As Proverbs 3:7 advises, "Be not wise in your own eyes; fear Yahweh, and turn away from evil." In Thomas Sowell's excellent analysis here we have yet another reminder, as if we needed more, of how consequential that admonition is.

Surveying the legacy of social policy from the mid 1960's to the mid 1990's - when this book was originally published - Sowell concludes that the sum total of the vision of the annointed is that their innate superiority is to be regarded a self-evident truth, and that no amount of evidence to the contrary will prove sufficient to dissuade them.

To say that much and no more would be a rather depressing conclusion, however. So let us say a little more, then, to remember and remind that God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Thomas Sowell will teach you surprising things about the United States. I'm not sure I know another mainstream conservative writer whose work is as clear, logical, and wide-ranging (though I don't make a habit of reading political books).

This particular book is a helpful reminder of how we ought to react to claims about policy: "Really? How do you know? What's happened when we did something like this in the past? Are we sure the changes were caused by the policy? Does the data support the conventional wisdom in this case?" And so on. It's the kind of logic you can get from a lot of blogs nowadays (Slate Star Codex and The Incidental Economist come to mind), but Sowell does it especially well, and from a conservative perspective, which makes this a useful book for liberals and centrists and people like me who have no idea what category they are.

Do not read this book before you have read A Conflict of Visions (also by Thomas Sowell). I doubt that I would have enjoyed this book as much as I did if I hadn't had read that masterpiece. A Conflict of Visions is as neutral introduction as possible to the way Thomas Sowell conceptualizes the political landscape. Instead of Left and Right, he talks about constrained and unconstrained visions and dissects their premises into smallest subcomponents imaginable. As unorthodox as Sowell's worldview is, without properly understanding it may make The Vision of the Anointed feel like a rant that it really isn't.

The Vision of the Anointed is simultaneously a fullscale attack on some cherrypicked Leftist policies and the funniest dry academic humor I have seen in a while. It's really hard not to smile at Sowell's rhetoric even when you don't really agree with him. The way he mocks "Teflon Prophets" is just hilarious. While I think his views on homosexuality, sex education, and some other things, are outdated at best and lack nuance, he is so right about how much nonsense is peddled by people who just have a way with words and thus think that they are better, smarter, and more capable than everybody else. When Thomas Sowell describes the wardrobe choices of these emperors, he is not afraid to point out the exact embarrassing details and expose them as what they truly are: delusional swindlers.

Sowell writes very clearly, and very plainly. This book is well-argued, and easy to follow. Every other line was quotable, not because it was pithy and witty, but because it is truth clearly articulated, and boldly proclaimed. The only downside is that Sowell is operating from a materialistic framework, which is understandable, but nevertheless disappointing.

A very well-written critique of the methods used by modern media and universities to shape thought in the country. Thomas Sowell uses thorough research to back up his points which can be a bit much if all you want is a light read on media bias. Look elsewhere if that is what you want.

The 13th book by Thomas Sowell that I have read.

Sowell has been invaluable to me by switching my vision of the world from a formerly utopian one to a much more realistic one, wherein I no longer constantly compare everything around me to the "perfect world" inside my head, which ultimately led me down the dark path of philosophical pessimism and antinatalism for a number of years...

I thus strongly urge reading Sowell to anybody who thinks, as indeed I used to think, that if the world isn't the way I want it to be, then it must either be fixed or, if that cannot be arranged, destroyed altogether.

As Marcus Aurelius said in his Meditations: “If you are pained by external things, it is not they that disturb you, but your own judgement of them.”

And by reading Sowell, your judgement about the world will, inevitably, change to be more in line with how the world actually is. And if the world is tragic, so be it. Why should it be otherwise? Because *we* think it should? And based on what? Based solely on the perfect little fantasy world inside our heads that has never existed and never will.

So we might as well shake the fantasy of the world from our heads and live in the real world instead. It is much easier that way. You'll be happier. And you'll get things done. I speak from experience.

