In "A Conflict of Visions" Mr. Sowell sets out to explain why people tend to be on opposite sides of the fence, politically speaking, on so many non related issues. In this he succeeds brilliantly, in a work of elegant, convincing logic, and clearly laid out insights. There is no new information in this book, nor does it take sides in political differences, but it re-arranges what you already know and have seen in your life in a manner that decisively delivers new understanding of the world around you.

Mr. Sowell's thesis is that most people fall into two idealized "visions" of human nature, what he calls the constrained (which also been called the Tragic and is generally linked with conservatives) and the unconstrained (which has also been called the Utopian and is generally linked with liberals) visions. These visions are basically intuitive (to the person who holds them, and usually anathema to the person that holds the opposing), and more or less "gut feelings" on the nature of humanity and human potential. In reality the visions individuals hold lie on a spectrum of level of constraint and although no one person would hold a 100% constrained or 100% unconstrained vision it is implicitly assumed that there is a double bump distribution of people along this spectrum, with about half holding mostly constrained visions, half holding mostly unconstrained visions, and not too many people holding a middle position. This is because the two visions are opposed and to hold equal belief in both would be logically contradictory. From his characterization of each vision the author clearly explains how the assumptions undergirding each lead to completely different conceptions in how each side even defines such issues as freedom, equality, justice and power, and why both sides argue past each other and have such a difficult time debating / convincing each other.

The constrained visions basically sees man's nature as both fixed and as incapable of predicting the results of his actions in the complex world, and thus incapable of controlling those results. As such it relies on systemic measures to promote the general good of society, for example evolutionary developments of such things as free-markets, constitutional government with strict constructionist judicial interpretation, great intelligence inherited in social traditions, etc. The unconstrained vision on the other hand sees man's nature as changeable in response to articulated rationality, and sees man as not only capable of predicting the results of his actions but morally obligated to control the results of his actions for the greater good. Thus the unconstrained vision places emphasis on bodies of "surrogate" decision makers of the most intelligent to control economic and social policy for the greater good, activist judicial interpretation of law to provide the best outcome for the individual case at hand, social activism like recycling, and great intelligence inherited in the most intellectually and developed individuals of our society.

The insights of the book are truly worthwhile and cover far more than I could here in a review. However, the book is not long and not too difficult to read, although it is written in a slightly dense intellectual manner which can take a few pages to get used to and is a bit repetitive. Nonetheless this is a book that will make you smarter, better able to understand where someone from an opposing political viewpoint is coming from as well as better able to understand your own viewpoint and its foundation in how you perceive, consciously or not, the character of human nature. The book is also extremely fair to each side, not trying to prove one or the other correct, but just trying to explain how each thinks and reaches the conclusions they do.

Highly recommended!

When I started reading this book, I was not familiar with the author at all. I found out about this book as a result of some interesting references to the work in another book, The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. After I started the book I began searching out information about the author whereby I was directed to his columns on political topics. Needless to say, I found his columns to be pure garbage. I often couldn't read past the first few paragraphs due to his obvious ability to lie and sham to serve his preordained opinion. Even people with much less intelligence than Mr Sowell could have shot down many of his points in these articles. Reading these articles almost made me put down the book. How could a man writing this much tripe put aside this dishonesty and idiocy on display and write something worth reading?

Which brings me to the current work. This is actually an excellent book. While it suffers from repetition, and the writing style is a bit like that of a textbook, this was a good read. This man, who obviously has such a strong bias towards a "conservative" or "constrained" vision that his columns would reek of, 'lying for the cause', actually wrote an even-handed assessment of the two visions. While if I paid attention hard enough I could see a bias towards the constrained vision manifested as increased eloquence when his pet vision was discussed, this was quite small or perhaps my imagination.

