Thomas Sowell: A Political Philosophy

Derek Pyburn

Liberty University
 Thomas Sowell is widely regarded as a leading and respected conservative writer. One of

his most notable ideas is what he calls the “Vision of the Anointed.” This “vision” is the liberal

thought which has changed society into more of a nanny and progressive state. Sowell ironically

refers to this vision as being “anointed” because when this established view is criticized by

anyone, they are smeared by the believers of this position. Sowell challenges this vision and

points to the flaws in the arguments proposed by its proponents. In Sowell’s book, The Vision of

the Anointed, he uses information and studies that disprove this “vision” and explains where and

why things turned into a more progressive state.

The Anointed

Who are “the anointed?” Sowell refers to them as people who “could more accurately be

characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence

and logic. This can be a fatal talent, when it supplies the crucial insulation from reality behind

many historic catastrophes" (Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, 1995,p. 8). Many individuals

who fall under the category of the anointed are those who tend to fall on the political and

philosophical left, or those with a modern liberal ideology. This does not translate to only

Democrats due to the fact that many on the Republican ticket use this ideology to a lesser degree.

The “articulate people” tend to be those who are in academia, which is heavily liberal.

The anointed philosophy became prevalent in the early 1900s, yet it was during the New

Deal administration that this philosophy began to take root. During this era, the traditional views

became known as the “Old Court.” There was a fundamental change in the way the Constitution

was interpreted and “the progressive view of social progress equated active government with

good government” (Epstein, 2006, p. 14). This was a drastic change from the Founding Fathers’

view that an active government intruded on individual liberty.

The Beginning of Big Government

It is easy to see that throughout the history of the United States, the role of the

government has been increasing every decade. During the founding era, the government was

small and uninvolved in the daily lives of its citizens, acting strictly within its eighteen

enumerated powers. Many people today believe that the expansion of presidential powers has

happened only recently. Many blame George Bush for expanding presidential powers but “the

problems of the modern presidency did not begin when George W. Bush emerged victorious

from 2000’s” election (Healy, 2008, p. 147). This transition from the “Old Court” era to the

modern progressive era has much deeper roots in American history.

The United States Constitution was designed to secure the liberty of its people. This

document for many years was interpreted as giving the national government few and defined

powers. Not only is this idea found in the document of the Constitution, but it is also found in the

Federalist Papers that the role of government is to be limited. How then did this philosophy of

government turn on its head? The beginning of this perversion of government authority dates

back to the Civil War. Throughout history, President Abraham Lincoln has been revered for his

role in preserving the American union, but at what cost?

“The most egregious violations of civil liberties that Lincoln committed were

murdering civilians, declaring martial law, suspending habeas corpus, seizing vast

amounts of private property without compensation, conducting a war without the

consent of Congress, imprisoning nearly thirty thousand Northern citizens without

trial, shutting down several newspapers, and even deporting a congressman”

(Napolitano, 2006, p. 69)

American rights, which are guaranteed by the Constitution, were suspended and Lincoln used

force on United States citizens. When looking back on history it is easy to think of those in the

Confederate states as enemy combatants, but they were under the same equal protection from the

national government as those people in the North. Some of these violations can be seen in

America today, such as seizing vast amounts of property and conducting wars without the

consent of Congress. Interestingly enough, Karl Marx wrote to Abraham Lincoln congratulating

him on his re-election because Lincoln had decided he was going to tax the American people to

the fullest extent allowed. This fits well with Marx’s philosophy as demonstrated in his

Communist Manifesto where he writes, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in

the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx, 1988, p. 68). Under Lincoln’s

administration, the income tax was created through the Revenue Act of 1861. Not only were

taxes increased and created, Lincoln diverted funds from military spending to subsidize land to

give to people who were at least twenty one years old (Napolitano, 2006, p. 75). Clearly, Lincoln

overstepped his Constitutional bounds, and the United States is still feeling the effects to this

day.

