Politics, History and Ideology: Fruit of Forced Idleness

By John E. Beerbower

The four books in my Wanderings series contain many essays on politicized topics. I decided to collect them in one place, arranged by related subjects, covering most of the big issues of today: racism, climate change, abortion, inequality, heredity, nationalism, patriotism. I call it "Politics," based on an unusual definition attributed

• Language: English
• Publisher: P.J. Bear
• Release date: Mar 1, 2024
• ISBN: 9781088121733

John E. Beerbower

Born in Columbus, Ohio, and raised in Northville, Michigan, John majored in economics at Amherst College (Class of 1970), graduating summa cum laude, and received his J.D., magna cum laude, from The Harvard Law School in 1973. Following law school, he did post-graduate research at the University of Cambridge (Trinity College). In late 1974, John began a 37-year career as a commercial litigator with a major law firm in New York City. He retired from the practice of law in 2011 and, shortly thereafter, located just outside of Cambridge, England. In March 2015, however, he was diagnosed with ALS. He returned to the U.S., settling in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. Feeling short of time, he rushed to finish in 2016 the book on science that he had been working on during his retirement. Confined to a wheelchair by 2018, he wrote his first collection of essays, entitled Wanderings of a Captive Mind. The next set, The Eyes Have It, was written entirely using his eyes.

Book preview

Politics, History and Ideology

Politics, History and Ideology

Politics, History and Ideology

Fruit of Forced Idleness

John E. Beerbower

publisher logo

P.J.Bear

Copyright © 2024 by John E. Beerbower

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

First Printing, 2024

Contents

Note

Preface

And...

Visions

1 The Pragmatist's World View

2 Science and Public Policy

3 Truth or Truth?

Fantasies and Realities

4 The Role of Human Nature

5 About Peter

6 Uncomfortable Prospects

Morality and Leadership

7 Good Citizens and Moral Leadership

8 On Nationalism

9 Yeoman Farmer to Cowboy

Inequality

10 Origins

11 Un-Equality

12 Mobliity

13 An Inequitable Leg Up?

Taxes

14 A Proposal for Tax Reform

15 The Current Climate

Indigenous Americans

16 The First Americans

17 The Contest for North America

18 And, So... ?

Racism

19 Systemic Racism

20 Notes on Slavery

21 The 1619 Project

22 Some (More) New History

24 Complicity and The Presbyterian Church

A Note on Cambridge

Climate Change

25 A Look at Climate Change and Public Policy

26 Climate Justice

27 Political Solutions

Abortion

28 First Things and Abortion

29 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health

Now and Later

30 June 2023

31 Evil

32 Who We Are To Be

Afterward

About the Author

Note

In May 2023, I became concerned again that I would run out of time and, frankly, was feeling worn out. So, I wrapped up my writing projects and published them. Then, during that summer, I resumed reading, then writing. The master of the book Politics became longer, as I revised and expanded it. It seems one cannot discuss politics without considering history and ideologgy. And, I felt the original title was now too narrow. Thus, I added to the title as well.

Here is the new, expanded edition. 

Preface

The four books in my Wanderings series contain many essays on politicized topics. I decided to collect them in one place, arranged by related subjects, with a few tweaks and updates.

I called it Politics, based on an unusual definition attributed to the late Christopher Boehm, formerly the Director of the Jane Goodall Research Center.

"[T]he essence of politics:

the ability to reflect consciously

on different directions one’s society could take,

and to make explicit arguments why

it should take one path rather than another."

David Graeber and David Wengrow

The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity

(2021), p. 86.

Would that it were actually so.

And...

Based on two very different things I have been reading this week (January 2024), it appears that a new trend is to assure authors whose work one criticizes that there is nothing personal intended. 

I can be bristly, acerbic, arrogantly judgmental, hostile, and unfair in how I critique them. But despite that, I am majorly averse to interpersonal conflict. In other words, with a few exceptions that will be clear, none of my criticisms are meant to be personal.

Robert M. Sapolsky, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will (2023), p.512.

I trust that readers of the present essay will understand that criticism, even harsh criticism, of the reasoning contained in a scholarly work in no way constitutes a personal attack on the author. In the same way, I look forward to criticism, even harsh criticism, of my own reasoning, and trust that it will be offered in the same spirit.

 Alan Sokal, "'White Empiricism' and 'The Racialization of Epistemology in Physics': A Critical Analysis,* Journal of Controversial Ideas, 2023.

