Madame:
Yes,
speaking for the voiceless would be the LIBERAL stance, but it’s not precisely clear
to me that it would be the LIBERTARIAN one. Btw, your analysis of the overall situation,
and how manipulation slips another powerful tendril in, is brilliant!
The latter
part of your post made me wonder: So we become more like children in one
particular way when we get older, and are often most adult like when we DIDN’T
care so much about being “right.” Good
food for thought!
So
much is piling up in the queue, and my responses to JC’s additional questions
and comments (which I’ll do here from now on rather than the comments section)
are close to ready to go, yet all is pre-empted today because I am moved to
respond to something. Thomas Sowell has created a minor buzz
with this recent piece of his: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/12/depending_on_dependency
Thomas Sowell is an intelligent man, one of the
more brilliant minds in
conservatism today.
He's also open about his bias, and, like Paul Krugman the economist on the
liberal side, it sometimes clouds or shades his views a bit much.
This is one of those times.
On to Sowell's points, PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH:
Paragraph one is his interpretation, and he chose that interpretation because
he wanted to make a point. First point he goes astray on: Delegates to
conventions, although they are the most enthusiastic, are not necessarily
representative of the larger group. But regardless, many observers of both
conventions thought diversity and family concerns elicited the most enthusiasm
at the Democratic one. Democrats did convey the Biblical principle at their
convention that "we are our brother's keeper," but Sowell's intimation about
Democrats saying that "Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick, and
the helpless" is misleading, as those sentiments were directed primarily at
Republicans in positions of influence and power (politicians, big business,
and the uber-wealthy).
Paragraph two: Correct. It should be applied to all "sides," including his own.
Paragraphs three and four are a convoluted mixture of assumptions and
interpretations. Sowell is falsely (and he's smart enough to know that)
classifying people into simple "either/or" categories, when people's views and
sentiments are usually far more mixed and complex than that. Few people
prefer ALL economic decisions (What about infrastructure? Defense?) to be
made solely by individuals in the market and/or by the market itself (it
sounds good though!), and effectively none prefer politicians to make all
those economic decisions. He's framing the discussion, and slanting the
expectations, to get the reader to emotionally get on the thought train he
wants to take us on. He's just more intelligent and subtle about it than a
Sean Hannity (or even a Niall Ferguson) in doing so. And showing difference
here is further directional because people's beliefs and emotions divide far
more starkly on social/cultural lines than they do on economic ones (social
liberals and economic conservatives are often one and the same people, for
example). The larger fallacy, however, as was discussed in my analysis of
paragraph one, is conflating the rank and file Republicans (the 90+%) with the
power centers of the Republican party, as those two often display different
actions (in many things).
Regarding paragraphs five and six, Lincoln, et al (2008)'s study on religious
giving showed the great impact that religion has on giving (although it
accounts poorly, in my opinion, for the trend that Protestants often give more
than Catholics), and Arthur Brook's study indicated this extends to more than
just religious giving. Religion is a far greater determinant of giving and
volunteering (including time) than political affiliation, as giving and
volunteering for religious conservatives and religious liberals are virtually
identical. It is, of course, inescapable that numbers-wise there are more
conservatives who are religious than liberals who are religious, something to
be expected at least for the reasons that conservatives tend to value
tradition, institutions, and organization more so than liberals (and liberals
tend to have more and more varied interests, which also detracts from those
liberals' time and focus). However, one must distinguish between those who
attend church because they sincerely believe in the principles (intrinsic
motivation) vs. those who attend church for their own social gain (extrinsic
motivation). If someone gives in order to--in this life or the next--receive
some reward or avoid some punishment, it's not "charity," but Brooks would
count it as such.
Brook's 2006 study, which I can only presume that is what Sowell is referring
to, as Sowell didn't specify, has been criticized both for cherry-picking and
for hazy research on those who do not identify as either liberal or
conservative (and Brooks, as president of the long-time pro-business,
right-wing--although not as right-wing as Heritage--think tank American
Enterprise Institute, could hardly be considered unbiased, and furthermore,
has been categorized--fairly or unfairly--as another child of liberal parents
who rejects his upbringing and becomes a zealous convert for the other side).
Furthermore, no provision was made for complexity--those who identify
themselves as socially liberal but economically conservative, for example.