Years later the progressive era would begin to take hold. Woodrow Wilson played a

pivotal part in the transformation of American politics. His view of government was radically

different than those of the “Old Court.” According to Ronald J. Pestritto, “Wilson constantly

referred to government as something that is living and must adapt and grow in accord with the

progress of history” (Pestritto, 2005, p. 33). Another idea that Wilson is famous for is his belief

in historicism; that is, the idea that there is no such thing as a “better” state, only one that is more

historically advanced. By disabling the arguments of an absolute standard, Wilson could freely

move on to the ideology of a growing and more progressive government. The belief in a growing
and involved government allows for the government to intrude on the individual rights of the

citizens. But how exactly did the American people allow this to happen, to be convinced that the

government is created to help the people instead of protect the people?

The “Crisis” Formula

One of the first tactics that Sowell outlines is the formula that is used to create more

legislation. The anointed pick a topic, usually one that is prevalent at the time, and state that a

crisis is about to happen unless the government steps in and prevents that “something” from

happening. Sowell outlines the different stages that the anointed use in trying to institute their

beliefs in society as a whole. These stages that Sowell outlines early in the book are used in all

areas where the anointed feel government intervention is needed. Not only is this outline used to

shape public policy, but it also is used to manipulate the ideas and laws of government. Because

the anointed challenge or reinterpret rules in the context of the day rather than when they were

written, they are able to influence precedent, change laws, and influence the way the government

acts towards certain people groups.

This pattern has four stages: the crisis, the solution, the results, and the response

[ CITATION Tho95 \l 1033 ]. Each stage is simple to follow and is constantly used by the

anointed. In the first stage—the crisis—the anointed generally pick a social topic and claim that

unless the government intervenes, something terrible is going to happen that could easily have

been prevented with regulation. The next stage, the solution, is what the anointed say will fix the

“crisis” they claim is soon coming. This solution comes at a cost however, and for the most part,

that cost is individual liberty. The “solution” consists of some form of regulation done at the

national or local level of government. The third stage is the results. This area generally is one of

the most corrupt. Here the anointed will manipulate the numbers in order to make it look like
what they did is actually helping, or use the numbers to point out how bad the crisis would have

been if they had not intervened. The final stage is the response. Here, the anointed are

responding to criticism from those who disagree. The usual response here is that there were too

many factors, or the opposition was simplistic, or that the critics just do not understand. Because

of this response, those who are in opposition must prove that the policies enacted did no good, or

actually made things worse.

Correlation Does Not Mean Causation

One of the topics that is attacked by Sowell is how the anointed use statistics to their

advantage and make the data say what they want it to say. The anointed operate under the fallacy

that the numbers tell the truth, always. This is incorrect because it fails to reflect that the

numbers can be manipulated to say what the moderator wants to communicate.

Healthcare Reform

One of the most misused statistics is used by the National Center for Health Statistics.

According to their findings, prenatal care for minorities is lacking because there seems to be

more deaths of black babies as compared to white babies. At this moment, the anointed react

with an “Aha!” because they claim that the evidence of the numbers proves the point that

minorities are not getting enough prenatal care. Sowell states, “Had anyone been seriously

interested in testing an hypothesis, the conclusion would have been that something other than

prenatal care must have been responsible for intergroup differences in infant mortality” (Sowell,

The Vision of the Anointed, 1995,p. 38). This is just the tip of the iceberg on the topic of

misused statistics in health care. In recent months, an overhaul has happened of the American

health system, which used the World Health Organization as a reference for problems of the

system. The “crisis” formula outlined by Sowell can be seen in this recent debate.
 The Crisis: According to the World Health Organization (WHO) the United States ranks

37th in overall performance (World Health Organization, 2000). When looking at this statistic it

would seem that the health care provided by the United States is poor, and many other countries

provide better service. In these other countries, most of the people have health insurance and the

United States has thirty million people who are not covered. This is declared to be a crisis. Not

only are there not enough people covered, the industry is wasting money and insurance

companies are driving up costs. For example, “185 publicly-funded interventions in the United

States cost about $21.4 billion per year” (World Health Organization, 2000, p. 52).