I would think that obvious with respect to any scholarly writing, but I suppose that the degenerate nature of today's political discourse and the prevalence of the cancel culture make those attempting rational analysis to be a bit on the defensive. It seems odd to offer justification for engaging in critical analysis, but the following statement (puportedly paraphrasing an essay by George Orwell which is actually about language, not content) is about as good as it can get:

"Why, then, do I think it important that the ideas expressed in this article be openly debated—important enough to bother writing a detailed critical analysis?

     My worry is the one articulated by George Orwell ... in his celebrated essay 'Politics and the English language': that sloppy thinking engenders further sloppy thinking; and that the uncritical acceptance of ideas, not because the reasoning is sound (or even examined) but because the conclusions are politically congenial, leads to a further degradation of thought.

Sokal, "'White Empiricism' and 'The Racialization of Epistemology in Physics': A Critical Analysis,* Journal of Controversial Ideas, 2023.

Visions

1

The Pragmatist's World View

As I have been doing more solitary observing and thinking, I am realizing the extent to which certain beliefs (which one could call prejudices) influence my reactions. So, I have tried to sort out and organize these beliefs.

I consider the following propositions to be true:

I.

All people act in pursuit of their own self-interest, as they perceive it.

Most people are inherently lazy; they will take the path of least resistance. Their default position is idle.

Yet, many people are capable of great ingenuity, commitment and hard work when there are rewards available for successful endeavors, whether such rewards are wealth or fame or power or self-realization.

As a result, the structure of incentives people face—the combination of the rewards and punishments, the opportunities and obstacles—is an important determinant of people's behavior.

However, people vary greatly in aptitude, drive, abilities and effectiveness as a result of genetic inheritance and upbringing. There are only relatively few who will be at the top performance level in almost every type of endeavor.

II.

Human happiness and well-being benefit from traditions (even dumb ones): a sense of a history and of continuity, as well as a sense of community, of belonging and of being part of something bigger than one's self. These are the things that give direction to life and provide the constraints and boundaries that inevitably shape a life, whether one goes with the flow or strives to burst the banks.

The customs of the institution structure the soul, making it easier to be good. They guide behavior gently along certain time-tested lines. By practicing the customs of an institution, we are not alone; we are admitted into a community that transcends time. David Brooks,The Road to Character (2015), p.116.

People who look backward to see the heroism and the struggle that came before see themselves as debtors who owe something,  who have some obligation to pay it forward. David Brooks, The Second Mountain (2019), p.283.

Work is good for a person. It reduces idle time—and its temptations—and provides a sense of independence and an identity.

Charitable acts are beneficial to the doer. The acts themselves foster empathy and help create the sense of belonging. Of course, they also enhance the community.

[L]ife is defined by commitments and obligations.The life well lived is a journey from open options to sweet compulsions. Brooks, The Second Mountain, p.56.

III.

Bureaucracies are like people—their top priority is self-preservation and they tend to get fatter over time.

In most organizations, 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Less than 10% of the people generate most of the value.

The world is exceedingly complex. Most plans will go wrong. Intended consequences will often not be realized; unexpected consequences will almost always intrude and will often overwhelm the best laid plans. The broader the scope, the greater the change and/or the longer the time horizon of the plan, the greater the likely error.

Decentralized decision-making minimizes the impact of errors and bad judgment, while allowing successes to be copied and, thereby, to multiply. It brings decision making closer to the matters at issue. Decentralization also allows diversity, promotes innovation and experimentation and encourages the taking of responsibility.

Effective exercise of responsibility requires personal accountability. If a position has room (or a need) for excellence or improvement and is one in which mediocrity is not sufficient, then there needs to be personal rewards and consequences, incentives and discipline, selection and selectivity, in order to realize the potential that is there.

The biggest disadvantages of bureaucracies, of unions and of the civil service are that they all diminish accountability, protect incompetence and stifle initiative. Such organizations are adequate only for positions as to which people are fungible, where the job requirements and opportunities are within the reach of almost everyone—among whom some will struggle, some will be comfortable and some will lean back and contentedly vegetate.

The possession of power over people or things or events is both addictive and corrupting.

Government invites corruption. It comes with the power to grant benefits, which power corrupts.

Government largesse, conversely, seems always to be accompanied by fraud. Temptations are just too great, probably because stealing from bureaucrats with no personal accountability is so easy, possibly because there seem to be no real victims.

Look at Social Security fraud, whether stealing one's neighbor's benefit checks or collecting checks for your deceased relatives. Or, Medicare fraud by doctors and other health care providers. The pandemic relief programs have been fraught with fraudulent claims for unemployment benefits, PPP loans, and small business relief, as even acknowledged now by The Washington Post and the President.

The IG [Inspector General] ... found more than 70,000 suspicious loans, totaling $4.6 billion. The report calls the level of fraud 'unprecedented'... .  ...The IG has also flagged about $80 billion in suspicious transactions via another SBA pandemic program, Economic Injury Disaster Loans. The fraud in Covid unemployment benefits was possibly worse... ..'"

The Editorial Board, Covid Fraudsters Are Still At Large, WSJ.com, June 7, 2022.

Many who participated in what prosecutors are calling the largest fraud in U.S. history — the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money intended to help those harmed by the coronavirus pandemic — couldn’t resist purchasing luxury automobiles. Also mansions, private jet flights and swanky vacations. ...[W]hat experts say is the theft of as much as $80 billion ... of the $800 billion handed out in a Covid relief plan known as the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. That’s on top of the $90 billion to $400 billion believed to have been stolen from the $900 billion Covid unemployment relief program — at least half taken by international fraudsters... . And another $80 billion potentially pilfered from a separate Covid disaster relief program.

Ken Dilanian and Laura Strickler, 'Biggest fraud in a generation,  NBC News, March 28, 2022.

States have long known that they paid billions in fraudulent unemployment claims during the pandemic. But this week the federal government more than doubled its estimate in stolen payments to as much as $135 billion. The new figure comes from a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The Editorial Board, Pandemic Fraud Hits a New Height:: Up to $135 billion was stolen, and Washington still shrugs, WSJ.com, September 15, 2023. 

The magazine Rolling Stone provided perhaps the most shocking report of the events. Sean Woods reports that Haywood Talcove, CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions, apparently tried repeatedly to warn the government about the lack of security and likelihood of fraud, starting in 2020. He was unsuccessful. The result:

The list of various CARES Act schemes is endless and astounding: the couple who scammed some $20 million off unemployment insurance while living as high rollers in Los Angeles; the Chicago man under indictment for selling bunk Covid tests and allegedly raking in $83 million (he has declared his innocence); the Florida minister who the feds allege faked the signature of his aging accountant, suffering from dementia, to steal $8 million in PPP loans... . One particularly loathsome and effective plot: offering fake meals to underprivileged children in Minnesota to reel in a whopping sum of $250 million.

...

"... Inspector General Michael Horowitz told congress that more than a $100 billion in Covid aid money may have ended up misappropriated, but many experts and members of law enforcement think the number is much higher. The AP estimates $280 billion went to fraudsters and another $123 billion was misappropriated, some 10 percent of the relief money.For his part, Talcove estimates the actual losses blow past the tallies being thrown around. 'The real number is much higher. I think the government lost a trillion dollars due to fraud in the pandemic,' he says. 'One trillion.'"

Sean Woods, The Trillion-Dollar Grift: Inside the Greatest Scam of All Time, Rolling Stone. July 9, 2023 (emphasis added).

One should be scared of majority rule, if not buffeted and moderated by lobbyists, influential people and groups with their own agendas and an independent media.

The democratic political sphere can turn into one in which the logic is not cooperation and growth but rather confiscation and redistribution—with 'deserving' and 'undeserving' standing in, respectively, for the friends and enemies of the powerful. J. Bradford DeLong, Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century (2022), p.93.

But, one should be even more frightened of government by experts and unaccountable bureaucrats and  of an unfettered President.

So ...

These beliefs color my opinions on most matters, in combination with a strong commitment to tolerance and individual liberty. And, I can see how these propositions provide a basis for a conservative political view.

I have criticized social policies and the positions of various politicians on the bases of logic, empirical evidence and common sense. But, I now see that I have a more fundamental and profound bias coloring my views. To get it in focus, I examined why I have such a deep affinity for the England. It is that I share its love of tradition, of ceremony. Its reverence of the classics, whether literature, art, music or science. Its understanding of quality, whether intellectual or material. The continuation of prayer, religious music and Latin at the Cambridge Colleges, independent of religious beliefs. The love of gardens and gardening, of Nature, of hiking and of walking. I could go on and on. But, I see that it is all essentially conservative, basd on a respect of history and for our incredible heritage. And, I have been deeply disappointed by events in the U.K. The Tories should be better than this. They should at least be competent at governing, whatever one thinks about the particular policies. What has happened to tradition, continuity, stability?  We would previously have said, insensitively: It's not like it is some 'banana republic'.