Even the "scholarly" review I read on Brooks' book gave the hint of bias, as
it was from an employee of Baylor, which is a private, religious university in
Texas. The review emphasized, concerning charitable giving, selecting a few
people (like George W. Bush, a Texan) who looked good in certain years, and
selecting a few others (Gore and Kerry) who looked bad in certain years.
While I think Gore, and to a lesser extent Kerry, probably deserve much of the
lambasting, the comparison is statistically misleading, because the years of
comparison only overlapped occasionally, and were woefully incomplete (Bush's,
for example, was compared only for a three year period; Kerry for a five year
period). Brooks could have been more rigorous in analysis of statistics
gathering, and his neglecting to include margin of error in his stats is
disturbing from both an accuracy and scholarly aspect.
In what may be one of the most important finds from the book, the working poor
give more of a percentage of their income than the middle and upper classes.
Of course, this will not surprise those who remember the story of Jesus and
his disciples observing the giving at the temple. While many gave large sums,
Jesus said the old woman who gave two small coins gave the most, because,
unlike the others, who gave from their want, she gave from her need. It would
also not surprise Steinbeck, who showed us in The Grapes of Wrath that poor
people help other poor people the most.
For paragraph seven, Sowell's statistics on Reagan and FDR are cherry-picked.
They do show what he says, albeit barely, but they compare apples and oranges
about tax rates, as well as the years themselves are cherry picked, both of
which make his assertions very misleading. Sowell is basing his assertions on
Brooks, and Brooks' methodology has all sorts of problems. For instance,
Brooks asserts that one can measure "caring" by monetary giving of total
income, rather than of disposable income, and this creates a number of biases,
first and foremost that this definition creates a bias favoring relatively
rural conservatives with low rent or mortgages, who often grow some or most of
their own food, who probably have low tax rates, etc. and against liberals
concentrated around universities and urban areas.
As to paragraph eight, Sowell is conveniently forgetting that the 19th
century, let alone the 18th century, was so noted for its economic
exploitation of the masses that it spawned what would be occasionally
wholesale revolt against a capitalism that not only bred dramatic economic
inequality but very often bordered on economic slavery. Marxism and Leninism
did not spring out of a vacuum. To hold that period up as some paragon of
philanthropy is worse than rose-colored glasses--it is the smoke of deception.
For paragraph nine: Here is where Sowell gets some of the best support from
the Brooks' book. The working poor not only give more of a percentage of
their income than the middle and upper classes, but they also give more of a
percentage of their income than those on government assistance (especially
those on longer-term government assistance), and that lends support to
conservative contentions that too much government assistance fosters BOTH
dependency and less generosity--a bad combination and a bad trend that needs
addressed to restore national character. However, WHY so many qualify for
assistance is, unfortunately, NOT addressed when conservatives talk about these things.
It should also be noted that this government assistance, while it has spiked for unemployment
assistance, job training, and other poverty avoiding things during this
lingering structural recession, is NOT (by any stretch) what drives large
budget spending and large deficits. As percentages of the overall budgets,
this government assistance is minimal (unless Medicaid and Medicare are
included). Even if you cut out ALL safety net spending (outside of Medicaid
and Medicare), the federal deficit would still be several hundred billion
dollars.
Paragraphs ten through thirteen: This is a conservative fear and suspicion,
but it's one that may have some validity. It's just that there hasn't been
enough research done on it to know if it has validity, rather than just have
appeal to conservative emotions. The criticism from independents, of course,
is that conservatives do not give valid alternatives to any such dependency,
but instead merely seek to cut off avenues of social relief-- or worse, effect
policies and actions that cause the need for social relief in the first place.
And Sowell's ascribing of insidious motives to both FDR and Obama--two
presidents largely left Great Recessions/Depressions by their Republican
predecessors--is at best undemonstrated and at worst belied by those men's
statements and actions. I get Sowell's angst about the New Deal culture--even
agree with some of his angst--but he'll have to do a lot better to convince me
that that angst is about a lot more than just partisan displeasure and
plutocrat service.
Paragraphs fourteen through sixteen: The numbers of people on food stamps and
similar assistance have been going up nearly continuously (yet few are asking
the real question--why is there such a need?) since the early days of the
George W. Bush administration, despite that administration's frequent efforts
to discourage. The Obama administration obviously no longer discourages it,
and furthermore, after receiving reports of food hardship among increasing
numbers of Americans, sought to address it. Once again, this arouses the
suspicion and ire of conservatives, who feel that liberals are not only
helping their base (poor people) feel they care, but are trying to institute
dependency, and this MAY be the case. Once again, as in paragraphs ten
through thirteen, more evidence of reason/motive and focus is needed. When we
have that, we can make a determination, but not until then.