Who are the anointed? Sowell describes them as liberal elites who dominate leftist think tanks, academia, media, and the political realm. Ever believing themselves capable of solving society's ills, both real and imagined, they often advocate political policies and programs that have unintended, disastrous consequences. Case in point: In the 1960s, the anointed expressed concern over the illegitimacy rate in America. They decided to advocate for federal funding of Planned Parenthood and various school sex education programs. They got their wishes. Instead of solving the problem, illegitimacy rates have exploded since the introduction of sex education. Do the anointed ever correct themselves or apologize for the mess they sometimes create? Nope. They are too busy congratulating themselves on their moral superiority and designing solutions for the next discovered "crisis."

Having just read Discrimination and Disparities by the same author, I was disappointed. This was not nearly as well studied or composed. Sowell presents many straw man arguments in his attempt to define the “left” and their “vision of the anointed.” The Anointed are not limited to the left, instead their definition is kept ambiguous enough, to allow the reader to fill in their own vision of some “other” entity which pulls the strings.

I believe Sowell fails to properly acknowledge corruption in the market, though he points out this option in government. The book undervalues the idea that science and individual innovations can improve the lives of the poor without bringing down the wealthy. He seems to claim that improving one will necessarily damage the other. It reads to me as if it isn’t worth striving for improvement if the risks are not completely assessed (which is of course impossible to do). There are potentially unfair costs when some risks are unknown and the cost is lower not to take the risk. The is roughly what Sowell appears to be implying, and it is illogical.

As with most classical economists, market decisions are always treated as rational. It is unreasonable to claim that a government law does not ever play out in the way the composers believed it would, but that somehow Laissez-faire policies lead to better or intrinsically more fair outcomes. Sowell provides no supporting evidence for these types of claims.

There is still some useful information in this book, but I’d recommend reading one of Thomas Sowell’s better rated books.

I rate this as 4.5 stars.

Some criticism:

1. Sowell’s writing style, while not difficult, is also not the easiest to read. Theodore Dalrymple shares similar views and his writing is more enjoyable, but Sowell’s writing is more carefully argued.

2. Some of the examples are starting to feel a little dated after the passage of 23 years. Some of the people Sowell most frequently criticizes - David Bazelon, Ronald Dworkin, Anna Quindlen, Tom Wicker – are far less likely to be familiar to readers in 2018 than in 1995. Sowell would probably be pleased that these names are largely and deservedly forgotten.

3. Sowell sometimes disregards relevant material in his arguments, even when he is aware of it. For instance, in one discussion of crime trends over many years, he disregards the effect of the baby-boom moving through its more crime-prone youth, though elsewhere he highlights this kind of effect.

Some praise:

1.tSowell’s broad themes are true and important.

2.tHe articulated them long before many others. The book fairly qualifies as prophetic.

3.tThe framework of his thinking anticipated, and has proven well adapted to analyzing, developments that weren’t even on the horizon when he wrote the book (global warming hysteria, for example).

I think the pluses easily outweigh the minuses, so I am rounding this up to 5 stars.

The author makes some interesting points but they were made early on and than reiterated throughout. Unfortunately, due to the author's tone, it came across as biased. Basic Economics is much better.

I don't think this covers any ground that n  Knowledge and Decisionsn doesn't cover ina better, more measured way. I think the main difference in the theses of the books is that this one focuses on the specific rhetoric used by technocrats and how, recast, it looks much worse, but I'm not sure it would convince anyone who wasn't already convinced of Sowell's general position.

Though I have not read the book, from talks I've heard him give, Arnold Kling seems to have a much more reasoned and nuanced approach to these differences in rhetoric in n  The Three Languages of Politicsn. Even if it doesn't give the same "why they are wrong" approach, it will at least help you understand why Thomas Sowell puts things the way he does.

Thomas Sowell does an excellent job of showcasing the many errors of politicians in central planning and forcing their vision of economics and morals on society through law. Sowell lays out numberous popular examples of the self serving ego inflating policies disguised as to help those in need and through data and history shows how the outcomes all made society worse off and how a free capitalist focused government creates maximum prosperity.