I value personal security, law and order. Relative safety of your person, your family, your home and your possessions. I also realize that I fear revolution like the French and Russian Revolutions, or Pol Pot's Cambodia and Mao's China. And, other forms of mob action. The random violence driven by sadism or psychopathology. The disrespect of tradition, the rejection of humanity. The anonymity, the absence of individual responsibility and the lack of the need to make one's own decisions all enable the emergence of evil. 

Presumably, my perspective is a result of upbringing and, perhaps, genetics. It is deeply ingrained and highly personal. It is fundamental, really, to who I am.

"Some people seem to have been born into this world with a sense of indebtedness for the blessing of being alive. They are aware of the transmission of generations, what has been left to them by those who came before, their indebtedness to their ancestors, their obligations to a set of moral responsibilities that stretch across time."

Brooks, The Road to Character, p.126 (emphasis added).

2

Science and Public Policy

Given the nature of scientific models (about which I have written else- where), it should be apparent that the application of science to issues of public policy in the messy world in which we live is particularly challeng- ing, involving many potential pitfalls, and is ripe for misunderstandings. This topic was a subject of methodological debates among economists in the mid-twentieth century.

The significance of normative issues

The economist Milton Friedman in his essay on economics as a positive science discussed the relationship between scientific knowledge and policy disagreements. The Methodology of Positive Economics, Essays in Positive Economics (1953), pp.3-43. He postulated (admittedly, in an apparently very different era of American history) that many Americans shared common values and that the apparent clashes over policy did not reflect conflicts as deep as they appeared. Id., p.7. He advocated, probably somewhat naively, that efforts should be made to advance economics as a science in order to reduce the disagreements on policy matters.

Indeed, in my undergraduate experience, it appeared that many economists believed that the disputes that arose over policies were mainly the result of lack of clear thinking or a lack of understanding of the science. However, I think that Professor Friedman, like many of the economists I encountered, failed fully to appreciate the normative content of what was thought of as a positive science. He, and others, also probably overestimated the extent of common agreement on the fundamental values that are implicated by political policies.

To many of us in the political middle, the acrimony and blatant bias of much political debate is both striking and distressing. There seems to be an almost utter lack of objective, thoughtful commentary. Everyone has an agenda and many promote theirs with a passion that includes personal animosity toward all opponents. In the face of so much disingenuous self-righteousness, one cannot help but wonder whether there is any role for logic, facts or unbiased analysis in assessing policy decisions.

Challenges in applying positive science

A policy question will generally involve (i) a concept or vision of the resulting state of affairs that one would like to achieve through the actions to be taken; (ii) an accurate assessment of the current state of affairs; and (iii) a correct prediction of the likely outcomes of the various potential actions under consideration.

Obviously, people have different values and tastes. Therefore, disagreement can be the result of different views as to which outcomes are more desirable, in light of those values and preferences (moral, aesthetic, or other). But, there are real problems in making policy choices independent of the differences in values.

We still need to determine accurately the existing state of affairs (sometimes referred to above as the initial conditions), before we can predict the likely results of various attempts to effect change. Errors in the assessment of the initial conditions can lead to significant mistakes in policy. Even if the policy choices would have been correct if the initial conditions were as they were perceived to be, the choices might have very importantly unexpected consequences because the initial conditions were actually somewhat different. And, even small differences in the initial conditions can lead to large differences in the outcomes. Moreover, differences in good faith predictions of the consequences of potential corrective actions are highly likely, actually inevitable. Such differences can result in widely disparate recommendations as to the steps to be taken.

Indeed, even this description is over-simplified. Many people probably think of the qualitative evaluation of a state of affairs as being measured relative to some principles or values independent of the specific factual situation. If so, part of the policy analysis should take into account the determination of the extent to which the current state of affairs matches or differs from the desired underlying goals and how various potential future states of affairs would do so in comparison. One should even want to consider the potential states of affairs that might result from alternative policies and assess how those results would be graded in terms of the more fundamental, underlying societal objectives.

It is challenging. And, we seem to be getting worse, not better, at applying science to public policy. Micael Crichton identified some potential causes over 15 years ago:

As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact.

Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming, Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003.

Poiicy-making as an art

I return to the essay by Professor Friedman with which I started this note. In that essay, Friedman reflected a line of thinking going back at least to John Neville Keynes (the father of the much better known English econ- omist John Maynard Keynes). Keynes had drawn the distinction in 1891 between ...a positive science [that] may be defined as a body of systematized knowledge concerning what is [and] a normative or regulative science [that is] a body of systematized knowledge discussing criteria of what ought to be.

