A correspondent sends me this gem from Tom Sowell:
This was written in 1995. So no, he was not talking about any of the great causes that inundate us today. He was writing about causes in the 20th century going back to eugenics. But it seems both prescient and timeless.
Source The Vision of the Anointed, link takes you to Google books where you can read a lot of it.
Is Sowell so blinkered as not to see that the various balanced budget, fiscal cliff, and inflation-fear-mongering movements exhibited the same characteristics?
ReplyDeleteThis claim disguised as a question cannot be serious...
DeleteTu quoque!
DeleteWhat "dangerous behavior of the many" is the government curtailing when it sets shackles to its own behavior (excess spending and money printing)?
DeleteSowell is just rephrasing the insight of the Sage of Baltimore, H. L. Mencken:
ReplyDelete"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
He said it more fully in Knowledge and Decisions, 1980:
ReplyDeleteIn many ways this episode illustrates far more general characteristics of intellectual-political "relevance": (1) the casual ease with which vast expansions of the amount and scope of government power were called for by intellectuals to be used against their fellow citizens and fellow human beings, for purposes of implementing the intellectuals' vision, (2) the automatic presumption that differences between the current views of the relevant intellectuals ("experts") and the views of others reflect only the misguided ignorance of the latter, who are to be either "educated," dismissed, or discredited, rather than being argued with directly in terms of cognitive substance (that is, the intellectual process was involved primarily in giving one side sufficient reputation not to have to engage in it with non-"experts"), (3) the confidence with which predictions were made, without reference to any prior record of correct predictions nor to any monitoring processes to confirm the future validity of current predictions, (4) the moral as well as intellectual superiority that accompanied the implicit faith that the current views of the "experts" represented the objective, inescapable conclusions of scientific evidence and logic, and their direct applicability for the public good, rather than either the vogues or the professional self-interest of these "experts," and (5) a focus on determining the most likely alternative conclusions rather than whether any of the conclusions had sufficient basis to go beyond tentative cognitive results to sweeping policy prescription. It illustrates a general characteristic of socially and politically "relevant" intellectual activity-an unwillingness or inability to say, "we don't know," or even to admit that conclusions are tentative. Such admissions would be wholly consonant with intellectual processes but not with the interests of intellectuals as a social class. Politicians often proceed as if intellectuals have no self-interests involved but act solely on cognitive bases or in the policy interest of society at large.
The only thing that prevents me taking Sowell seriously is his repeatedly doing #4, or perhaps more precisely not taking contrary arguments seriously enough to address them on their own terms.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't make him wrong on this though. Or guilty of points 1-3.
DeleteOne could argue it's Machiavelli repackaged. Read "The Prince" and you'll see how Niccolo deals with the problem known as the public.
ReplyDelete