He provides the arguments (if you can call them that) that they're looking for, he mocks the left, academics and any attempt to solve society's problems apart from Free Markets and the elimination of all but military and police spending by the government.
If someone
points out that conservatives and very often conservative policies are racist
or imperialist, the trump card so often pulled out is Thomas Sowell. He's their
token minority academic. His very presence and the fact that he's so
appreciated demonstrate that right wing nationalists aren't racist at all. In
fact if blacks were just as smart as Thomas Sowell they would see that the
Republican Party and conservative politics are most advantageous to them.
This
argument is only growing in prominence as the Right is desperate to counter the
demographic shift occurring in the United States. If you're conservative and a
minority the Republican Party will support you in a run for public office and
several minority figures are quickly rising to prominence within the party.
But this
all started a long time ago, with Thomas Sowell. I picked a fairly recent
column to interact with to demonstrate a point. This column was pretty typical
of what he writes on a regular basis. I don't believe people are actually
reading what he says. If they did they would quickly realize it's not
brilliant, or even insightful. In fact I don't believe anyone would even pay
attention to him except for the fact that his very presence has long been a
means to foil those who accuse their movement of racism.
The
Mindset of the Left
by Thomas Sowell
When
teenage thugs are called "troubled youth" by people on the political
left, that tells us more about the mindset of the left than about these young
hoodlums.
Seldom
is there a speck of evidence that the thugs are troubled, and often there is
ample evidence that they are in fact enjoying themselves, as they create
trouble and dangers for others.
Why
then the built-in excuse, when juvenile hoodlums are called "troubled
youth" and mass murderers are just assumed to be "insane"?
At
least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing
the plain fact of evil – that some people simply choose to do things that they
know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an
unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.
All
the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and
become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils
committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors
and slaveowners.
Why
has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic
agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is
internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?
Rousseau
denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since.
Why? Self preservation.
Proto:
Well,
as Christians this isn’t really a very difficult question. The unbeliever
suppresses the knowledge of God. I question the Christian understanding of
someone who thinks an unbeliever will be able to grasp these truths. A
Naturalistic worldview can't account for evil, but the era of history in which
the 'Church' controlled society wasn't Christian either. Sowell may or may not
be of those who wish to redefine Christian and use it in a societal or
civilizational sense, both of which are foreign to Scripture.
Can
the Left or the Right change the 'internal' conditions? If not, then should all
politics be abandoned? Are all political and social solutions a waste of time? Aren’t
all politics at best an attempt to control the 'external' conditions?
Conservatives
are constantly extolling Sowell and yet these types of meaningless statements
are part of his normal commentary.
Of
course how many Right-wing Libertarians also deny the reality of evil? I guess
he doesn’t want to talk about that.
How
many adherents of the Free Market have at best what may be described as very
low view of sin and seem to act as if the Fall hasn’t affected man at all?
While
not popular in the United States most Bible believers around the world have
rejected Sowell’s understanding of economics and government because they
believe sin needs to be restrained.
The
Puritans certainly didn’t believe in the Free Market or anything remotely
related to Libertarianism. Why? Their doctrine of sin. On the extreme side of
the Christian Right you'll find Theonomists who are violently opposed to
Libertarianism.
I’m
not suggesting any of these views are the correct approach either. But Sowell’s
commentary contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. Sowell says the
Left deals with externals only, but if anyone on the Left attempts to deal with
the 'internal' condition, he and his allies cry foul and charge them with
Orwellian engineering, the very thing (ironically) the Right is equally
committed to.
His
assessment of motives…another tactic he commonly employs…is completely
subjective. How does he know what motivates every Leftist? I doubt you’re going
to find a single one who will argue that they continue on, knowing that they’re
wrong, for the purpose of self-preservation.
He thinks
they're lying? And yet, how upset Sowell and his faction get when the motives
of the Right are attacked? When the Right is labeled as self-preserving, only
concerned with wealth and political power, they cry foul.
Sowell:
If
the things that the left wants to control – institutions and government policy
– are not the most important factors in the world's problems, then what role is
there for the left?
What
if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a
more positive difference than the bright new government "solutions"
that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking "the root
causes of crime" is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals? The
hard facts show that the murder rate was going down for decades under the old
traditional practices so disdained by the left intelligentsia, before the
bright new ideas of the left went into effect in the 1960s – after which crime
and violence skyrocketed.
Proto:
Is
he simple minded? Can government solve the problem of the family, culture and
traditions? I thought he believed in small government? Does he (like some kind
of Theonomist) want draconian policies that control every aspect of our lives?