The Solution: By using the statistics provided, which are commonly cited by many

Democrats wanting health reform, it is easy to infer that those countries with socialized medicine

are easily outperforming the United States. Because of the rising cost and inefficiency of the

health industry, many conclude that the federal government must provide a solution through

legislation that will cut cost and insure more people. H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872 were passed into

law to correct this problem. For this particular issue, the last two steps—results and response—

are unable to be described because the legislation has not yet taken effect.

What is not usually reported is the fact that there is more to the numbers than is cited.

There are numerous different rankings and categories, and since the statistics were taken at

random, a margin of error must be included. “U.S. rank could range anywhere from 7 to 24. By

comparison, France could range from 3 to 11 and Canada from 4 to 14” (Whitman, 2008, p. 4).

By taking this into account, it cannot be said that the United States ranks worse than Canada or

France with much certainty. “The WHO rankings reflect implicit value judgments and lifestyle

preferences that differ among individuals and across countries” (Whitman, 2008, p. 8). The

WHO is not immune to the effects of worldview, which clearly influences the statistics.
 While there are undoubtedly ways in which the health care industry can be reformed to

be more productive and affordable, the government has taken the wrong approach to fixing these

problems. According to Healthy Competition by Michael Cannon and Michal Tanner,

An accurate diagnosis points to too much government influence and too little

choice and competition. Proposals to increase the role of government would

aggravate these symptoms. More subsidies or controls would drain from the

medical marketplace even more of the dynamics that drive other sectors of the

economy toward lower prices and higher quality. The only sure remedy is to

restore those dynamics to the health care sector (Cannon, 2007, p. 149).

By getting the government out of the insurance business and medical industry, competition can

make the market thrive. Instead, the exact opposite has happened and is threatening the industry.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000

doctors in the next 15 years” due to the passing of government-controlled health insurance

[ CITATION Suz10 \l 1033 ].

The Crusades of the Anointed

The formula of the anointed is being used daily. Every time an event happens, whether it

is tragic or not, legislation seems to be proposed the next day. Regardless of rules that may

already be in place by organizations or businesses, when something goes wrong the federal

government tends to try and get involved by passing legislation.

Texting While Driving

In Boston, Massachusetts, a trolley ran into another car because the driver was texting

his girlfriend. After only a few days, legislation passed banning metro drivers from texting while

operating not just trains, but any vehicle [ CITATION Dav09 \l 1033 ]. What was not commonly
reported is that the MBTA had already banned texting while operating their vehicles. With the

already instated rule, which was ignored by the trolley driver, do those in the Massachusetts

legislative body believe that passing a ban will prevent people from texting while operating a

vehicle? Legislation is being passed in numerous states to ban the use of cell phones and

encouraging drivers to use hands free devices. Throughout the news, this issue seems to be

contained within the respective states that have passed their own legislation, but what goes

unnoticed is that Washington has been trying to get involved with this issue as well. A number of

bills have been introduced that “prohibits the use of a personal wireless communications device

by a driver for texting while driving” and “prohibits a driver from holding a personal wireless

communications device to conduct a telephone call while driving” (Engel, 2009, p. 3). Since

people have been injured and even killed, this is a “crisis” and the obvious solution is legislation.

What many legislators and the anointed fail to see is that cell phones with talk and text

capabilities have been around since 1992 (WirelessDevNet.com, 2007), so why introduce such

legislation? During the early years of these capabilities’ existence, they were not popular; yet for

the past ten years the texting application has exploded. But while this phenomenon has certainly

taken hold across American, texting-related accidents are very rare and texting while working

already been banned for transportation employees. When legislative action takes place, police

officers are exercising force upon the people and are taking away their freedoms under the

banner of safety.

Bailouts

The market crash that occurred in 2007 has been a stepping-stone for the anointed. With

the recent collapse of the credit, housing, and automotive industry, the anointed have stepped

right in to try and save the day. Under the philosophy of the anointed, coupled with progressive
philosophy of involved government, the wellbeing of the people needs to be protected. The same

formula is used for the justification of federal intrusion into the private sector.

Crisis: After the failure of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, and Merrill Lynch, the

American economy is shedding jobs and must be rescued. People are losing their homes, jobs,

and life savings because of greedy business and deregulation. The instability of the market could

cause disastrous economic effects that could rival that of the Great Depression.

