Sowell is a classical liberal and right. Sowell is a neoconservative and wrong. Sowell is a traditional conservative and right. Sowell is a neoliberal and wrong. Sowell is a classical liberal and wrong. Sowell is a neoconservative and right. Sowell is a traditional conservative and wrong.
Without some way to separate the true sentences from the false sentences none of them are very helpful, even if one in the pile happens to be true.
First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees.
Why? The positive argument already exists. It's Sowell's writing. What are you asking for a cliff's notes? The disagreement you're talking about must obviously stem from something in the source material we're talking about. So what is it?
It's really just worth reading some of that stuff before you decide he's just a Tweeter. He's basically the opposite of that.
If no such evidence exists then all we have is just-so story-telling, which can be discounted.
The fact that a lot of people seem to believe his ideas are convincing is irrelevant to this discussion.
People believe all kinds of things because they sound plausible to them - partly because other people have made careers out of working out how to push people's "This sounds plausible so I shall believe it" buttons.
Which is why reproducible evidence and independent peer review are things. And why it's absolutely reasonable - in fact required - to question assertions that can't be grounded in them.
Read his books and find out. You'll be supporting a black author if you do.
With regard to the Fox News-watching American conservative base and bad Nazi analogies, it's useful to keep in mind what you're dealing with. Grover Norquist said in an interview in 2003 that the estate tax is equivalent to the Holocaust. When Terry Gross politely allowed him to walk that statement back, he said that it's just morally equivalent to the Holocaust. [2] Of course all the thinking involved is total bullshit and the man is batshit crazy, but the interview is not without interest.
Such a lunatic must be the object of widespread derision on the right, right? Nope. Almost all Republican lawmakers sign his bizarre loyalty oath upon taking office, pledging they're not going to raise taxes. [3]
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/01/06/o...
[2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145298...
[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-grover-norquist-pledg...
Both the left and right do this, and it's almost never meaningful. More a lazy way to call your opponents poopheads.
Are you suggesting that they stay silent? How is injecting race into the political discourse at this level not in itself patently racist? Are you suggesting that only whites are allowed such free choices in their beliefs?
I'd like to find a good faith interpretation of your statement, but it really seems like your world view is that someone's skin color and political inclination determines their moral standing and beliefs.
This is so ridiculously racist and uninformed I don't know where to begin.
First, it assumes Sowell hasn't made any unique contributions to economics or politics. This is completely false but you presume it because... he's black? If he were white would you take him more seriously?
Second, you presume the only reason he is allowed to speak is to justify the racism of others. Which reduces Sowell to a useful idiot or a token. It completely strips him of his accomplishments. Imagine saying that a former member of government, a PhD, award winning economist, author of more than a dozen best selling books, and fellow at more than a dozen prestigious institutions is only listened to because he's black.
It seems like a non-sequitur to bring racism in on this thread - how does Sowell appeal to "white conservatives" more than conservatives of other backgrounds?
"Instead of trying to propagandize children to hug trees and recycle garbage, our schools would be put to better use teaching them how to analyze and test what is said by people who advocate tree-hugging, recycling, and innumerable other causes across the political spectrum."
"What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice."
If you think that's uncharitable go read what he's written over the years, in particular on politics, it's indistinguishable from my rambling grandfather. Even pay attention to the title of the post. "Thomas Sowell, the Nonconformist". How is he nonconformist as far his views go? He isn't, what's nonconformist is his background.
"What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." This just sounds like a modern rephrasing of Murray Rothbard, I wouldn't necessarily call it "trite".
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfil...
Advocating for critical thinking is not bad. You shouldn't tell children what to believe. You should give them the tools to determine their own beliefs.
> "What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice."
Are criticisms of social welfare limited to talk radio hosts?
> How is he nonconformist as far his views go?
He's nonconformist for the class he occupies. I.e. the "intellectual elite" (or however you want to refer to them).
His views also aren't non-conformist at all, they have a deep history in US politics. Friedman, Hayek, and so on for a large time during Sowells career practically dominated public discourse. Friedman alone probably is the single most influential economist of the last few decades as far as public discourse is concerned.
And that is squarely where Sowell is situated given that he hasn't ever actually worked as an economist, but basically as a pundit. Within American conservative punditry his views are as standard as it gets.
Maybe he is. If that's the case, let's "steelman" his position and do better. Do you feel that Thomas Sowell would read your response and feel you grasped the argument he was making to the fullest extent? Do you feel you've honestly and accurately portrayed his position after understanding it fully?
In my opinion, you haven't. I think you're upset and its preventing you from understanding the argument being made.
> Sowell hasn't done economic research at all.
He has a wikipedia. Try your best to read it.
Sowell has published over thirty books, but I can find virtually no actual academic research. One of the last papers dates to the 60s, where he debates Marxism, but I think this is actually just a sort of philosophical treatise.
He's repeatedly rejected modelling, mathematics and virtually every other econonmic tool, so to call him an economist is kind of a misnomer.
And actually I do think I've portrayed his position fairly accurately. When you read his stuff it's often hard to tell if you're reading Sowell or Ann Coulter.
Btw I'm not opposed to conservative intellectual work in general. Chesterton is great, Carl Schmitt is probably one of the most intelligent writers of the last century. But Sowell isn't, and American Conservatism is in an intellectual crisis to put it mildly.
Meanwhile in US Conservatism you have people ranting about taxation being theft, I mean if that's the intellectual elite I don't know what's going on exactly.
At the same time, there is nothing conservatives love more than a black intellectual who strongly agrees with them. Perhaps for both good and bad reasons. That adoration does color the perception of people like Sowell.
How about not judging black people when they don't fit in the box you want to put them in?
For the record, I'm not having that perception. But many will judge people by who agrees with them.
I apologize for getting triggered on the second part of your post and forgetting the first, but I think it's very important to call racism racism. Calling racism "colored perceptions" is so misleading as to be false.
I mostly agree with you about "liberal racism". Apology accepted.
Always the supporting actor. Never allowed to have ideas which inspire others to action. Just a tool for white people.