Subscribe in a reader

Buy Conservative Advertising

Wikio - Top Blogs

Find the best blogs at

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

No one but the author bears any responsibility for the non-advertising content on this blog. AND PLEASE NOTE: the author neither necessarily uses nor endorses any product advertised on this blog.

« How's "peak oil" looking? | Main | Heck of an attic, Karl »

July 10, 2012

One of my all-time favorite books is recently referenced and gets a shoutout

"Supreme Court has turned the 2012 election into a conflict of visions".

From "Jonathan Haidt: He Knows Why We Fight":

At age 41, he decided to try to understand what conservatives think. The quest was part of his effort to apply his understanding of moral psychology to politics. He especially sings the praises of Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions," which he calls "an incredible book, a brilliant portrayal" of the argument between conservatives and liberals about the nature of man. "Again, as a moral psychologist, I had to say the constrained vision [of human nature] is correct."


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions" is indeed a classic. It will be a sad day when the lose Dr. Sowell.


"Obama surely had a chance to remake the Democratic Party. But once he got in office, I think, he was consumed with the difficulty of governing within the Beltway."

This doesn't really speak to any sort of brilliant mind with any insight into modern left wing politics. At the end of the article it says Haidt "dismisses Mitt Romney as a 'moral menial,' a politician so cynical about the necessary cynicism of politics that he doesn't bother to hide his cynicism." This is one of the clearest examples I've seen of "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

His nastiness at republicans and forgiveness of democrats belies his claim that he "wants liberals and conservatives to listen to each other more, hate each other less".

And his economics is weak if he thinks the "defense of lower taxes on capital income—mostly reported by the rich—is indefensible."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Powered by TypePad
Member since 07/2003

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog