrong, and that political thought is a multi-dimensional spectrum.

---------------
Footnotes

1. I was tempted to write a piece about Mamet's early work being performed the Organic Theater and, well, basically drawing as many parallels I could between Mamet's background and Jonah Goldberg's notions of a "liberal fascist." Such a piece would be entitled, "I used to be a liberal fascist, but it turns out I was a conservative the whole time." That, of course, would be intended as a poke in the eye of those who gush over both this essay and Goldberg's book, but they wouldn't get it and everybody else would be bored.

2. Would Mamet fear small audiences? Probably about as much as he fears having somebody say, "That dialog wasn't realistic." But really, he's in the Kelsey Grammer category of, "respected for his work," not in the Dennis Miller category of, "Overdone schtick that can't even survive on Fox." Either way, it's not his politics that matter.

3. Mamet admits this, "I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart?" But that's why he presents his cutesy self-appellation, "brain-dead" - he wasn't thinking.

4. A contradiction he highlights is his former belief that governments, composed of people, are the solution to our problems while businesses, composed of people, act only in self-interest. Now it's pretty much the opposite, perhaps with the qualification that he relishes his own materialism, but somehow he no longer sees the contradiction.

5. It is hard to imagine Oleanna - in which a young woman plays the sexual harassment card and destroys her professor - as advancing a liberal philosophy. Mamet's new play, November, that supposedly inspired this political awakening is about interplay "between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter" - in other words, the "liberal" is a caricature, and an easily defeated straw man. And his views on race?

Races, as Steven Pinker wrote in his refutational The Blank Slate, are just rather large families; families share genes and thus, genetic disposition. Such may influence the gene holders (or individuals) much, some, or not at all. The possibility exists, however, that a family passing down the gene for great hand-eye coordination is likely to turn out more athletes than without. The family possessing the genes for visual acuity will likely produce good hunters, whose skill will provide nourishment. The families of the good hunters will prosper and intermarry, thus strengthening the genetic disposition in visual acuity.

Bambi v Godzilla, Pantheon (February 6, 2007). The purpose of the essay is to explain the high representation of Ashkenazim (and possibly Asperger's Syndrome) among film directors; but what's the implicit statement about other races?

6. "The observed rule in Hollywood is ‘feel free to treat everyone like scum." Did he believe that the peons who fetch him his lattes every morning do so because of their "inherent goodness"? "I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as 'a brain-dead liberal,' and to NPR as 'National Palestinian Radio.'" If he truly believed those expressions to be charming (or clever), I'm at a loss for words.

7. Mamet later elaborates, "I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow." Mamet is an unabashed Zionist. It shouldn't take him very long to think of one good thing that resulted from government intervention. But should I assume that he believes environmental laws, child labor laws, Medicare, Social Security, food inspection, drug inspection, public highways, etc., all stand in the way of great filmmaking, and are thus social detriments? More to the point, he's a playwright - a profession that could scarcely exist but for government grants, publicly funded education, charitable donations and tax exemptions.

"My Favorite Philosopher is Jesus"

Long ago, I heard an anecdote about human nature:

A couple, moving to a small town from the city, got lost on their way to their new home. They saw an old man sitting on the porch of his house, and stopped to get directions. Before they left, they asked him one last question - "What are the people like around here?"

The old man replied, "What are they like where you come from?" The couple expressed that the people of their city were very nice, neighborly, friendly, and never hesitated to help each other out in times of need. The old man expressed, "The people around here are pretty much the same."

The next day, another couple from the same city also stopped for directions, culminating in the same question. Again, the old man asked, "What are the people like where you come from?" The couple stated that the people of their city were cold and distant, kept to themselves, and were brusque, unfriendly, and sometimes more than a bit rude. The old man commented, "The people around here are pretty much the same."

Granted, it is simplistic, but it does reflect a pattern of human thought and behavior. People tend to project their own thoughts and philosophies onto others, and people respond to them accordingly. A cold, distant couple who expects everybody to be cold and distant will likely find exactly that - even in the warmest and friendliest of surroundings. While a warm, friendly couple can do a lot to melt the ice, even if they find themselves living amidst curmudgeons. How you approach others can greatly affect how they respond to you.

Today, I saw a short and rather shallow review of Thomas Sowell's new book, which ostensibly tells us of the different mindsets of the "conservative" and the "liberal":

In A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, Sowell uses a refreshing but systematic approach to explain this phenomenon in terms of differences in underlying assumptions about human nature: whether human nature is inherently imperfect and hasn't essentially changed throughout history (the "constrained vision"), or whether human nature can be improved through education, programs, and spending (the "unconstrained vision," or essentially the vision of the Age of Reason).