Sowell ignores cognitive dissonance and contradiction. For instance: How many
conservatives denounce social programs, yet love the fact their parents (and
aunts and uncles and anyone they are spared from taking care of) get Social
Security, Medicare and Medicare drug programs? And shouldn't it be recognized
that charitable assistance can take a form that Brooks would not measure as
"giving" or "volunteering"--for example, helping a friend or family member out
time-wise or monetarily-wise? More factors that Brooks did not address:
Charitable giving may actually perpetuate (put a temporary band aid on) a
societal ill, while progressives who seek change are actually trying to be
more effective. Cynics would say that the conservative view wants to maintain
the overall status quo (harsh and inequitable as it may be), which charity can
do, while the liberal view seeks real and lasting (but upsetting to the
traditionalists of the status quo) change. If liberals are working
hard--spending their time, talent, and treasure--at getting the SYSTEM to
change, this would not count in Brooks' measurement of "giving" or
"volunteering."
Sowell stokes the fires of caustic revulsion to ALL taxation, something
Republicans play heavily on to get people to vote against their own economic
interests and for the economic interests of plutocrats. It doesn't play to
this historian. The idea that people pay ALL of their taxes unwillingly, that
they have no sense of duty and dues paying to their community, state, and
country, is a relatively recent right-wing concept.
Sowell makes the ideological mistake--as do many in this polarized and inward
looking society--of thinking there is only one way to something. I might
suggest he travel a bit more to the Scandinavian countries, where there are
democracies that generally rate highest on the honesty scale, high on the
happiness scale, yet have socialist/capitalist hybrid economies, pay very high
taxes, and are also very secular. There's some cognitive dissonance for both
him and Brooks.
Sowell's and Brooks' ideological or plutocratic crusade against the estate tax
(or, as they have called it to incite the ignorant, the "death" tax) is more
self-serving nonsense not supported by the facts. Three of the wealthiest men
in history--Carnegie, Gates, and Buffett--have favored the estate tax for the
very reasons of avoiding concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the
highly corruptible and arrogant descendant few. The conservative crusade
against the estate tax is a red herring designed to grab the attention of the
average person, whose descendants will likely never be subject to even the
small percentage it starts at when the level is reached, because the level is
so high (millions of dollars). And what small taxes do hit at that level
come into play precisely at the moment when that person no longer needs the
wealth (dead, after having use of the full wealth during his or her life) AND
that person's spouse is also dead (because spouses inherit all of their
husband's or wife's estates with no taxation). But the most searing criticism
of Brooks on this is his claim that eliminating the estate tax would cause
heirs to "likely give much of it away," for that is belied by actual
disposition of inherited wealth. Brooks himself in his book cites statistics
that show a $20,000 inheritance generates on average $82 in donations.
SUMMING UP:
Brooks' book, of which Sowell bases most all of his arguments on, is FAR
better and far more scholarly than the trash put out by the Coulters or
Limbaughs of the world. Brooks is a thinking conservative, and open to some
demonstrations of contradictions in his data. The author makes a case that
paying lower taxes and giving more is better than paying higher taxes and
having the government give more. Although the supposition is not sufficiently
examined in my opinion (the look at the Scandinavian countries is not sufficiently done),
conservatism today.
He's also open about his bias, and, like Paul Krugman the economist on the
liberal side, it sometimes clouds or shades his views a bit much.
This is one of those times.
On to Sowell's points, PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH:
Paragraph one is his interpretation, and he chose that interpretation because
he wanted to make a point. First point he goes astray on: Delegates to
conventions, although they are the most enthusiastic, are not necessarily
representative of the larger group. But regardless, many observers of both
conventions thought diversity and family concerns elicited the most enthusiasm
at the Democratic one. Democrats did convey the Biblical principle at their
convention that "we are our brother's keeper," but Sowell's intimation about
Democrats saying that "Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick, and
the helpless" is misleading, as those sentiments were directed primarily at
Republicans in positions of influence and power (politicians, big business,
and the uber-wealthy).
Paragraph two: Correct. It should be applied to all "sides," including his own.