However, Keynes had gone on to draw a third distinction: an art as a system of rules for the attainment of a given end. The Scope and Method of Political Economy (1891), pp.34–35. In other words, Keynes believed that policy-making involved more than the normative goals and positive science. This third category—the art—was ignored by Friedman in his essay written 60 years later.

The first problem is that most, if not all, of the assessments even of past events or existing facts will be subject to uncertainty, some small and some large in degree. The second problem is that we need to predict future events, as well as the consequences of proposed policies. Both are inherently difficult, if not impossible. For example, most such predictions would be based upon the ceteris paribus condition that nothing else changes. Outside of the laboratory, that condition will almost never be satisfied. All kinds of things will change. They always do.

Finally, even if we did have the ability to collect and accurately utilize all of the information providing answers to the relevant questions; the time that would be involved in acquiring that information, processing it, deciding on appropriate polices and then implementing such policies would likely mean that the actions taken will be outdated and overtaken by subsequent events. Similarly, readjustments or reactions to changes are likely to be untimely as well.

The problem of timeliness of information is one of the difficulties that have been identified in debates over the feasibility of centralized economic planning, like in socialism. See, e.g., Friedrich A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, American Economic Review, XXXV, No. 4, p. 519, September, 1945.) As a result, it is argued, policies that incorporate automatic or dynamic adjustment mechanisms, where possible, may often be the more effective.

Thus, with respect to every conclusion and prediction we will almost always and necessarily be wrong. The important questions, in each case, will be:

How wrong? and

Wrong in which direction?

The answers to those two questions will also be best guesses, at best.

Finally, all policy choices will have redistributive and re-allocative consequences. They will result in the transfer of wealth and disposable income among persons and groups. They will affect the use of resources as prices of many things adjust to the impact of the policy. They will alter incentives and stimulate some behavior while discouraging other. For example, the availability of government benefits, especially money, seems inevitably to give rise to fraud and corruption, as well as gamesmanship. People are incentivized to seek to gain those benefits. These policies create economic opportunities. And, not socially useful ones.

Such consequences will be both direct and indirect and short-term and long-term. Even after the event, with the benefit of hindsight, economists will find it very difficult to calculate the net effects of all of these consequences. So, it will generally be impossible for anyone to predict these net effects in advance. That is just the way it is.

In the end, effective policy-making will depend upon intuition and instinct, even hunches and guesswork, as well as informed and careful analysis. That is why it is an art, not a science. And, why experience may be very useful.

Some of the highly-wrought commentary about current policy matters seem to ignore the art involved in policy making, attributing differences in judgments to secret or hidden agenda and to selfish motivations. Of course, it would be naïve to suggest that such motivations never exist or that deception and manipulation are not involved in political activities. Nonetheless, it seems to me that more constructive dialogue might be encouraged by a fuller recognition of the difficulties and uncertainties involved in establishing public policy. Science is never certain, humankind is inherently fallible, and the real world, the one in which we live, is very complex.

3

Truth or Truth?

"[W]hy ...

is [it] so necessary to believe in a particular vision

that evidence of its incorrectnessis ignored,

suppressed, or discredited—ultimately,

why one’s quest is not for reality but for a vision.

What does the vision offer that reality does not ... ?

Thomas Sowell

The Vision Of The Annointed, p.2.

I just read a rather remarkable (but frustrating) book: Thomas Sowell, The Vision Of The Annointed: Self-congratulation As A Basis For Social Policy (1995). Scathing, hard-hitting, relentless, sarcastic, cutting, and a little bitter. My kind of commentary.

It was written almost 30 years ago. It is probably good that I did not read it then. It could have derailed my 40 year effort to be open minded, to see all sides and points of view (an effort somewhat at odds with my professional activities). 

Sowell, a well-known economist, starts out neutrally enough, for one page. Then, he directs most of his commentary to a critique of the intelligentsia of the United States and much of the Western world. Id., p.ix. He is often eloquent (and humorous) and generally insightful, but his writing is also often repetitive and his jargon, sometimes confusing or (to me) counterproductive.

Visions of Reality

He begins by observing, quite accurately, that:

The views of political commentators or writers on social issues often range across a wide spectrum, but their positions on these issues are seldom random. ... There is usually a coherence to their beliefs, based on a particular set of underlying assumptions about the world—a certain vision of reality. Visions differ of course from person to person, from society to society, and from one era to another. Visions also compete with one another, whether for the allegiance of an individual or of a whole society.