Those who adhere to the constrained vision, Sowell argues, reject the notion that mankind has the ability to create all-encompassing "solutions" to social problems. Instead, such adherents tend to favor practical trade-offs that benefit society at large, but which work within the constraints of existing laws and social processes. Similarly, adherents of the constrained vision generally revere the wisdom inherent in religion, tradition, and timeless experience, rather than the subjective and changing moral interpretations of the "intellectual elite." Consequently, this vision naturally lends supports for capital markets, limited government, strict Constitutional interpretation, and general social stability.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the unconstrained vision. This view assumes that there exists a morally superior "intellectual elite" class which has the ability (and therefore the responsibility) to make key and sweeping social decisions on the behalf of society at large. According to Sowell, this vision naturally lends support for policies that promote equality of results, regardless of whether or not the underlying processes are fair. It should be no surprise, therefore, that adherents of the unconstrained vision deem it acceptable to espouse redistribution of land and wealth to the poor, affirmative action, judicial activism, and direct government involvement in social issues.

It is apparent from the outset that Sowell isn't actually arguing "constrained" versus "unconstrained" - at least as presented, his philosophy is barely more sophisticated than "some people think humans are inherently good; others think humans are inherently evil." To the extent that he deviates from that stance, it seems more as a justification for the political, social and economic models he favors, as opposed to an attempt to truly understand the "left" and "right." Perhaps the better analysis of Sowell is that of the old man on the porch - he's a guy from the city who sees people as being like him, treats them in such a manner that they reinforce his perceptions, and never looks for the other side.

My initial reaction was that it is true that "human nature is inherently imperfect and hasn't essentially changed throughout history", and it is also true that "human nature can be improved through education [and social] programs" - recognizing, of course, that education and social programs require spending. So I am simultaneously constrained and unconstrained? Sorry Thomas - your philosophical house of cards is falling down.

Comments

There's "Making a Point", then there's what Sowell's doing....

Forgive me - I had mistakenly assumed that Sowell was done with his rants against "busybodies".

It appears that the long gas lines during the OPEC oil boycott in the 1970's were the fault of Ted Kennedy, who in the face of long lines and shortfalls called for price controls. Ronald Reagan, coming into power after the boycott ended, apparently "saved they day". While I share Sowell's skepticism of price controls, perhaps it should be acknowledged that OPEC's boycott had more to do with the price of oil and long lines at the pumps than "price controls"? Or that the notion of "price controls" was advocated previously by the horrible liberal busybody Richard Nixon - for that matter, Nixon also imposed wage controls....

So evil liberals like Ted Kennedy and Richard Nixon impose their notions of "fairness" on what Sowell believes should be a free market for human organs, oil, and farm land free of zoning restrictions. And, as it seems, this whole "busybody" thing is driven by a Nixonian passion for the poor:

When the issue is posed as "the free market" versus "compassion for the poor," which do you think is likely to win out?

Our bloated and ever-growing welfare state -- from which the poor get a very small share, by the way -- answers that question.

Perhaps somebody can explain that in a comment. The U.S. has the stingiest social welfare system in the developed world. Sowell seems to be complaining that the "welfare state" is growing because of "busybodies" who want to help the poor, but not to the benefit of the poor.

Is Sowell referencing the huge new prescription drug benefit signed into law by President Bush - a subsidy that will largely help seniors who are not poor? Is he complaining about massive new agricultural subsidies signed into law by Bush - welfare for corporate farms which, again, are not poor? Is he complaining about Bush's steel tariffs, which forced up the price of many manufactured goods in order to protect the domestic steel industry - corporate welfare at its finest? The multi-billion dollar subsidies that Bush wishes to provide to wealthy U.S. corporate interests through his proposed "energy bill"? There seems to be little doubt that this nation's corporate welfare rolls are swelling to unprecedented levels under President Bush.

So when Sowell whines about "'the free market' versus 'compassion for the poor,'" he means to condem evil "liberal busybodies" for advocating for the poor, whom Sowell acknowledges are getting less and less of the welfare pie, but that it is fine for "conservatives" to expand that welfare pie as long as the benefits are shifted to corporate interests (most of which need no subsidy in the "free market")? Free markets should only govern if we're speaking of building an industrial plant in an evil "open space" next to a poor neighborhood (a net social good, in Sowell's mind, as it not only represents the "free market" in action, it makes the neighboring housing more affordable - perhaps costing little more than one one could get for selling one's "spare kidney"), but we should wear our blinkers when it comes to noticing the enormous subsidy handed to the wealthy corporation that is building the industrial plant?

Sowell concludes,

Because of the innumerable problems caused by busybodies who devote "a most unnecessary attention" to things that would be better without them, the rest of us should devote some very necessary attention to these busybodies and their sloppy arguments.

I think, in the context of these columns, he's describing himself.

Comments

Sowell's "Busybodies"

In recent columns, Thomas Sowell is playing the role of the curmudgeon, bitterly complaining about "busybodies" who are supposedly unduly interfering with our freedoms. His first column laments that people aren't permitted to sell their organs:

I happen to know a lady who was born with three kidneys -- and in poverty. Do you think she would have minded parting with a spare kidney, in order to have a better life for herself and her children?

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the "spare kidney" would be viable, what makes Sowell think that an open market for kidneys would permit this woman's sale to provide a "better life" for her family? Particularly given his subsequent statement,

Three economists have estimated the cost of buying an organ in a free market at a price well within most people's budgets.

