In Praise of: Intellectuals and Society

I am not much given to hero worship. But if I do have heroes when it comes to writing editorial-style essays, they are Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell. Krauthammer is one of the most perceptive and incisive political commentators of all time. He not only picks up on what is happening in the public arena quicker than most others, he conveys his observations with greater literary skill than do most professional writers.
Meanwhile Sowell engages in an activity I would dearly love to emulate. For many decades now he has been translating economic knowledge into a readily accessible lay format. In other words, he explains fundamental economic truths in a way a majority of laypersons can comprehend. I would like to do something similar, albeit for sociological truths.
Sowell also does something else I admire. Every now and then he provides his readers with a vest-pocket review of books he believes worth reading. No doubt, in doing so, his endorsement encourages them to consult works likely to expand their worldviews.
I now wish to return the favor. Sowell himself has recently published a book that is worth reading. His “Intellectuals and Society” is a veritable tour de force. Open, honest, and keenly discerning, it is a worthy successor to his earlier “A Conflict of Visions.”
Sowell has described the latter as his favorite among the dozens of works he has authored. And understandably so. The distinction he makes between “constrained” and “unconstrained” political philosophies is crucial to appreciating the disagreements between contemporary conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives, for the most part, believe there are limits to human aspirations. They think of people as inherently imperfect and therefore unable to achieve everything they might imagine. As they see it, life is too complex for any individual to grasp all of its implications and therefore it is wise to start by honoring the insights of those who preceded us in this endeavor.
Liberals, in contrast, are likely to conceive of their options as unlimited. In their view, “if you can dream it, you can do it.” And dream they do, for instance, of a world in which everyone is completely equal. Moreover, liberals typically conceive of themselves as just the persons to lead whatever social movement they presently favor. Convinced that they are both smarter and more moral than others, they can think of none better to direct efforts as reform.
In his current work Sowell applies these observations to real-life issues. In this case, however, he doesn’t use the constrained/unconstrained designations, but instead describes conservatives as adopting a “tragic” view of events, whereas liberals tend to think of themselves as “anointed” saviors.
According to Sowell, liberals imagine themselves to be updated “philosopher kings.” In assuming they are “the best and the brightest,” as they do, they further suppose they can solve any problem to which they set their minds. Because they are so smart, they can see what needs to be done and because they are so good they can make sure it is done well.
Sowell, however, has his doubts. Like most conservatives, he believes that no individual can comprehend all of the facts needed to construct comprehensive social programs. He instead concludes that the best policies evolve from what are essentially on-going public negotiations. This way many millions of people get to contribute their knowledge to the social structures that ultimately affect their lives.
In order to make his point, Sowell examines several areas in which liberal policies have been notably unsuccessful. Naturally he starts with economics because this is his home discipline. Time and again, he sites instances, such as the Great Depression, where hubris has undermined left-leaning policies. Indeed, as any fair-minded person must recognize, socialist-style systems have never produced prosperity, whereas market-based economies generally have.
Nevertheless, this does not dissuade the anointed ones. So sure are they of their own wisdom that they allow words to substitute for deeds. Almost never apologetic for their mistakes, they simply move on from one catastrophe to the next. Their skill, such as it is, is therefore in rationalizing their failures while simultaneously congratulating themselves on their good intensions.
Perhaps the most frightening example of this propensity has been the peace movement. Sowell documents with chilling precision how liberals helped to precipitate World War II. It was their advocacy of pacifist policies that tempted Hitler into aggressive actions such as the reoccupation of the Rhineland. It was their condemnation of the arms industry that almost left nations such as Great Britain defenseless in the face of Nazi belligerence.
If I have any gripe against Sowell it is that much of what he discusses is “social” in nature. I would therefore have hoped it would be sociologists who were investigating these matters. He, however, is not at fault for the lapses of my colleagues. And I, for one, am glad that someone has had the courage to articulate what is plainly there to be seen by those with eyes open enough to see it.
Way to go Thomas!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University