For some of the Libertarian opinions I have come to hold, I have been called “at least partially evil” on one occasion and told to “have a heart” on too many occasions to count – and both of these comments from some of the people who know me best. And that is to say nothing of the times my arguments have been called "simplistic" and yet no reason is ever given for why they are actually wrong. This form of attack is one which Sowell writes about to some length and in that, and numerous other respects his book resonated with me. The Vision of the Anointed is Sowell’s counter attack directed towards powerful elites whose "vision" can most easily be summed up as "we know better than you, due to our superior intellect, morality or both and we intend to use our political power to re-engineer society for you (all in your own best interest of course)."

Sowell's critique of this vision is directed almost entirely towards the political left. While an attack aimed primarily towards “liberals” is often justified, I think it could have very easily been applied to any big government vision be it liberal or conservative (especially given the hubris and big government conservatism surrounding George W. Bush's tenure. In fairness to Sowell however, his book was published in '95). The fact that Sowell's book didn't do this made the message less persuasive than it could have been. Yet at times, the message is quite persuasive. For example, Sowell contrasts those with the vision of the anointed with those of a "tragic" vision of the world. (The anointed being those who see the world in terms of "problems" and "solutions" while those with the tragic vision see the world as a balance of trade offs, each with their own set of problems.) When politicians say things like, "We know how to solve the problem of poverty/drug abuse/poor educational outcomes" they are making implicit assumptions that these problems are a fault of "society" and therefore they can impose a so called "solution" by re-engineering society. Those with a tragic vision see these problems as being either an inherent part of the human condition or often times even a direct result of the very "solutions" put in place to alleviate the problem in the first place. It is not a simple matter of imposing a solution because the very act of such an imposition has its own set of problems (think of the war on drugs - something I might add which is both a liberal and conservative obsession). Sowell writes:

The hallmark of the vision of the anointed is that what the anointed consider lacking for the kind of social progress they envision is will and power, not knowledge. But to those with the tragic vision, what is dangerous are will and power without knowledge - and for many expansive purposes, knowledge is inherently insufficient....

Although followers of this tradition [the anointed:] often advocate more egalitarian economic and social results, they necessarily seek to achieve thoseresults through highly unequal influence and power, and–especially in the twentieth century–through an increased concentration of power in the central government, which is thereby enabled to redistribute economic resources more equally. While those with the vision of the anointed emphasize the knowledge and resources available to promote the various policy programs they favor, those with the tragic vision of the human condition emphasize that these resources are taken from other uses ("there is no free lunch") and that the knowledge and wisdom required to run ambitious social programs far exceed what any human being has ever possessed, as the unintended negative consequences of such programs repeatedly demonstrate.

This is one idea which the book explores in much more depth and is quite compelling. At other times however, Sowell paints "the anointed" with such a broad brush or the examples he uses are not explored in enough depth to fully buy into all that he writes. In a book that explores the negative effects of a small class of elite individuals (politicians) making expansive decisions to re-engineer society, Sowell does a poor job to clearly define the boundaries between where individual liberty ends and appropriate state action begins. For example, based on the overall writing, Sowell would seem to be in favor of the death penalty, state restrictions on abortion, and certain individual rights to privacy (most notably where public health is–arguably–at stake). And yet in a careful reading of the book, one realizes that Sowell rarely expresses direct opinions on these issues but mostly critiques the way in which the "anointed" apply inconsistent logic in how the issues are dealt with.

On the whole the book had many strong areas and will likely give a reader a new look on the world at large. At times however it oversteps its bounds and is in murky water if it is trying to describe a comprehensive alternative to the vision of the anointed. I particularly liked the chapter "Courting Disaster" on judicial activism vs. judicial restraint and how with increasing judicial activism we seem to be slipping away from the ideal of "a government of laws and not of men" and the senseless debate that surrounds the "intentions" of the framers of the constitution vs. what they clearly articulated given the legal language of the time. (And he points out that a built in framework exists to chaning what we no longer agree with is in place but that framework does not involve the arbitrary decisions of individual judges.) In his conclusion, Sowell has a very brief but enticing section on the role of journalism and the media and some of the inherent problems within. Speaking as somone who majored in journalism in college, I found his ideas to mirror many of my own and I would have liked him to explore the subject further.

In attempting to write about this book, I have become aware of how well Sowell can discuss complex topics so succinctly and with such ease, and how I cannot. Nevertheless, I proceed.

In a way, this is a continuation of the ideas Sowell introduces in A Conflict of Visions, and in a way, it is not. In that previous book, Sowell defines a visions as a framework of assumptions that provide one with a sense of how the world works. The two main visions form there framework based on their view of the nature of man, that is, whether man is forever limited by external and internal constraints (chiefly man’s inherent moral limitations due to selfishness), or whether some parts of society are evolving the intellectual and moral superiority to lead all of mankind to a future not limited by these constraints. Ones thoughts about the limitations of man drives how people define terms such as equality, power, justice, and freedom, which in turn drives peoples view on how government should operate.

