The Quest for Cosmic Justice [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

Thomas Sowell gives us a good idea of *why* modern socialists feel the way they do, why they are willing to fight so hard to take from some, give to others, and make so many dependent upon their benevolence. He skillfully whittles the modern socialist notion of 'justice' to what it really is at its heart: a desire to feel like a 'goody guy,' a desire to right the wrongs of history, nature, and the universe itself.

This book provides countless examples of why grace from the liberals on high isn't needed in the first place. It also provides etrse, cogent arguments against the notion that 'justice',' as described by a socialist, is just at all.

If it has a flaw, I'd say it is that the book, while smooth and generally high-road in style, is a bit too combative in content to hand to a friend with socialist tendencies as a different perspective.

The "morally self-anointed," as he calls excessively liberal reformers and radicals, "have for centuries argued as if no honest disagreement were possible, as if those who opposed them were not merely in error but in sin.... Given this exalted vision of their role by the anointed visionaries, those who disagree with them must be correspondingly degraded or demonized." Marx, Lenin, Hitler, and Mao all followed this procedure, as have utopians of similar or less horrible results.... That comparable dynamics rule the day, especially in the humanities in many American universities, will not surprise those who have any real experience of those departments. Sowell evokes the American political system and tradition in the hope of preventing its further erosion.

One of the many perceptive and striking points Sowell makes in the book involves "The High Cost of Envy." Pointing out its dangers broadly to poor people, he writes,

"The very terms of the discussion encourage them to attribute their less fortunate position to social barriers, if not political plots, and so to neglect the kinds of efforts and skills which are capable of lifting them to higher economic and social levels."

The acquisition of such "skills, education, discipline, foresight," needed to improve their lot, becomes less likely, as the "ideology of envy" blames others for exploitation and racism, undermining their own will to act, while rendering "more successful members suspect as traitors." Sowell observes this same "bogus explanation" can keep entire societies in poverty, making me think of my recent experience as an accredited participant at the United Nations Millennium Forum, May 22-26, 2000, where I witnessed Kofi Annan's wise proposal for a Global Compact with business swept aside and essentially replaced with the "sophisticated modern versions of the envy vision spread by the Third World intelligentsia, often seconded by the intelligentsia in more fortunate countries."

Summing up in a passage that has very wide application, Sowell states, "cosmic justice attempts to create equal results or equal prospects, with little or no regard for whether the individuals or groups involved are in equal circumstances or have equal capabilities or equal personal drives. To do this, it cannot operate under general rules, the essence of law, but must create categories of people entitled to various outcomes, regardless of their own inputs . . . assuming with little or no evidence that only malign intentions or systemic bias could explain unequal results. 'Affirmative action' is perhaps the classic example of this approach but it is only one example." His insight into the subtleties of modern ideologies is truly remarkable, as is his own high and demanding sense of justice.

Alas, I seriously found myself wondering at times if Sowell's Quest for Cosmic Justice is not a voice in the wilderness, as always one come much too late. But I take heart in knowing such people as he, Shelby Steele, and Ward Connerly have the courage to speak out on race and other matters and in the end hope that events will unfold for the good in ways I can not imagine and that now seem so often unlikely. In this context, I recommend reading Robert Conquest's Reflections on a Ravaged Century, a parallel meditation on the dilemmas of modernity.

The four essays in this book (The Quest for Social Justice, The Mirage of Equality, The Tyranny of Visions, and The Quiet Repeal of the American Revolution) share two common themes: That one must be careful in examining the facts before trying to change a situation, and that many unsuccessful social changes have followed ideas and idealism that was not based on factual inquiry.

The book succeeds in making both points effectively, and is quite persuasive in looking at the creeds of departed dictators (like Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin).

The book also engages the ongoing debate between conservatives and liberals in the United States about the role and ends of government. In this context, I found the argument persuasive that the debate has been too much about philosophies and too little about facts. What I found less persuasive was the critique of liberal ideas and idealism. At bottom, it seemed to me that liberals and conservatives are both about having societies that work better for the people in the societies. Given the same set of facts about what is working and what is not, I really wonder if the two ideologies would lead to different prescriptions in many cases. For example, with the apparent benefits of the Internet becoming more and more pervasive, conservatives and liberals seem only to differ on how much government should do to ensure computer access to the Internet. Both views seem happy with the Internet as unregulated and untaxed as possible.

Where any reader would agree is that the unintended consequences of very active government have frequently been harmful. We know so little about the ultimate effects of actions, that it is quite possible to create the opposite of our intent. For example, trying to create more equality sometimes has led to creating less. There is evidence to suggest that where formerly people stayed poor (as defined by being in the bottom 20 percent of the population) for relatively short periods of time, the advent of generous welfare benefits created a cycle of poverty by making welfare more comfortable. Currently, we are experimenting with the opposite. Only time will tell what the right answer is.

Ultimately, Sowell points out that there is a tension in the notion of equality that must be addressed in any society. Does that mean equal opportunity for people with unequal resources and skills, or does it mean equal outcomes regardless of starting point? Americans have always favored the former. Sowell points out that we have actually moved in some areas to places in between the two concepts (such as equal access to the public school classroom for students and to the workplace for those with various disabilities including mental illness and mental retardation), sometimes based on a too limited examination of the facts or misinterpretations of the circumstances. Whether or not this is a repeal of the American Revolution is something that reasonable people will differ on. That's where I think the argument doesn't quite work. Otherwise, I would have enthusiastically have given the book a five star rating.

Whatever your political philosophy, there is sound thinking in this book to help you improve your ideas about the role of government.

Donald Mitchell

Coauthor of The Irresistible Growth Enterprise and The 2,000 Percent Solution...