What's Happened to Thomas Sowell?

DIGG THIS

Let’s get this out in the open from the start: I in no way deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Thomas Sowell. He’s an economist; I am not. He’s written dozens of books and hundreds more articles and essays; I’ve written a cookbook and consider myself lucky whenever my writing runs in a national online or print publication. In no uncertain terms, whether we’re talking politics or academia, Dr. Sowell plays master to my pupil, and this would be no less true even if I didn’t have a history of virtually adoring the man.

So it seems rather questionable for someone like me to criticize a man like Dr. Sowell. As a libertarian-conservative, he is unquestionably one of the foremost free market economists of the past few decades and someone from whom I’ve learned much in the way of economics and political ideology. However, his recent article in the online counterpart of National Review simply leaves me shaking my head in disbelief that such an astute political observer would claim that none of the presidential candidates in either major party looks “truly inspiring” as yet.

Such a comment would certainly make sense were Ron Paul not running for president, but it’s hard for me to understand how someone like Sowell – who as a syndicated columnist has made a career of championing limited government, personal liberty, and low taxes – could not only fail to find inspiration in Paul’s revolutionary candidacy but, unbelievably, also fail even to mention it in his latest op-ed.

Clearly no candidate is entitled to his or her support, and I suppose the Ph.D. may oppose the M.D. for any number of reasons, political or personal. I just can’t seem to figure out what they might be. Sure, Drs. Sowell and Paul differ when it comes to the Iraq war. But unless Sowell is so ardently in favor of the indiscriminate killing that’s taken place at the hands of the U.S. government for no good reason during the past four-plus years, I can’t believe the many issues on which both men theoretically agree (constitutional originalism, partial birth abortion, the minimum wage, socialized health care, affirmative action) wouldn’t be more than enough to win Sowell’s admiration, much less acknowledgment.

If Sowell were writing this piece exclusively for the neocons at NRO, most of whom despise the anti-establishment Paul, I could understand his couching the article within the limits of the magazine’s editorial views. After all, this is a practice with which many libertarians are undoubtedly (and, yes, unfortunately) familiar. Given that most newspapers across the country fall into either the liberal or conservative editorial camps – most libertarian writers possess political views that are considered at least somewhat more “radical” than the platforms of both – we libertarians understand that sticking to the issues with which editors agree and getting published is often much more productive than expressing contrary opinions and getting canned. In short, libertarian ideas are better advanced through sound bites if the alternative is complete silence.

But, realistically, this can’t be the case here. Not only has NRO columnist John Derbyshire already endorsed Ron Paul on his employer’s pages, but Dr. Sowell pens his views in his syndicated column, which runs in major newspapers throughout the country; NRO merely picks his up. In fact, NRO editor Jonah Goldberg has written, if not altogether favorably, not unfavorably, of Ron Paul in his own syndicated column, implicitly recognizing that all this chatter about Dr. Paul has to be coming from somewhere. Even if it could be argued that Sowell secretly supports Ron Paul but refrained from writing approvingly of him for fear of alienating his neoconservative readers, one would imagine he simply would have refrained from writing such a depressing piece entirely.

Instead, what we get is a (dare I say?) banal, almost amateurish attempt at analysis from an exquisitely intelligent academic and writer from whom this reader has been conditioned over the years to expect much, much more. Yes, Dr. Sowell is correct to note that Mitt Romney “looks presidential” and that Mike Huckabee should be disqualified (in theory, anyhow) for making religion an issue and breaking campaign pledges as governor or Arkansas. But what of his assertion that Fred Thompson “seems to have the best policy positions and the best political track record among the Republican candidates”? This from an economist who has traditionally considered himself more libertarian than conservative? From someone who could, if nothing else, have his assistants pull Ron Paul’s congressional track record rather easily?

Dr. Sowell closes his column by wondering why anyone would take the candidates in both parties seriously at a time when our country allegedly faces “huge dangers” from terrorists and nuclear weapons. To a significant extent, he’s right about the candidates, save the one he neglects to mention.

Which leads me to wonder: How is one man so personally responsible for convincing me of the libertarian ideals that have led me to support Ron Paul's candidacy so incapable of seeing the virtues of this candidate with his very own eyes?

December 28, 2007