In A Conflict of Visions, Sowell pragmatically compares these two viewpoints, identified as the Constrained Vision and Unconstrained Vision. Though he hates these terms, the unconstrained vision is that of most liberals, and the constrained visions would be that of non-liberals. This discussion is done in a textbook style in order for the reader to make up their own mind on where they stand, as well as allow the reader to understand why some people view problems in society completely differently than themselves. It’s a great book.

In this book, Sowell chooses a side, dons his Libertarian hat, and goes on the attack of the Unconstrained vision, which he sarcastically renames the “Vision of the Annointed.” The followers of the Constrained vision are relabeled the Benighted. Sowell contends that the inherent self-righteousness of the Annointed have prevented them from actually reviewing data to see if the policies they promoted in the 60’s and 70’s were successful, and resorted to rhetoric and data slight of hand to convince society (and themselves) that they were improving society, where in fact much of the policies they enacted hurt society. Without directly saying it, Sowell feels the world acts more like whats understood in the unconstrained vision, and running a government with a plan drawn up by the anointed has lots of unintended consequences that have to hidden from society in order to make it seem like these “progressive” policies are working.

Sowell plows through American history, taking apart “facts” told by the Annointed and accepted by society, and breaking down the data to unearth to true effects of the Annointeds social fixes. The Rise of welfare programs, the addition of laws to protect rights of criminals, the introduction of sex education programs in schools, the apparent rise in domestic violence, etc, Sowell meticulously addresses all of these issues and demonstrates how what you’ve been told regarding these issues are not supported by facts. Even if you recognize that Sowell’s rapid fire nature in covering these topics does not allow for the deep study Sowell insists is required to make decisions on effectiveness of a particular policy, at the very least Sowell is convincing that many of these issues where just assumed to work and were never given a fair debate.

As much as I don’t like attack books (because all they tend to do is reinforce the opinion one already has), Sowells is something special. As I was reading it, two reports were released in June 2017 regarding preliminary results of Seattle’s gradual minimum wage increase (to reach $15/hr). One report from U of Washington indicated that the minimum wage increase was decreasing the amount of income per month the workers were receiving, while the other report from UC Berkeley contradicted these results. From what I read, the Berkeley report was performed by a professor who has never not concluded that minimum wage increases were beneficial, and was requested by the Mayor of Seattle in an attempt to do damage control after the Mayor had seen a draft of the first, negative report.

Sowell covers minimum wage increases in the book, and he not only predicts the results of the UW study (which the Berekely professor said were not logical), but he also predicts the responses of pro-minimum wage academics and media, and shows why there criticisms are wrong. This, from a book written in the 90’s and based on data from 1948. The point is not that Sowell is right about the minimum wage issue (considering that Seattle is not a laboratory setting, he may not be when all the cards are shown). The point is, his foundational view of the Annointed seems to match there behaviors, and identify their limitations quite well.

Still, this is an attack book, so I was disappointed with it. His attack of the “Annointed” seems almost personal. For instance, when the foundation viewpoints of the constrained and unconstrained visions are outlined in A Conflict of Visions, Sowell is very even handed and objective. But when this framework is repeated in Vision of the Annointed, Sowell has altered the vocabulary to provide the annointed with a self-righteous tone. Also, Sowell seems to treat the Annointed as taking up stances to deliberately oppose the Constrained/Benighted, instead of taking a stance because this is there gut belief. This type of spiteful interaction between visions is not discussed in A Conflict of Visions.

And at times Sowell seems to deviate on how he has defined a vision. For instance, at one point he mentions how it is understandable to see why people would choose the Vision of the Annointed. But by his original definition of vision, a vision is not really chosen like selecting a flavor of ice cream, it’s ones gut feel on how the world works. In another passage, Sowell mentions that the problem with the Annointed is that they never test there believes, but hold them as truths. But that in itself is the nature of visions as defined by Sowell. Only when logic or tests are applied to a vision does it become validated theory. So with this known, the Benighted vision also holds onto believes that are not tested.

I also think that a lot of the criticisms of the Annointed could be made to non-left as well, especially when it comes to using rhetoric to win arguments and ignoring facts if they do not agree with what you have been promising. If you leave the realm of politics and let the Annointed encompass liberal academia and media, Sowells argument makes more sense. And Sowell does make some very good arguments that Annointed Vision, when combined with our current media format (it’s a nice companion to “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neal Postman) is more able to mislead and convince that the topics of interest of the Benighted. There is a reason why the Annointed is staffed with with young academics who want to make a world a better place- it has great marketing material. Much better than saying, “the world is messed up, but we can make it slowly better.” But Sowell’s line of thought is brief and seems tacked on, at the end of the last chapter in the book.