Paragraphs three and four are a convoluted mixture of assumptions and
interpretations. Sowell is falsely (and he's smart enough to know that)
classifying people into simple "either/or" categories, when people's views and
sentiments are usually far more mixed and complex than that. Few people
prefer ALL economic decisions (What about infrastructure? Defense?) to be
made solely by individuals in the market and/or by the market itself (it
sounds good though!), and effectively none prefer politicians to make all
those economic decisions. He's framing the discussion, and slanting the
expectations, to get the reader to emotionally get on the thought train he
wants to take us on. He's just more intelligent and subtle about it than a
Sean Hannity (or even a Niall Ferguson) in doing so. And showing difference
here is further directional because people's beliefs and emotions divide far
more starkly on social/cultural lines than they do on economic ones (social
liberals and economic conservatives are often one and the same people, for
example). The larger fallacy, however, as was discussed in my analysis of
paragraph one, is conflating the rank and file Republicans (the 90+%) with the
power centers of the Republican party, as those two often display different
actions (in many things).
Regarding paragraphs five and six, Lincoln, et al (2008)'s study on religious
giving showed the great impact that religion has on giving (although it
accounts poorly, in my opinion, for the trend that Protestants often give more
than Catholics), and Arthur Brook's study indicated this extends to more than
just religious giving. Religion is a far greater determinant of giving and
volunteering (including time) than political affiliation, as giving and
volunteering for religious conservatives and religious liberals are virtually
identical. It is, of course, inescapable that numbers-wise there are more
conservatives who are religious than liberals who are religious, something to
be expected at least for the reasons that conservatives tend to value
tradition, institutions, and organization more so than liberals (and liberals
tend to have more and more varied interests, which also detracts from those
liberals' time and focus). However, one must distinguish between those who
attend church because they sincerely believe in the principles (intrinsic
motivation) vs. those who attend church for their own social gain (extrinsic
motivation). If someone gives in order to--in this life or the next--receive
some reward or avoid some punishment, it's not "charity," but Brooks would
count it as such.
Brook's 2006 study, which I can only presume that is what Sowell is referring
to, as Sowell didn't specify, has been criticized both for cherry-picking and
for hazy research on those who do not identify as either liberal or
conservative (and Brooks, as president of the long-time pro-business,
right-wing--although not as right-wing as Heritage--think tank American
Enterprise Institute, could hardly be considered unbiased, and furthermore,
has been categorized--fairly or unfairly--as another child of liberal parents
who rejects his upbringing and becomes a zealous convert for the other side).
Furthermore, no provision was made for complexity--those who identify
themselves as socially liberal but economically conservative, for example.
Even the "scholarly" review I read on Brooks' book gave the hint of bias, as
it was from an employee of Baylor, which is a private, religious university in
Texas. The review emphasized, concerning charitable giving, selecting a few
people (like George W. Bush, a Texan) who looked good in certain years, and
selecting a few others (Gore and Kerry) who looked bad in certain years.
While I think Gore, and to a lesser extent Kerry, probably deserve much of the
lambasting, the comparison is statistically misleading, because the years of
comparison only overlapped occasionally, and were woefully incomplete (Bush's,
for example, was compared only for a three year period; Kerry for a five year
period). Brooks could have been more rigorous in analysis of statistics
gathering, and his neglecting to include margin of error in his stats is
disturbing from both an accuracy and scholarly aspect.
In what may be one of the most important finds from the book, the working poor
give more of a percentage of their income than the middle and upper classes.
Of course, this will not surprise those who remember the story of Jesus and
his disciples observing the giving at the temple. While many gave large sums,
Jesus said the old woman who gave two small coins gave the most, because,
unlike the others, who gave from their want, she gave from her need. It would
also not surprise Steinbeck, who showed us in The Grapes of Wrath that poor
people help other poor people the most.
For paragraph seven, Sowell's statistics on Reagan and FDR are cherry-picked.
They do show what he says, albeit barely, but they compare apples and oranges
about tax rates, as well as the years themselves are cherry picked, both of
which make his assertions very misleading. Sowell is basing his assertions on
Brooks, and Brooks' methodology has all sorts of problems. For instance,
Brooks asserts that one can measure "caring" by monetary giving of total
income, rather than of disposable income, and this creates a number of biases,
first and foremost that this definition creates a bias favoring relatively
rural conservatives with low rent or mortgages, who often grow some or most of
their own food, who probably have low tax rates, etc. and against liberals
concentrated around universities and urban areas.
