Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (95852)	4/23/2003 8:48:33 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Read especially paragraph 2 & 3. Thomas Sowell has written two books pondering why the same people end up on the same side of issues that have no intrinsic connection. In "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles," he writes that this is because they operate from two different "visions" of how the world works, indeed of human nature. In "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy," he argues that the prevailing vision in the press, academy and politics has become so dogmatic that it has lost touch with reality. Mr. Sowell labels the competing visions "constrained" and "unconstrained." The constrained vision argues that perfection is impossible, that social policy consists of structuring incentives for self-centered men, that life is a series of trade-offs. This vision is represented by the likes of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton (and of course, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration mindset). The unconstrained version argues that man's imperfections are the result of bad institutions, that pure intentions matter more than actual effects, that rationality can solve problems once and for all. In the time of Smith and Burke, this tradition was epitomized by William Godwin, whose "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice" was popular in Great Britain until the public started to witness the excesses of the French Revolution. For the path of the unconstrained vision ran through Rosseau, Voltaire and Thomas Paine (a defender of the French Revolution as well as a hero of the American one). Today's academy is in thrall of descendants of these French ideas. The academically popular "deconstructionism" promoted by Jacques Derrida argues that the conception of meaning or truth is another corrupting institution, merely expressing power relationships. Students and journalists who have never heard of Derrida reflect his influence in preoccupation with issues of gender, class and race. As Mr. Sowell writes, the "vision of the anointed" has become impervious to evidence. Rather, it's "a badge of honor and a proclamation of identity: To affirm it is to be one of us and to oppose it is to be one of them." This is relevant today because these two visions were put to a stark test on the streets of Baghdad. Those who followed the constrained version were proved right; those associated with the unconstrained version, Mr. Sowell's "anointed," proved foolish. This rare empirical test should be weighed in the competing claims offered on other issues--energy policy, the environment, racial quotas and, to come to the present crux, economic policy. opinionjournal.com

To: JohnM who wrote (95852)	4/24/2003 1:18:47 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This may be OT......I haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread.......but I wanted to make this clear. In his opening remarks, Gingrich said he wanted to "emphasize that what he wanted to talk about is not about personalities, It's about effectiveness and candidly facing the facts." He also mentioned that people in WDC had a tendency to translate all arguments into personality issues. Of course he is right, and we've seen ample proof since his speech. His speech concerns a conflict about foreign policy views. Regardless of which side of the conflict one comes down on, or how much people wish to turn this into an issue of personalities, the conflict still exists. The issues Gingrich brought up are valid and should be addressed. By his own words (and something I'm sure he genuinely believes) there are some (there's that word again) Americans that think it is very important for a number of reasons least being national security. M Our ability to lead is more communications, diplomatic, and assistance based than military. People have always admired us more than feared us. The collapse of the State Department as an effective instrument puts all this at risk. We must learn the transforming lessons of the last six months and apply them to create a more effective State Department. <EOM> M