Solution: In order to help save the American people from suffering this financial

downturn, a series of bailouts are needed to preserve the American way of life. Also, new

regulations must be put into place to regulate these agencies to prevent this type of crisis from

happening again. Financial overhaul is necessary and an infusion of money into the market will

make the economy rebound back to its former operating level.

Results: Since the passage of the two bailout acts, the economy has now reached the

levels it was at in 2008, showing that recovery is here and the economy is again stabilizing. Jobs

are being lost at a much lower rate and people are returning to work, with the assistance of many

government programs that provide money to the states for needed projects.

Response: The results of legislation being passed and government infusion of money has

created a more stable and recovering environment. By spending more money, the economy has

been stimulated to create more jobs and opportunities. Legislation has fixed the financial

industry by not letting it get out of control as it did before this crisis and heavy regulation and

accountability has saved the economy.

All of this sounds good, but none of it is true except the fact that the Dow Jones has

reached its former levels and jobs are not being lost as quickly as they were before. According to

the Cato Institute, “The actual causes of our financial troubles were unusual monetary policy
moves and novel federal regulatory interventions” (White, 2008, p. 2). First of all, the

presuppositions behind this crusade are all wrong; the government does not have any business

helping bail out banks such as AIG or automakers such as GM or Chrysler. These are private

entities that are being saved by the taxpayers who have no say in the decision. The banks and

GM were publically traded companies, but Chrysler is not even a public company. Aside from

the Constitutional issue, did the greedy corporation really create the entire mess? Did the federal

government have nothing to do with the demise of these markets? The financial burst began with

mortgages which were guaranteed by the federal government through their semi-controlled

companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These agencies were approving mortgages that would

normally be considered risky, but due to slashes in interest rates from Alan Greenspan, banks

were able to access more and more money, making them more lenient on lending the money out.

The interest rates set by the Federal Reserve were so low that they actually dipped below the rate

of inflation, meaning that when they were being paid back, the banks were actually losing money

[ CITATION Law08 \l 1033 ].

Aside from the fact that the government has helped cause the problem of the financial

crisis, it does not have the authority to interfere with the dealings of these companies. In the

Constitution of the United States, there is nowhere that the government is delegated authority to

take over or prevent companies from losing profits. Also, with the infusion of money, the

government now has the ability to influence the way business is to be done. This will lead to

even more government involvement in private American lives, which is precisely what the

Constitution was designed to prevent.

Disorder in the Court

 The vision of the anointed has been making headway in the justice system, where the rule

of law has begun to change and involves every citizen who falls under the law’s jurisdiction.

This hot topic, which has been subject for much debate, is more commonly known as judicial

activism. Judicial activism, as Sowell explains, is “the general process of stretching and twisting

the written law—and especially the Constitution—to reach results desired by judges” (Sowell,

The Vision of the Anointed, 1995, p. 160). This has become a growing problem within the

United States and the effects of such results have radically changed the way judges interpret the

laws. Since the early 1900s, judges have strayed from the traditional belief that the Constitution

is “dead,” or that it means exactly what it says. Judges began interpreting the Constitution more

liberally during the early 1900s; however, the final nail in the coffin was put in place in 1936

when the Supreme Court submitted to the New Deal legislation[ CITATION Ric06 \l 1033 ].

Interpreting the Constitution comes with a degree of difficulty; Sir William Blackstone

laid out steps that were to be followed when interpreting historical documents. The steps to

interpretation are: understanding the intention of words used, understanding context, determining

what was in the eye of the legislator who wrote it, and lastly discover the true meaning of the law

[ CITATION Tho89 \l 1033 ]. By straying from these steps, the Supreme Court has issued a

number of rulings which do not coincide with the original intention of the law. One of the most

commonly misunderstood sections of the Constitution is the General Welfare Clause.

Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution states, “The Congress shall have

power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excise, to pay the debts and provide for the

common defece and general welfare of the United States” (The Constitution of the United States,

2006, p. 23). One of the most commonly cited cases about the General Welfare clause is United

States v Butler, yet this case does not actually hold much meaning because it adopted a position
of “dictum,” meaning it was a non-binding decision and could not be used when discussing this

issue after the case was over. The real case that had legal binding influence was the Helvering v

Davis [ CITATION Lev08 \l 1033 ]. In this case, the dispute over social security was addressed

and attempted to determine whether it fit with the General Welfare Clause. With this ruling, the

court had come away from the interpretation set forth by James Madison and adopted the

philosophy of Alexander Hamilton. They had interpreted that the section of the Constitution

giving the government power “to lay and collect taxes” was associated with the power to provide

for the general welfare [ CITATION Lev08 \l 1033 ].

Growing in the conservative movement is the process of using judicial restraint, which is

defined as interpreting the laws in their original context [ CITATION Tho95 \l 1033 ]. By

returning to the source of the law, it is easier to understand the true purpose for the law’s

creation. By no longer appointing activist judges, the laws can be reinterpreted to fit their

original meaning and greatly reduce the size of the federal government. The “Old Court” style,

which interprets the Constitution as James Madison understood it, is necessary for the

preservation of individual liberties.

Due to the reinterpretation of the law, coupled with the vision of the anointed and the

practice of judicial activism, the U.S. Code has grown to a massive collection consisting of

56,009 single spaced pages in 47 volumes, occupying 9 feet of shelf space (Robertson, 2008).

The document of the Constitution itself is very short, and the authority given to Congress only

consists of eighteen powers, the rest of which were to be reserved for the states.

Renewed Hope for Liberty

By following down the path of progressivism, the federal government continues to grow

and intrude on the American people. In recent weeks, Tea Party movements have reacted to
passing health care and increased taxation. The Doctrine of Nullification is commonly cited,

which gives power to the states to ignore a national law. Many states have filed suit against the

government, citing that it is unconstitutional to pass such legislation. It seems that what is lost is

that the national government was established by the states and not the other way around. It was

generally understood that “It must be apparent to everyone, that the federal government springs

out of, and can alone be brought into existence by, the state governments” (Madison & Elliot,

1787, p. 37). This problem of governing authority intruding into the lives of the everyday

American is not just the fault of those in power. The people must take responsibility for what

they have contributed to. By asking the national government, particularly the President, to

become involved with the affairs of everyone, a monster has been created. With this office

comes the responsibility to protect all the people from any harm. Gene Healy states, “How did

we get here after all…We demand a government that will solve all our problems but will have

the decency to leave us alone. We want a president who knows his place, but we also long for a

leader whom can transform a crisis into opportunity” (Healy, 2008 ,p. 268).

In order to transform the government and return to its historical roots, first the people

must change. By not allowing government officials to abuse power and grab powers they are not

granted, the United States government can return to its first principles and achieve its true

greatness and true intentions.

Annotated Bibliography

WirelessDevNet.com (2007, December 5). Airwide Solutions Says Happy 15th Birthday to

SMS. Retrieved April 13, 2010 from http://www.wirelessdevnet.com/news/2007/dec/05/

news5.html.
 This article discusses the history of text messaging from its inception to the
advances that have been made in recent years.

Engel, E. (2009). H.R. 3994. Washington: GPO.

This house bill outlines potential legislation to make distractions while driving
illegal. Activities such as talking on a cell phone without a hands free
device and texting while driving

Epstein, R. (2006). How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

Richard Epstein documents in his short book, which is an extension of a lecture

he presents, the history of the progressive takeover of politics. Here he
describes that the Constitution has been hijacked from its original intent to
fit the progressive model of thinking

Gardner, D. (2009, May 11). Texting Blames in Boston Trolley Crash. Information Week .

This article contains the information relating to the crash in Boston MA.
involving a man texting his girlfriend while driving a trolley and an
automobile.

Healy, G. (2008). The Cult of the Presidency. Washington: Cato Institute.

The Cult of the Presidency goes over the history of how the office of the President
has become a greater power and honor than it was intended. By carefully
examining the history of the presidency and those who were in
power, Healy attacks those who side with the activist presidents and backs those
who are unknown for keeping the law set by the Constitution.

Levy, R. A., & Mellor, W. (2008). The Dirty Dozen. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.