As to paragraph eight, Sowell is conveniently forgetting that the 19th
century, let alone the 18th century, was so noted for its economic
exploitation of the masses that it spawned what would be occasionally
wholesale revolt against a capitalism that not only bred dramatic economic
inequality but very often bordered on economic slavery. Marxism and Leninism
did not spring out of a vacuum. To hold that period up as some paragon of
philanthropy is worse than rose-colored glasses--it is the smoke of deception.
For paragraph nine: Here is where Sowell gets some of the best support from
the Brooks' book. The working poor not only give more of a percentage of
their income than the middle and upper classes, but they also give more of a
percentage of their income than those on government assistance (especially
those on longer-term government assistance), and that lends support to
conservative contentions that too much government assistance fosters BOTH
dependency and less generosity--a bad combination and a bad trend that needs
addressed to restore national character. However, WHY so many qualify for
assistance is, unfortunately, NOT addressed when conservatives talk about these things.
It should also be noted that this government assistance, while it has spiked for unemployment
assistance, job training, and other poverty avoiding things during this
lingering structural recession, is NOT (by any stretch) what drives large
budget spending and large deficits. As percentages of the overall budgets,
this government assistance is minimal (unless Medicaid and Medicare are
included). Even if you cut out ALL safety net spending (outside of Medicaid
and Medicare), the federal deficit would still be several hundred billion
dollars.
Paragraphs ten through thirteen: This is a conservative fear and suspicion,
but it's one that may have some validity. It's just that there hasn't been
enough research done on it to know if it has validity, rather than just have
appeal to conservative emotions. The criticism from independents, of course,
is that conservatives do not give valid alternatives to any such dependency,
but instead merely seek to cut off avenues of social relief-- or worse, effect
policies and actions that cause the need for social relief in the first place.
And Sowell's ascribing of insidious motives to both FDR and Obama--two
presidents largely left Great Recessions/Depressions by their Republican
predecessors--is at best undemonstrated and at worst belied by those men's
statements and actions. I get Sowell's angst about the New Deal culture--even
agree with some of his angst--but he'll have to do a lot better to convince me
that that angst is about a lot more than just partisan displeasure and
plutocrat service.
Paragraphs fourteen through sixteen: The numbers of people on food stamps and
similar assistance have been going up nearly continuously (yet few are asking
the real question--why is there such a need?) since the early days of the
George W. Bush administration, despite that administration's frequent efforts
to discourage. The Obama administration obviously no longer discourages it,
and furthermore, after receiving reports of food hardship among increasing
numbers of Americans, sought to address it. Once again, this arouses the
suspicion and ire of conservatives, who feel that liberals are not only
helping their base (poor people) feel they care, but are trying to institute
dependency, and this MAY be the case. Once again, as in paragraphs ten
through thirteen, more evidence of reason/motive and focus is needed. When we
have that, we can make a determination, but not until then.
Sowell ignores cognitive dissonance and contradiction. For instance: How many
conservatives denounce social programs, yet love the fact their parents (and
aunts and uncles and anyone they are spared from taking care of) get Social
Security, Medicare and Medicare drug programs? And shouldn't it be recognized
that charitable assistance can take a form that Brooks would not measure as
"giving" or "volunteering"--for example, helping a friend or family member out
time-wise or monetarily-wise? More factors that Brooks did not address:
Charitable giving may actually perpetuate (put a temporary band aid on) a
societal ill, while progressives who seek change are actually trying to be
more effective. Cynics would say that the conservative view wants to maintain
the overall status quo (harsh and inequitable as it may be), which charity can
do, while the liberal view seeks real and lasting (but upsetting to the
traditionalists of the status quo) change. If liberals are working
hard--spending their time, talent, and treasure--at getting the SYSTEM to
change, this would not count in Brooks' measurement of "giving" or
"volunteering."
Sowell stokes the fires of caustic revulsion to ALL taxation, something
Republicans play heavily on to get people to vote against their own economic
interests and for the economic interests of plutocrats. It doesn't play to
this historian. The idea that people pay ALL of their taxes unwillingly, that
they have no sense of duty and dues paying to their community, state, and
country, is a relatively recent right-wing concept.
Sowell makes the ideological mistake--as do many in this polarized and inward
looking society--of thinking there is only one way to something. I might
suggest he travel a bit more to the Scandinavian countries, where there are
democracies that generally rate highest on the honesty scale, high on the
happiness scale, yet have socialist/capitalist hybrid economies, pay very high
taxes, and are also very secular. There's some cognitive dissonance for both
him and Brooks.