No,
the Left is simply engaged in pragmatism. It doesn’t work either, but they’re
trying to deal with the plate that sits in front of them rather than an
idealized 'vision' of society rooted in romantic fantasy that never really was.
Locking
up criminals? Well that’s worked well hasn’t it? Our society incarcerates more
people than any other…and the answer is to build more jails? Is he ignorant of
the state of the judiciary and the penal system? Does he know what's going on?
He
wants the Left to quit asking about ‘root causes’….isn’t that what he’s doing
by suggesting evil as the problem? Isn't he arguing that he's found the root
cause and therefore...lock them up? His government solution is to spend
billions of dollars on a prison-industrial complex?
As
far as the crime wave in the 1970's, as far as I know the jury is still out.
Sowell claims to be an economist. He should know that not everyone agrees. In
fact you'll find economists can't agree on what caused the Great Depression or
what brought the United States out of it. Some argue the crime wave in the
1970's was brought on by moral decline, and yet were the 1960's the very first
era or generation of massive moral decline? I think not. How do you explain
other 'decadent' decades like the 1920's or the 1890's?
Others
have argued it was a combination of factors. The economics of the country were
in turmoil. The post-war boom was already beginning to implode, there was an
energy crisis, inflation and there were massive demographic changes. There had
been a great migration of blacks moving to the north and this led to racial
tensions. The country was destabilized by Vietnam and questions regarding the
legitimacy of government. I know Sowell probably thinks Vietnam was necessary
and glorious, but it raised deep issues that people like Sowell never even
consider...issues that generated moral crisis.
It's
common among conservatives to blame feminism, the breakdown of the family, and
many other factors for the destabilizing of society. While there is no doubt
some truth to this, I have to place myself in the shoes of non-Christians for a
moment.
If
you're not a Christian it's only natural to begin to question social norms. In
fact as Christians we need to question more of them. As people wrestle with the
'why' of what they do, they're forced to acknowledge that so much of what they
do was the result of tradition and social pressure. At the end of the day if
they don't believe in the God of the Bible why would they wish to follow his
dictates?
Does
this spell doom? Sure. But I strongly protest the notion that before the1960's
this country or society was somehow following or pleasing God. Just because the
divorce rate was lower and mothers stayed home, it does not mean the society
was somehow Christian in its outlook. This argument is indicative of a feeble understanding
of American social history, a feeble understanding of the Bible or more likely
both.
Again
to make a point, people read Sowell and because he says what they like, they
praise him. He’s brilliant. And yet I read him regularly in my local paper and
every time (I cannot think of an exception) I find his columns to be ludicrous
and nonsensical. Even if I agreed with him, I could not endorse his work. His
arguments are infantile and completely contradictory.
Normally
my wife and I are laughing about his Ivory Tower traits…yes, the very traits he
often attacks. In one column not too long ago he was talking about people on
welfare with colour televisions.
Colour
Televisions? Has he been out lately? Sure back in the 1980’s we all had black
and white televisions sitting in our guest rooms or a back bedroom.
But
that was thirty years ago. He’s a classic case of someone who rails against the
poor but hasn’t talked to any poor people in 40 or 50 years. He’s forgotten his
own past and though successful, he never actually learned anything from his
past.
What
about his race? Yes, I’ll go there. Since Sowell seems to be all-knowing and knows
what motivates everyone I’ll take a stab at the same game.
It
was kind of like that awkward moment when Thurgood Marshall retired from the
Supreme Court. Everyone knew he had to be replaced by another African American.
George HW Bush wanted to appoint a conservative but the problem was…there
weren’t a lot of conservative black judges. Clarence Thomas wasn’t really
qualified but it more or less had to be him. He had spent his career rejecting
racial quotas and yet there he was standing next to Bush. Why? Because he was
black.
I
think that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have been successful for basically
the same reason. I don’t think either exhibits any great degree of brilliance,
but they have been guaranteed success because conservatives are desperate to
put forward any minorities they can get their hands on.
Sowell
has spent the majority of his career at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. While
Sowell hates academia, mocks arrogant elites, refers to them as useful
idiots...it is he who has made a career in detached academic circles. He is what
he criticizes. He's part of a think-tank, an institution that is funded by
energy and military interests. Their primary task is to engage in scholarly
work to advance the interests of these industries. If they fail to do so, they
will lose their funding. It's that simple.
Thus we must ask, is this scholarly academic work, or little more than propaganda?