Id., p.ix.

This, of course, is something that I similarly  had concluded, which led me to try to set out clearly the beliefs and opinions that underlay my world view in the first chapter of this book. Indeed, the effects of personal perspectives or biases are pervasive, as I discussed at length in my first book.

Interestingly, Steven Pinker credits Sowell with first propounding the proposition: Thomas Sowell’s theory of the contrasting theories of human nature that underlie right-wing and left-wing political ideologies has been joined by several other attempts to distill out the essence of each one. Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (2002, 2016), 2016 Afterword, p.434.

I elsewhere have discussed Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012), which attributes differences in political views to value systems, and Arthur Brooks' Who Really Cares : The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters (2006), which approaches the question from a different perspective (focused on who actually behaves how: those who believe in individual responsibility, give of their own money and time; those who believe in collective responsibility, give  of other people's money and time).

Perhaps. I was just late to the party.

Sowell goes on to note that in some eras one vision so predominates over all others that it can be considered the prevailing vision of that time and place. Id., p.2. It is not that these views are especially evil or especially erroneous. Human beings have been making mistakes and committing sins as long as there have been human beings. The great catastrophes of history have usually involved much more than that. Id.

Sowell then focuses on public policy and what happens when the outcome does not match the goal. First, supporters claim external factors skewed the results. Second, they criticize the data or claim experimental error. These are common responses, frequently encountered in the natural sciences. But, he claims twentieth century progressives also resort to restating or altering the original goals in light of the results or, even, renouncing them as pretense. These are not legitimate responses. The proper methodology is to establish an experiment and specify the expected outcome in advance. Then, run the test. Clearly so. Sowell gets particularly agitated about issues that he claims are subject to evidentiary testing. Today, despite free speech and the mass media, the prevailing social vision is dangerously close to sealing itself off from any discordant feedback from reality. Id., p.2.

Underlying the Visions

Sowell uses many words discussing the differences in the two visions, and the result is pretty repetitive. But, my first dissatisfaction is with the names he adopts—the tragic vision and the vision of the anointed. I found neither sufficiently descriptive nor sufficiently objective.  Unfortunately, I am challenged in searching for adequate substitutes. (Pinker notes: "I will refer to them as the Tragic Vision (a term he uses in a later book [A Conflict of Visions (1987)] and the Utopian Vision.") So, let's focus on identifying the key differences. They arise in contrasting views of human nature, human life and human capabilities and, to some extent, of nature itself.

The pragmatist recognizes the imperfection and imperfectability of humankind. People will be lazy, selfish, greedy, manipulating, short-sighted, violent and easily tempted. The humble pragmatist recognizes how much we do not know, do not understand, cannot foresee or predict and are unable to control. The unsentimental, humble pragmatist recognizes the importance of chance, of luck (good and bad), the unpredictability of the world, that shit happens, that miracles occur, that resources are limited, that unpalatable tradeoffs are inevitable and that often the only alternatives are the bad and the worse. And, he or she believes that improvements must be incremental, sometimes individual by individual. 

In contrast, the utopianist believes the myth of the Noble Savage, that most evils are the result of civilization and society, of corrupt and corrupted social institutions perpetuated by bad people, and that the human condition can be cured only through the intervention. The arrogant utopianist believes that he or she and the like-minded few have the skills and insights successfully to reform human institutions, as well as humanity, and to tame nature. The self-righteous, arrogant utopianists believe that they are the enlightened and blessed and are, therefore, endowed with a mission to change others. 

And,

They are systematic differences that follow logically from fundamental differences in underlying assumptions, beginning with assumptions about the nature of human beings and the range of possibilities open to them. ...One of the most important questions about any proposed course of action is whether we know how to do it. ...With these and innumerable other issues, the question for the anointed is not knowledge but compassion, commitment, and other such subjective factors which supposedly differentiate themselves from other people. ...Intractable problems with painful trade-offs are simply not part of the vision ... .

Id., pp.105, 109.

Both groups can be elitists and view the common man with distain, but for only the second group is that a necessary component of the view. And, only the second group denies him the right to be who he is. 'The anointed do not simply happen to have a disdain for the public. Such disdain is an integral part of their vision, for the central feature of that vision is preemption of the decisions of others." Id., p.123.

