Sowell vs. Piven
Here’s a little gem I came across the other day.
First, though, if you’re not familiar with Thomas Sowell, please hie yourself to YouTube, do a search for his name, and start watching. You’ll find scads of clips of Sowell discoursing on any number of things, demonstrating his trademark intelligence and clarity.
This particular incident occurred in 1980, and features an argument between Sowell and Francis Fox Piven, she of the notorious Cloward-Piven strategy (Cloward, by the way, was her husband). Uncharacteristically, in this clip Sowell shows about as much emotion as I’ve seen ever seen him demonstrate in a public forum. Piven really seems to get his goat, and he hers. Milton Friedman then steps in to offer his two cents.
Before you watch, though, take a look at this article discussing the type of polls to which Sowell is apparently referring during his exchange with Piven. Note the distinction between polls about “affirmation action” (a term which people often apparently interpret to mean making sure there’s no discrimination) and unequal preferences or quotas favoring minorities. Sowell is correct that black people do not generally favor the latter. In fact, quite a few polls show strong disapproval among blacks (at least up to 2002, when the article was written).
Here’s the clip (the discussion between the Sowell and Piven begins around 1:38):
[ADDENDUM: By the way, Sowell was not exactly a child of privilege himself:
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina. His father died shortly before he was born, and his mother, a housemaid, already had four children. A great-aunt and her two grown daughters adopted Sowell and raised him. In his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, he said his childhood encounters with white people were so limited that he did not believe blond was really a hair color. When Sowell was nine, his family moved from Charlotte, North Carolina to Harlem, New York City. He attended Stuyvesant High School, the first in his family to study beyond the sixth grade. However, he was forced to drop out at age 17 because of financial difficulties and problems in his home. He worked at a number of jobs, including at a machine shop and as a delivery man for Western Union, and tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1948. Sowell was drafted in 1951, during the Korean War, and was assigned to the United States Marine Corps. Because of his experience in photography, he became a Marine Corps photographer; he also trained Marines in .45-caliber pistol proficiency.
He later attended night school at Howard (admitted on a GED), and then to Harvard because his genius was recognized. His academic career went from strength to strength after that.
I haven’t read his autobiography—or even heard of it until now—but I bet it’s a good read.]
Dr. Sowell’s youtubes, especially his later ones, are a great uplifter. Just something about his humour and attitude. It’s like a Grandpa who listens and knows all the troubles and woes in the world but it doesn’t touch his inner core. Powerline’s “Uncommon Knowledge” has some great selections.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/uncommon-knowledge-with-thomas-sowell-3.php
I remember these programs. I don’t remember if it was on Friedman’s program or possible Cavetts’s where some liberal insinuated that Sowell didn’t understand blackness. He got pretty hot and not only destroyed them verbally, but left no doubt he was ready to get it on right there, right then.
Dr Sowell is one of the greatest thinkers of any time. I have enjoyed reading and listening to him for years. He has the rare ability to tell his foe to go to hell, and they look forward to the trip.
Roman:
The way Piven looks at Sowell is priceless. You can tell she’s spitting mad at the fact that he’s a black conservative who’s brilliant, as she tries to lecture him on what black people think.
Neo…
She’s run into a Black Swan.
I recommend Sowell’s Ethnic America.
That look is what I got when jackasses up North were telling me about Hurricane Katrina and how much i did not know about it .. priceless
I’m most struck by Friedman’s comment about there being “no question that equality of results if it comes about through a framework of freedom is a desirable result.”
Seems to me that’s a formulation that would greatly benefit the Republicans in their discourse today. It shows humanity up-front.
All of his books are worth reading. One of his best, which caused me to believe he was a younger version of F.A. Hayek, is Knowledge & Decisions.
I too hold Dr. Sowell in high regard. He is a national treasure and IMO greatly under-appreciated. Were he a leftist, his fame would be off the charts.
His combination of astuteness, articulateness and common sense (a quality in such short supply today) make him unique.
There will never, there can never be equal outcomes. The nature of the world, and reality generally, prevent this result. This intrinsic limitation is not exclusively ordained by the natural order, which has seen fit to ensure finitely available and accessible resources. It is also a function of individual human beings, who do not all share the same dream.
Our effort to deny the terms and circumstances of reality lead to progressive corruption, dysfunction, and eventually a conclusive convergence of each. At which point the cycle begins anew. Typically after violent and destructive upheavals.
Anyway, as the concept of “progress” is inherently ambiguous, the concept of “equality” is inherently untenable, and each must be qualified in order to have meaning.
As for some or many black Americans, good for them. Neither redistributive nor retributive change will engender positive progress. They recognize individual dignity, the intrinsic value of human life, and are capable of reconciling these two fundamental concepts with their own needs and desires, and the terms and circumstances of reality. Would there be more such people in this world, then there may yet be hope for achieving some semblance of harmony.
n.n.:
Yes, I wrote this re equal outcomes:
Professor Sowell also wrote a guide to choosing a college that I found useful when my kids were approaching that age. Available online here. Published in 1989, so some of the details may be dated but the general discussion is still relevant.
I was a bit surprised to hear Friedman say that about equality of results as well, but then I read this article in which an interesting case is made for him being “a compassionate libertarian,” based largely on his proposal for a negative income tax as a way to alleviate poverty:
neo-neocon:
It is that clear insight which motivates my return to your site. I appreciate individuals who are capable of distinguishing between ideal and real outcomes, and use the former to develop the latter. I also care to observe and learn from your perspective, which I presume is substantially influenced by your area of expertise, psychology.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the good, bad. and ugly. I prefer the first, but we live in an imperfect world, so I will grudgingly tolerate the second and third; and perhaps share my own thoughts, which are remarkably similar to yours.
Ann:
I think the principal issue with any redistributive scheme is dissociation of risk. This dissociation is exacerbated when redistribution occurs through involuntary exploitation (e.g. taxation). This is a cause for corruption and must be closely monitored in order to prevent its progress. Another problem, which is peculiar to centralized, isolated organizations (e.g. government), is ensuring accountability.
My preference would be to refocus societal assistance to emphasize rehabilitation. Also, close proximity of distance and relation is likely to ensure superior accountability.
Anyway, Friedman is right to appreciate the value of compassion; but, it must be reconcilable and productive. From society’s perspective, there is value in promoting harmony. From the economy’s perspective, there is value in a diversified market, including producers and consumers. From humanity’s perspective, there is value to preserve individual dignity and the value of human life.
Ideally, redistributive change will happen by two methods: economic exchange and charity, which are both voluntary forms of exploitation.
Ann:
As for income inequality, there are four considerations to its resolution.
First, we must consider income inequality in a relevant context, which at minimum includes cost of living, and distinguish between necessities and luxuries.
Second, we must consider that not everyone will enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii (i.e. natural resources are finitely accessible and available). It is the market’s (e.g. consumers) direction which sets the “fair” or “reasonable” pricing of products and services in the economy.
Third, we must consider the value of each individual’s contribution. There is a reason why we reward risk more than labor, pioneers and entrepreneurs more than workers, etc.
Fourth, we must consider creating dissociation of risk when compensation is uncorrelated with individual contribution.
With any effort to deny these considerations, we must be wary of sponsoring corruption (e.g. institutional – IRS – discrimination) and unsustainable outcomes (e.g. trillion dollar deficits). While we cannot enslave the consumer in service of the producer, we also cannot enslave the producer in service of the consumer, no matter how comfortable the circumstances of their service. Their relationship must be reconcilable in order to preserve individual dignity, the intrinsic value of human life, and ensure harmony between individuals of different means.
I recall from one of his videos that he was once a Marxist. Another changer.