This book doesn’t hurt Sowells concept of Visions, but he doesn’t spend the time needed to bolster his theories either. For the high level theory, it’s a rehash. An then its followed by lots of examples that will make people either mad, defensive, or embarrassed.

There is much that one could like here. The basic framework that Sowell lays down about the way many policies are drafted is clear and accurate. The problem, however, is that he seems to believe that only "The Anointed" (i.e. liberals) use this method to create policy. As I was listening, I kept thinking, "Wow, this seems like a playbook for George W. Bush's administration," but Sowell repeatedly lionizes Reagan and believes that the "Benighted" (i.e. conservatives) can do no wrong.

This might have been a great book, had he not belabored the idea that you are either one thing or the other. There is no room in Sowell's view for anything other than black and white. Had he attacked conservative policies that are equally bad and focused his attention on ALL public policies that are based in an elitist ideal, then this book would have potential. Any time someone believes, beyond all doubt, that they know what is the best thing for others, you are heading for trouble, but to Sowell, apparently only liberals are so inclined.

Sowell spends a great deal of time saying that liberals don't use any facts in their policy making, and then, to prove a point on how bad a policy is, uses innuendo and speculation as proof. He continually implies certain results based on the negative. This didn't happen, so this must have happened, but he rarely supports these claims.

I'm sure that for those that hold Sowell's political views, this reads like a brilliant text, but it is so utterly biased as to be nearly useless. As I said, there is a kernel of a great idea in here, but it needs to be applied without regard to one's political leanings.

Thomas Sowell is a delight to read, the man has the clearest of proses.

His arguments aren't flawless - far from it, as he often engages in the type of fallacy he has just denounced just like any good ideologue. Still, the man says many important things that are very much worth being aware of.

The book, written in 1995, seems to be more relevant today than ever, as the vision of the anointed keeps spreading unrestrained.

Wow. Outstanding.

Helpful for understanding why the prevailing narrative prevails. Sowell has keen insight into the motives and and thinking of the "annointed."

Sowell covers a lot of ground and there's a lot of gems in here. He also give you some tools to dismantle their tired talking points.

But truly, this book doesn't need to be read by the "benighted" so much as those who unthinkingly parrot the vison of the anointed so that they can fit in and feel like good people.

This is the clearest, sanest expression of liberal political thought you will ever read. If you are a Beckbot, a Rush clone, a Hanniday zombie it will be too deep and clear to impress you, though, as there isn't any lying, ranting, or flag waving. Sowell is extremely understandable and deep on the subject. I've read this book and re-read it over the months, checked out sources, and tried to think through his arguments. This is essential if you want to understand today's politics and how Democrats and most Republicans are liberals politically even if the rank and file Republicans think they are conservative. Its a brilliant piece of work.

I will never be bored with Sowel’s books - either more recent or older ones.

Souvenir from this one - don’t think solutions, think trade-offs (systemic analysis).

I have read Sowell before- his book Race and Culture and some of his editorials. If the book hadn't been copyrighted in 1995, I would have thought he was targeting the 2012 liberals. But I read this leading up to the election, so that might explain a lot of my response to the book. I want to believe we can correct our flaws in society and help our fellow man by pulling together, especially in the United States where we have solved so many problems of mankind. But his explanation of trade offs and his leadership in economics helped me understand why many well-meaning policies have failed. At a gut level I have felt many of Sowell's premises but did not know how to articulate them in a social or political discussion.

I feel better able to evaluate policies and understand that one can never depend on the media to report both sides of the issues.

Mentioned here. See Plodcast, Episode #20.

I have always wondered why so many social policies, all of which seem like good and even noble ideas at the time, turn out so badly. Sowell presents one view and a caustic one it is. Essentially, his thesis is that policy makers have far too often replaced rational analysis of outcomes with wishful and willful assertions that run counter to the facts of the case. The anointed live in a rarefied world in which reality plays little role and the opinions of the non-anointed even less:

"The presumed irrationality of the public is a pattern running through many, if not most or all, of the great crusades of the anointed in the twentieth century--regardless of the subject matter of the crusade or the field in which it arises. Whether the issue has been 'overpopulation,' Keynesian economics, criminal justice, or natural resource exhaustion, a key assumption has been that the public is so irrational that the superior wisdom of the anointed must be imposed, in order to avert disaster. 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." -- P. 123-12

And of course the ends always justify the means even if inclusion and reflection play no part:

"In their zeal for particular kinds of decisions to be made, those with the vision of the anointed seldom consider the nature of the process by which decisions are made. Often what they propose amounts to third-party decision making by people who pay no cost for being wrong--surely one of the least promising ways of reaching decisions satisfactory to those who must live with the consequences." -- P. 129

Sowell gives dozens of examples of the assertions that the anointed make to justify the policy and then subjects those assertion to rigorous and often statistical analysis to deftly illustrate the faulty and often false assumptions inserted into contemporary policy making.

The tone of this was very much appreciated.