More to the point, kidneys are already available for sale (in some cases in violation of laws nobody seems interested in enforcing) in places like India and the Philippines, with questionable economic benefit for many of the "donors". The necessary safety net to provide for any complications to U.S.-based donors, such as providing for health insurance to cover any associated short-term and long-term complications - costs Sowell would surely want to be borne by the purchaser and not the state - would push the cost of domestic organs significantly above the cost of "imports".

Please note that compelling arguments can and have been made for creating greater social rewards for organ donation, for removing the "ick" factor which makes families uncomfortable with approving donations even where their loved ones have completed organ donor cards, and even for providing some financial return in certain situations. But, even given that reality, Sowell's analysis is uncharacteristically shallow.

In his next column, Sowell complains about regulations aimed at "preserving farmland", which apparently prevented the father of one of his readers from selling his farmland to developers. Sowell argues that this means the farmer "cannot get anywhere near the land's market value", meaning of course that he cannot get the value he would have received if the use of the land were changed. Obviously, he can sell it for the same purpose as he used it - as farmland.

Sowell argued that restrictions meant to "preserve" farmland are unnecessary as we have an agricultural surplus, and that this type of restriction constitutes an unconstitutional taking. He rails that "busybodies" have no more rights under the Constitution than anybody else:

In other words, people who want to wring their hands about farmlands or wetlands, or about some obscure toad or snake, have no more rights than people who don't care two cents about such things. It is hard for those who have presumptions of being the morally anointed to accept that, but that is what the Constitution says.

Again, I grant that there is some basis to Sowell's complaints - but there is also great merit in preserving open spaces and arable farmland, and even in preventing excess urban sprawl. It's a classic battle of the rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective. Sowell prefers a libertarian position, where it is every man for himself, whatever the long- or short-term consequence for the community or the environment. And, perhaps unaware of the costs, he ignores the burdens on local governments of providing and maintaining roads, water and power lines, fire and police services, and other support for the communities he desires to be built on what is presently farmland. Sowell may benefit from a review of the Federalist Papers, as his argument exemplifies the reasons why our Founding Fathers chose representative government over direct democracy.

Sowell also presents what I consider to be an absurd claim:

The real reason for preventing farmland from being sold to those who might build housing on it is that the people who live in that housing might not be as upscale as those already living nearby. Developers -- heaven forbid -- might build apartments or townhouses in a community where people live in single-family homes.

For many years, I would drive to Plainfield, Illinois on an annual basis. In the 1980's, after leaving the highway for Plainfield Road, this involved driving past mile after mile of cornfields. Through the 1990's much of that farmland was developed - and I don't recall seeing a single residence that could be characterized as less "upscale" than that of Plainfield. Meanwhile, the people of Plainfield faced additional pressure on their schools and public services, while likely often seeing their own home values decline in comparison to the new development.

While I will grant that sometimes farmland is acquired for the development of "manufactured home communities", and that there is often fierce local resistance to such development due to concerns about the low tax income from such development, and the high cost to area communities for policing and serving a high-density, low income population, that's the exception, not the rule. Most developers have no interest in building low income housing, as it is not where they can expect to maximize the return on their investments.They are buying the land to build what you will see if you drive down Plainfield Road - large houses on relatively small lots, designed for people who want to "live in the country" (or at least outside of the city) in a big house while also having a reasonable commute into work. Sowell has to know this.

In his third essay, which rails about "liberals" who demand that developers produce "affordable housing":

One of the staples of liberal hand-wringing is a need for "affordable housing." Last year, the standard liberal solution -- more government spending -- was proposed in a televised speech at the National Press Club in Washington, in a report billed as a "new vision."

Presumably, this means that the "busybodies" of his former essay were "conservatives" - as he was then arguing that "busybodies" were trying to prevent affordable housing.

Sowell observes that there is a glut of rental units in much of the country, and that housing cost is primarily a problem "confined to a relatively few places along the east and west coasts". He goes on to complain that this would be resolved if local governments woud lift restrictions on the development of land surrounding these major urban areas.

The New York Times story refers gingerly to "many cities on the coasts, where new construction is more difficult" than in the rest of the country. To put it more bluntly, liberals have driven housing prices sky high by forbidding, restricting, and harassing the building of housing.

In turn, this has meant driving people of modest incomes out of the communities where they work. Nurses, teachers and policemen, for example, typically live far away from places like San Francisco or Silicon Valley, and have to commute long distances to and from work.

Now, granted, if you allow for completely unrestricted development, the odds are that eventually you will get a housing surplus which will result in lower rents and housing values. But it is more than fair to ask, "at what cost"?

Sowell again resorts to the thesis that if more housing is built, it will be affordable housing. (As my friends in California have pointed out, there are neighborhoods even in the population centers which are comparatively quite affordable - it's just that most people don't want to live there.) If prime open spaces and parklands are opened to developers in areas with some of the highest housing costs in the nation, Sowell asks us to presuppose that developers will prefer to take a hit in the pocketbook in order to provide low income and moderately priced housing, as opposed to building upscale developments and McMansions so as to maximize their profits. Sowell seems to believe that the market should govern land prices and uses, but that developers will ignore the market when choosing what to build on their land. It's a nice dream, but it isn't likely to be the reality.

Comments