Sowell's and Brooks' ideological or plutocratic crusade against the estate tax
(or, as they have called it to incite the ignorant, the "death" tax) is more
self-serving nonsense not supported by the facts. Three of the wealthiest men
in history--Carnegie, Gates, and Buffett--have favored the estate tax for the
very reasons of avoiding concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the
highly corruptible and arrogant descendant few. The conservative crusade
against the estate tax is a red herring designed to grab the attention of the
average person, whose descendants will likely never be subject to even the
small percentage it starts at when the level is reached, because the level is
so high (millions of dollars). And what small taxes do hit at that level
come into play precisely at the moment when that person no longer needs the
wealth (dead, after having use of the full wealth during his or her life) AND
that person's spouse is also dead (because spouses inherit all of their
husband's or wife's estates with no taxation). But the most searing criticism
of Brooks on this is his claim that eliminating the estate tax would cause
heirs to "likely give much of it away," for that is belied by actual
disposition of inherited wealth. Brooks himself in his book cites statistics
that show a $20,000 inheritance generates on average $82 in donations.
SUMMING UP:
Brooks' book, of which Sowell bases most all of his arguments on, is FAR
better and far more scholarly than the trash put out by the Coulters or
Limbaughs of the world. Brooks is a thinking conservative, and open to some
demonstrations of contradictions in his data. The author makes a case that
paying lower taxes and giving more is better than paying higher taxes and
having the government give more. Although the supposition is not sufficiently
examined in my opinion (the look at the Scandinavian countries is not sufficiently done),
and
might come down to just preference, it is a plausible argument, and the
author has
submitted some facts and indicators in support of his position.
Private charity IS often
better than government welfare for a number of reasons, but the situation is
more complex than Brooks presents. And I believe he knows it. And so does
Sowell.
Is it good to give? Yes. For both the giver and receiver. And the society.
Do I think there are number of liberals who are hypocrites when it comes to
what they say and what they actually do? Yes. Does that including "giving"
and "volunteering?" Certainly. As a note, something downplayed in the book
but there nonetheless: nonreligious conservatives were the LEAST
giving/volunteering of ALL the groups Brooks looked at.
Sowell could have given us his source (Brooks) in the piece he (Sowell) wrote,
but he didn't. A cynic would say he left it out for two reasons: 1) he
counted on the propensity of busy Americans to NOT research or fact check
things, and furthermore, most of his intended audiences already agreed with
him, and 2) he knew the sourcebook, now 6 years old, has been criticized
heavily--criticisms for which Sowell has no answer.
So Sowell's piece comes down to a mixture of truths, half-truths, biased
interpretations, and slantings. Part and parcel of what's wrong with American
politics--and what's wrong with both parties.
For some detailed critiques of Brooks' book, of which Sowell based nearly
everything he said, see here: http://www.facebook.com/ProfessorandHousewife?sk=notes
better than government welfare for a number of reasons, but the situation is
more complex than Brooks presents. And I believe he knows it. And so does
Sowell.
Is it good to give? Yes. For both the giver and receiver. And the society.
Do I think there are number of liberals who are hypocrites when it comes to
what they say and what they actually do? Yes. Does that including "giving"
and "volunteering?" Certainly. As a note, something downplayed in the book
but there nonetheless: nonreligious conservatives were the LEAST
giving/volunteering of ALL the groups Brooks looked at.
Sowell could have given us his source (Brooks) in the piece he (Sowell) wrote,
but he didn't. A cynic would say he left it out for two reasons: 1) he
counted on the propensity of busy Americans to NOT research or fact check
things, and furthermore, most of his intended audiences already agreed with
him, and 2) he knew the sourcebook, now 6 years old, has been criticized
heavily--criticisms for which Sowell has no answer.
So Sowell's piece comes down to a mixture of truths, half-truths, biased
interpretations, and slantings. Part and parcel of what's wrong with American
politics--and what's wrong with both parties.
For some detailed critiques of Brooks' book, of which Sowell based nearly
everything he said, see here: http://www.facebook.com/ProfessorandHousewife?sk=notes
2 comments:
Which parts were hard to understand? I will focus on those. And I still owe you answers to some other questions, etc. you had, and will get to them in the next installment.
Post a Comment