Levy and Mellor go through and point out the top twelve court cases that have
destroyed the Constitution. For each case they tackle the Constitution
issue, the facts and the end results. They also give a slight commentary on
their opinion of the Supreme Court rulings.

Madison, J., & Elliot, J. (1787). The Debates in the Several State conventions on the adoption of

the Federal Constitution. New York: Bibliolife.

In the debates of the several states, the people present argue about what is
contained in the Constitution. From liberty, to the role of government, to
the amount of legislators, the people who make up the convention take note
on everything that is involved in the Constitution and debate it.
Marx, K. (1988). The Communist Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

The Communist Manifesto is the philosophical work of Karl Marx which outlines
the view of Communism. In it he outlines the downfalls of capitalism and
that Communism is the only true and just form of government.

Michael F. Cannon, M. D. (2007). Healthy Competition. Washington DC: Cato Instutite.

This publication by the Cato Institute confronts the view that business as usual is
a threat to the welfare of the people. This work outlines how and where
competition can improve, such as health care and tax policy.

Napolitano, A. P. (2006). The Constitution in Exile. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.

Judge Napolitano goes through a brief history of how the Constitution has been
taken over and misinterpreted. No longer is the federal government
concerned with the liberties of the people, but now the government finds it
has the power to do whatever it costs to help those who are in trouble at the
expense of others.

Paul Craig Robertson, L. M. (2008). The Tyranny of Good Intentions. New York: Three Rivers

Press.

The foundation of the American polity is seen clearly in the government of

England. Found in documents such as the English Bill of Rights and
Magna Carta is the very foundation to the American political order and system. It was
derived from the English governments that the people, no matter of what
status, were all accountable under the law and treated equally. By trying to
help those in need, this is generally lost because those who are of a higher
class enjoy more luxuries and are being treated unfairly.

Pestritto, R. J. (2005). Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Progressivism. Lanham:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Woodrow Wilson was a dangerous man when it came to his thoughts on the
American Constitution. He was at the heart of the progressive movement and
shaped policy for generations to come. With his views of historicism and
belief in a “living” constitution, the modern progressive philosophy was
born.

Sataline, S., & Wang, S. S. (2010, April 12). Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html
 The amount of doctors that will be practicing by 2015 will be totally inadequate
to account for all the patients seeking care. According to the article, a
shortage of 150,009 doctors will occur because the rates at which students are
graduating Medical School are much too low.

Sowell, T. (1989). Judicial Activism Reconsidered. Hoover Institution.

Judicial activism has been a growing concern throughout the decades because it
has led to increased judicial powers. It has been generally understood
that those who take a more activist perspective go along with a more broad
interpretation of the law. In order to prevent this further, the method used by Sr.
William Blackstone is outlined as to how a person can interpret the
true intention of the law.

Sowell, T. (1995). The Vision of the Anointed. New York: Basic Books.

Sowell outlines the philosophy of people who tend to think with a more liberal
thought. Through a certain formula, public policy has been changed
forever. Also, along with shaping policy, it has forever changed the
philosophy of government.

The Constitution of the United States. (2006). Washington: Cato Institute.

The Constitution is the law of the land for the United States of America and
outlines the authority given to the government that will have powers over
the entire nation.

White, L. H. (2008). How did we get into this financial mess. Washington: Cato Institute.

The financial crisis was determined by a number of factors, not just greedy
businessmen. If it was business only, these types of crisis would happen
very frequently, however the truth is that the crisis was caused by government
intrusion into the market, bad monetary policy and to much
federal oversight.

Whitman, G. (2008). WHO's Fooling Who? TheWorld Health Organization’s Problematic

Ranking of Health Care Systems. Washington: Cato Institute.

The report put out by the WHO does not exactly tell the entire truth of the health
care situation. The ranking of nations is severely warped due to the
favoritism of socialized medicine and differences in standards among different
nations.
World Health Organization (2000). World Health Organization Report 2000: Health Systems:

Improving Performance. Geneva: World Health Organization.

The WHO report consists of rankings of various nations across the world by their
amount of coverage, mortality rate and other factors. Along with the
rankings, considerations for improvements are given to try and help nations
cut spending and become more efficient.