In any event,

"The real comparison ... is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear through social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group. Moreover, the existing generation’s traditions and values distill the experiences of other millions in times past."

Id., p.114.

A theme of my first book, Important Things We Don't Know, was the importance of recognizing our ignorance  and our limitations. I carried that skepticism of experts and expertise throughout my Wanderings, where I expressed criticisms of the views, conclusions and reasoning of several social commentators, as well as of some scientists. 

Truth or Truth?

The interesting question is that set forth above to begin this chapter—why do people prefer their own truth to the truth? 

Sowell notes that [the vision] become[s] inextricably intertwined with the egos of those who believe ... . Certainly, the vision is part of one's identity, part of how one sees and understands the world. It is hard to relinquish or revise it. But, with respect to progressives, he adds an additional factor: a special state of grace for those who believe in it. Not just the feel good factor, but the feel superior factor. The I am a better person, a more moral person factor. The political correctness factor, in today's terminology.

[T]hose who disagree with the prevailing vision are seen as being not merely in error, but in sin. ...[T]he anointed and the benighted do not argue on the same moral plane or play by the same cold rules of logic and evidence. ...Nor are such attitudes inherent in polemics, as such. Some very strong polemicists have argued that their opponents were well-meaning and even intelligent—but dangerously mistaken on the issue at hand. ...It is a vision of differential rectitude. It is not a vision of the tragedy of the human condition: Problems exist because others are not as wise or as virtuous as the anointed.

Id., pp.4-5.

Consequences

What are the results? Lack of dialogue and foolish policies.

Today, ...the prevailing social vision is dangerously close to sealing itself off from any discordant feedback from reality. ...[E]mpirical evidence is neither sought beforehand nor consulted after a policy has been instituted.

Id.., pp.1-4.

Sowell fills the book with examples—the War on Poverty, sex education, criminal justice reform, race and gender discrimination, and so on. I had reached many of the same conclusions about the evidence in examining particular topics, but it is startling to confront a seemingly endless list of examples.

Yet another illustration appears in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, examining the twentieth century's denial of human nature determined by genetics resulting from, Pinker suggests, its implications with respect to race, gender and social engineering issues. A case of political, moral considerations trumping the science. 

"Throughout the twentieth century, many intellectuals tried to rest principles of decency on fragile factual claims such as that human beings are biologically indistinguishable, harbor no ignoble motives, and are utterly free in their ability to make choices....I will refer to those convictions as the Blank Slate: the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves.

...

[T]he Blank Slate has become the secular religion of modern intellectual life. ... [and has] led others to mount the kinds of bitter attacks ordinarily aimed ...at heretics and infidels.... According to the doctrine, any differences we see among races, ethnic groups, sexes, and individuals come not from differences in their innate constitution but from differences in their experiences. 

Pinker, The Blank Slate, pp.xi, 2, 4. 

Pinker addresses academic views rather than political policies. He demonstrates how liberal orthodoxy on a very wide range of topics—racism, gender discrimination, violence, crime, punishment, rape, childrearing and education among others—are in conflict with the evidence (the facts),  oblivious to common sense and reason and are generally driven by personal agendas. And, he chronicles how non-conforming views are generally met with serious, blatant mischaracterizations and vicious, often personal, attacks.

Between these two books, the program of the left is left in tatters: a record consistent only in the series of utter failures interpreted as reasons for more of the same, but on a grander scale.  

In his 2016 Afterword, Pinker observes:

"[C]ould the hostility to genetics and evolution just be rooted in a defensible scholarly skepticism? ... I argued that much of the opposition is in fact political rather than scientific.

...

[D]isfiguring science and intellectual life: denying the possibility of objectivity and truth, dumbing down issues into dichotomies, replacing facts and logic with political posturing.

Pinker, p.434, 421.

What is going on?  The banishment of common sense and observation? The abandonment of logic and reasoning? All done in favor of casting blame and wallowing in one's perceived victimhood? 

I find it hard to credit that anyone with an acquaintance with biology, a pair of eyes, and a dose of common sense could really believe that men and women are indistinguishable, that children’s personalities are sculpted by their parents, that all individuals have the same native intelligence, that people can be trained to find anything as aesthetically pleasing as anything else, or that all aggression is a cultural fad. Pinker, The Blank Slate, p.434.

Many of Sowell's points have broader application: the political exploitation, the failure to recognize tradeoffs, the unthinking extrapolation, the misuse and misinterpretation of data. These errors are found across the political spectrum. 