This book really allowed me to understand and even find common ground with people who are conservative or have a "constrained" vision. Often it appeared to me that these people were living in a completely ficticious reality, while it turns out that they just have a different vision of human nature. When conservatives say that allowing gay marriage would destroy traditional marriage, these words sound like a non-sequiter of the nature of the following, "not allowing prayer in schools will cause more mexican immigrants to sneak across the border". But this book actually helped me understand these strange comments and many more. Additionally, I found that it strengthened many of my own convictions by understanding the alternative. On some topics, I believe very strongly in the unconstrained vision as described here but in other ways my differences with those of the constrained vision is only a matter of degrees. I am still shocked that such an interesting and fair book could come out of a man like this. It would be like Rush Limbaugh giving a fair assessment of the differences between the presidencies of Clinton and G.W. Bush.

The final chapter is the icing on the cake that is missing from our political discourse. He compares knowledge found in natural science to the lack of concrete knowledge found in social science and political discourse. There are answers to some of these political questions that can be deduced empirically, which are too often described as value judgements. Additionally, he describes how some people put up blinders towards changing their vision when new information comes to light. This book has left me open to many ideas and better able to understand the visions of both sides.

It's unfortunate that we only have a 1 to 5 star system here for ratings because Thomas Sowell deserves better than that. If we had 100 stars I'd give him 99 for everything I've read by him. This is the fourth book I've consumed by this great master of economics and with every page he becomes more and more of a legend. A Conflict of Visions is a perfect counterpart to The Vision of the Anointed. Conflict is a more philosophical book and I preferred Anointed for that reason (which I'd give a 100 out of 100) as more current examples are fleshed out. Neither one though is really a political book. They are much more psychological and philosophical than anything else. With Sowell, you uncover the way human beings actually are and what greater gift can a writer give than that kind of enlightenment? I cannot think of one. I do agree with another reviewer about the language, however. Unconstrained and constrained are not the best of terms but you'll understand the dichotomy between them clearly by the time you've finished. Incidentally, NR had a five part interview with Sowell concerning this book last week which occasioned my pulling it out and finishing it over the weekend. Basically, with any of the Sowell books you can't go wrong. Race and Culture is next on my list.

Mr Sowell had produced a masterpiece. He avoids buzz words and changes the words liberal and conservative to neutral terms. He then closely examines the foundational differences between the two opposing philosophies. Mr Sowell manages to do all of this in understandable terms.

What makes A Conflict of Visions so good is the author exposes the major unstated assumptions made by each side. He does not criticise either position, he just sets out to explain the deepest roots of each position and trace it to the modern world. The author never makes a judgemental statement. Philosophy doesn't get any better than this.

If anyone is trying to understand political philosophy, or modern politics this is a must read. Mr. Sowell tells the reader how the same terms (what is fair for example) are thought of in totally different ways by the differing positions. This is why the opposing sides talk past one another. They both use the same terms but never define them - they just assume the other side means the same thing by fairness (or whatever) as they do, when in fact the meaning of what is fair differ completely from the points of view of the philosophies.

One quick example: When side A says something is fair they mean the system was fair and all people had the same basic chance; however, when side B says something is fair they mean the RESULTS were fair. Side A doesn't mind if the results seem unfair as long as the system was fair, but even if side B thinks the system was fair, if the results are unfair (in their mind) then the whole thing is unfair and must be adjusted.

Thus, when one group of people are poor and another rich side A is OK with that as long as the system for getting poor or rich was basically fair; however, side B feels that if the finances are unequally distributed then it is unfair because the RESULTS are unfair.

So when the A side is arguing with the B side and both are yelling about fairness they see fairness in totally different ways and are arguing past one another.

A wonderful book, at a good price. Buy it!

If you want to know why Republicans believe what they do, and why Democrats believe what they do, read this book. Evenhanded (although Sowell is a conservative market capitalist), this work gives you great insight into the variying politics of freedom, equality, and justice ... regardless which side of an issue you're on. Unlike Sowell's weekly editorial columns, which are pretty easy to read, this work is unnecessarily packed with "very large words." Read slow, and keep your dictionary handy, because "Conflict Of Visions" is truly excellent.