I took a look at his Wikipedia entry, which is refreshingly positive for a conservative’s bio (he calls himself more of a libertarian), although the editing notes complain that its “neutrality is disputed.”

Some excerpts, which I think go a long way to explain his rational = realistic) approach to economics and society:

He actually had jobs in real life before becoming a cloistered academic.
I would support either amendments or statutes requiring that all faculty (after some consideration, not limited just to university; even elementary teachers are nuts these days) and elected officials must have a minimum of 5 years in non-academic non-governmental employment before hiring or election.

He qualified for Stuyvesant High School, a prestigious academic high school in New York City; he was 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.[2]

Sowell held a number of positions, including one at a machine shop and another as a delivery man for Western Union,[4] and he tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1948.[5] He was drafted into the military in 1951, during the Korean War, and was assigned to the United States Marine Corps. Because of his experience in photography, Sowell became a Marine Corps photographer.[2]
After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, DC, and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[2][6] He earned a Master’s degree from Columbia University the following year.[6]

A conservative (or libertarian) is a liberal mugged by reality.

Sowell has said that he was a Marxist “during the decade of my 20s”; one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist–Leninist practice.[7] His experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject Marxian economics in favor of free market economic theory. During his work, Sowell discovered an association between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry. Studying the patterns led Sowell to theorize that the government employees who administered the minimum wage law cared more about their own jobs than the plight of the poor.[8]

No change there.
Opponent of affirmative action then and now, for good reason; note that his admission to Harvard predated the institutionalization of AA.
But college admissions exams are so biased …..

From 1965 to 1969, Sowell was an assistant professor of economics at Cornell University. Writing thirty years later about the 1969 “violent” takeover by black Cornell students of Willard Straight Hall, Sowell characterized the students as “hoodlums” with “serious academic problems [and] admitted under lower academic standards” and noted “it so happens that the pervasive racism that black students supposedly encountered at every turn on campus and in town was not apparent to me during the four years that I taught at Cornell and lived in Ithaca.”[11]

In 1987, Sowell testified in favor of federal appeals court judge Robert Bork during the hearings for Bork’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. In his testimony, Sowell said that Bork was “the most highly qualified nominee of this generation” and that what he viewed as judicial activism, a concept that Bork opposed as a self-described originalist and textualist, “has not been beneficial to minorities.”[15]

Well, I can see why the Left didn’t like him (good thing his career predated Twitter mobbing, cancelling, and violent protests against speakers), but he should have been featured more prominently on the Right — I don’t remember even knowing about him prior to becoming a blog junkie in 2007, and I was a political science major with a macroeconomics specialty in the 1970s (admittedly at UT Austin; not a bastion of conservative thought, but not entirely one-sided at the time).

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50945597

Time to reconstitute the “International Resistance”….

Huxley is right, with the qualification that the Democrat’s “template” isn’t the historical JFK, who advocated tax cuts, boosted the military, supported Israel, and aggressively opposed Communism (and colluded in the overthrow of an allied government in S. Vietnam).

The template is the JFK created by the party’s spin doctors, who supported strong Civil Rights laws (which were actually passed by Johnson), and wanted to withdraw from Vietnam (which actually happened under Nixon).

Modern Democrats want to re-elect the fictional Kennedy; they’d hate the real one.

None of these three were ‘charismatic’ except according to a debased use of the term. Obama is not handsome. Kennedy had and Obama has a degree of general intelligence you expect of someone of the professional-managerial stratum, Clinton somewhat more. What’s interesting is that any trace of it in their work life outside of electoral politics is difficult to discern. Kennedy undertook p/t and seasonal work, then had several years in the military, then landed a position as a wire service reporter (which he held for < a year), then ran for public office at age 29. He missed 1/3d of the roll-call votes during his first six years in Congress. Clinton put in three years on the faculty of the law school at the University of Arkansas. Obama's dilettantishness is well-known. A generation ago, Thomas Sowell remarked that the Anointed confound intelligence and expertise, then go on to confound articulateness and intelligence. Same deal here.

Neither Hillary in 2016 nor the current clown car come close to the JFK imprint. Democrats will vote for whomever over Trump, but their hearts won’t be going pitter-pat.

A number of them did. The Democratic electorate wasn’t the least bit interested. I suppose it’s conceivable that Bloomberg or Yang might score a breakthrough. So far, their interest in executive experience has been limited to Bernie and Booty-gig. If I’m not mistaken, Bernie performed quite well as Mayor of Burlington. Booty-gig’s tenure in South Bend was notable for rising crime rates.

Venezuela hasn’t been democratic anything in 20 years. It’s been a political machine state that’s grown increasingly gangsterish over time.

Trump is already spending more than most Dems before 2008 even promised, so the Reps have made Dems promise even more, while Venezuela sinks into poverty thanks to Democratic Socialism. To normal conservatives, this increasing US National Debt is a real problem. I don’t like it.

But I like losing, less, and the elites have been indoctrinated from Dem colleges that any who oppose gov’t spending oppose the “good things” the politicians promise to spend the money on.

When the good thing is a tax cut, so the deficit increases because wealth creators keep more of the wealth created, they are often right. Better a tax cut, with increased investment and consumption by those who make the money. A deficit based on tax cuts at least comes closer to maximizing economic production and growth.

Paul Ryan DID succeed, with Trump, in getting big tax cuts, which are a huge part of the Trump boom.

Oh wait, this was about impeachment? Or evidence? I’m waiting waiting for years for guilty Dems to get indicted. Including Hillary, but especially McCabe & Comey & the crooked cops. No excitement without indictments.