And, we now seem to have a new political phenomenon—the complete disregard of facts: an indifference to truth and to truth. Thrust upon us by Donald Trump, and enthusiastically seized upon by his opponents in their frenetic efforts to destroy him. It now is pretty clear that many of the attacks on Trump have been partisan in a peculiar way, intended to keep the focus on him and off current government policies and performance. Indeed, rather than trying to keep him out of politics, the critics hope to help him become the GOP nominee in 2024. Why? Because the Democrats are apparently saddled with Joe Biden and Trump is likely the only opponent that Biden can beat. Talk about cynical politics. You accept a weak candidate, then work to get the other party to select an even weaker one. The good of the country be dammed. Of course, the Republicans put themselves in this position.

Can we expect politicians ever to resist temptation and put country ahead of party? Apparently, that is a rhetorical question today. 

The irony is that I doubt that much of anyone was misled by Donald Trump—he was quite upfront about his bluster, his abusiveness and his buffoonery. But, Biden, the man who promised a return to normalcy, has misled almost everyone beyond his most progressive supporters. He has misled (I hesitate to say has lied to only because there is a serious question whether he had the requisite mens rea, whether he understood what he was doing. But, his staff certainly did) the people of the United States, various of our allies, his political opponents and, even some members of his own party.

See, e. g., Joe Manchin, BIDEN’S INFLATION REDUCTION ACT BETRAYAL: Instead of implementing the law as intended, his administration subverts it for ideological ends, WSJ.com, March 29, 2023; The Editorial Board, Janet Yellen Blames Everybody Else for the Financial Panic, WSJ.com, April 2, 2023.

He has misled us about his political agenda, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, immigration, the COVID emergency, inflation, the deficit, the banking crisis, his clean energy programs, the debt ceiling and taxation. If he has understood his words and actions, then he has headed one of the most deceitful administrations in our history. Perhaps, he has just been our  most manipulated President, while constantly a congenial puppet. 

In 2020 Americans didn’t choose Joe Biden for his executive experience—he didn’t have any. Nor was there much of a record of legislative accomplishment ... . Instead, candidate Biden presented himself to voters as a bipartisan healer who would restore the customs and the culture of our politics. That’s not how he’s governed... .

James Freeman, Biden’s Dangerous Debt Ploy, WSJ.com, April 3, 2023.

"The routine violation of political norms worsened under the Trump and Biden administrations but began under President Obama. He personally upbraided the Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union address, falsely characterizing its holdings in the Citizens United case. His administration weaponized the Internal Revenue Service against grass-roots conservative groups and initiated the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s interference in the 2016 election."

Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, TRUMP INDICTMENT ACCELERATES AMERICA’S RACE TO THE BOTTOM, WSJ.com, April 5, 2023.

Of course, Biden is not alone. He was anticipated by, for example, Adam Schiff and Stacey Abrams and is now being mimicked by many others.

Randi Weingarten, the American Federation of Teachers president who attempted to erase two years of Covid history in testimony last week to the House of Representatives that was, literally, unbelievable. 'We spent every day from February on trying to get schools open. We knew that remote education was not a substitute for opening schools,' she told the House.

The Editorial Board, Randi Weingarten’s Incredible Covid Memory Loss, WSJ.com, April 30, 2023.

Many politicians say outrageous things; but, it is the deceitfulness that is most troubling. Much more than hypocrisy. More like fraud.

Is it all really necessary? Will we be able ever to resume reasoned, rational discourse?

Just another rhetorical question. 

More Thoughts

1. Sowell frequently uses the phrase systemic causation, by which he seems to mean the way in which some systems consist of processes that generate desirable results from voluminous inputs.

Systemic causation creates an order which arises as a consequence of individual interactions directed toward various and conflicting ends, not toward the creation of this order itself. ...Legal traditions, family ties, social customs, and price fluctuations in an economy are all systemic ways in which the experiences and preferences of millions of people powerfully influence the decisions of millions of other people.

Id., pp.124-5.

Sowell has used the phrase in his writings on economics, but it does not appear to have been otherwise adopted. The phrase does not seem very helpful to me. Not all systems so function. (Perhaps, most long-lived ones do.) And, the key is not systems but the decentralization of decision-making. Thus, I think it is more productive just to identify what characteristics of a decision-making system are beneficial to achieving desirable outcomes. 

I suggest the following:

The decision-makers are numerous and independent, not controlled by others, so the consequences of the inevitable mistakes are localized.

The decision-makers have a stake in the outcome—they will benefit from good decisions and suffer the