Last time, I discussed the basics of the simplistic yet fundamental visions that drive American political, sociological and economic debate, Namely, the "constrained" and the "unconstrained" visions. I compared the two visions with the cinematic representations of "The Matrix" and how they coincide. The constrained (also conservative, laissez faire capitalism, tragic) view holds that the world and mankind is limited, flawed, and driven by self-interest. The unconstrained (also liberal, socialistic, moral) vision sees man as unlimited in potential and capable of perfection and Utopian society if directed by properly educated and egalitarian elite. It is these two diametrically opposed belief systems that have fueled conflicts between political parties and nations for centuries. They have caused revolutions, world wars and societal rifts and torn nations asunder. They remain, today, the engines that drive philosophical and political debate today.

While there are few people, political parties or ideologies that are completely one or the other vision, there are distinct "leanings" to be discerned as helpful "pigeon-holing." Communism, at least as constructed by Marx, was an unusual hybrid of the two visions. It viewed the past as constrained - bound by traditions and "wrong-mindedness" - but envisioned the future, under communism, as progressively unconstrained. "From each, according to his abilities; to each, according to his need" was the Utopia according to Marx. National Socialism, the fascism as constructed by Hitler, is loosely attached to both the constrained and the unconstrained doctrine, usually by the opponents of whichever view is attacked as "Fascist." But, no less an expert than F.A. Hayek has written that the fasicts doctrine was actually inspired by existing socialist doctrine (Hitler had read Marx) in concept and execution. As so often occurs (and recurs) in history, social and political planning - however grandly articulated and zealously prosecuted - seldom fulfills its promise to the citizenry. Clearly, communism and National Socialism are tragic examples of social planning gone terribly awry.

Viewpoints of the contemporary "left" (liberal) and "right" (conservative), likewise, do not clearly fall into lockstep in all aspects with the two visions we are examining. However, one does get the sense that current conservative and liberal thinkers give faint images of the constrained and unconstrained visions, respectively. But all currently viable political doctrines are not neatly categorized. For instance, one would think libertarianism would fit best in the constrained view but, on closer examination, it clearly does not. Since "constrained," as we are referring to the term, means "rule of law" and imposed governmental restraint on the passions of atomistic man, libertarians would fall, in toto, under neither vision.

We can, despite the annoyance of the occasional incongruence, posit with some certainty that democracy, at least as originally constructed by the Founding Fathers, was based on a firmly constrained bedrock. We know this from the writings of Madison, Adams, Hamilton which identify and acknowledge the ideological wisdom of Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and others. The view they held of the "masses" (Adams, in particular, was contemptuous and even fearful of "mob rule" )(1) and the need for constraints guided the adoption of the Constitution - with a Bills of Rights in tow. The nascent American Republic, with its intricate system of checks and balances rigorously designed to offset the "natural tendencies of man toward self-interest," has survived now longer than any other such government.

We saw (in Part One) how the constrained vision of the American Revolution succeeded as the unconstrained vision of the French Revolution ultimately failed. Over the past centuries, our country's political and judicial leaders have drifted (not unlike a drunken driver which, come to think of it, is a fitting metaphor) from one side of the ideological highway to the other but, in general, have instituted progressively more unconstrained policies as our national government has constantly sought to improve the state of man. We have had Roosevelt and Kennedy and Johnson (unconstrained) but also Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush (constrained) Sometimes, these swerves have been for the absolute good of the people; others have brought about significant deterioration in our societal fabric.

Historically, and as a singular event, The Civil War brought the hypocrisy of "all men are created equal" - our great national shame - to an end. However, it was full century - enduring Jim Crow Laws along the way - later that Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ended the "separate but equal" fallacy with the finality of Earl Warren’s gavel. As we dealt with the "all deliberate speed" codicil of Brown II, a decade later, the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Acts (1965) jump-started the social machinery that has been "leveling the playing fields" of America ever since. These were, clearly, rightful and fundamental acts of the "unconstrained" vision that bore an excellent harvest. They righted long-standing wrongs and, in implementation - unlike some trials at social design to follow - had few unforeseen societal negatives.

Benefits of Change...

Change, even in the constrained vision is not, in and of itself, to be disavowed. Edmund Burke, indeed, said in his Reflections on the Revolutions in France: "A state without the means of some change is without means of its conservation" [emphasis mine] But he also wrote in that same work, paraphrasing now, that the social order should be changed as if one is tending to the wounds of one's father. The wounds are not to be ignored nor are they to be treated with haste or experimentation. In the complete passage, Smith wrote:

"To avoid therefore the evils of inconstancy and versatility, ten thousand times worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice, we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion; that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country, who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces, and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds, and wild incantations, they may regenerate the paternal constitution, and renovate their father's life."

Before we start examining the wisdom (or lack thereof) of social engineering, a quick comparison of the visions under review may be helpful. Thanks to Dr. Sowell, we are able to compare the dichotomy in tabular format. I have taken the liberty to add or revise some of the terms used in the original table but the meanings and separation should remain obvious.

Adapted from "The Vision of the Anointed." 1995

As easily seen, these philosophies are quite at loggerheads. One issue for which major contentions occur is the dichotomy of the definition of justice. While the constrained vision depicts true justice as being equal, predictable rules which apply to all participants. The same opportunities are available to all and the outcome of the competition - in whatever endeavor - is irrelevant. If everyone follows the same rules and the competition is, thus fair - the winner is of no concern. If the same person wins the race 8 out of 10 times, as long as the race is run fairly, there is no reason, in the constrained view, to be concerned with this "competitive inequality" as it is "fair."

In the unconstrained perception, this is not social justice. The unconstrained proponents seek "equal results" as the goal for true justice as it is for true equality. In the words of one preeminent "unconstrained" President, Lyndon Johnson:

"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates." (Howard University Commencement Address, June 4, 1965)

Thus, the race must be "more than fair." It must equivocated to produce results that are not based on performance. This, obviously, becomes a "cultural disconnect" for the whole of American society. This is a society that has, from the start, placed a high premium on personal betterment through merit. But, in the unconstrained vision, hard work and sacrifice for personal success is to be placed below "fairness," as they define the term. No longer are we to follow the tried and true adages of our youth: "You can't keep a good man down." "Cream always rises to the top." "Water always seeks its own level."" These are only of secondary concern. It is the arbitrary imposition of "fairness" - however that word may be currently defined - that is preeminent in the unconstrained vision.

The same views of "social justice" - what is best for society, as a whole - also permeate the jurisprudence. From the Supreme Court, beginning in the 1950s and the Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren (2), the rules have been bent to better apply (again, in the vision of the unconstrained) how best to dispense criminal justice. We, as a nation, have taken a fatal leap from Adam Smith ("Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent") to the Miranda decision which was based on the Warren Court's search for fairness, equality and its vision of "justice." The Court ruled that since hardened, professional criminals had special knowledge of their Constitutional rights (the right to not self-incriminated, right to an attorney, etc.), to fail to inform the "novice" criminal of these rights would be "to take advantage of the poor, the ignorant, and the distracted." (3) As Sowell dryly and cynically notes: "Note that ‘taking advantage’ consists of a failure to provide a greater means of escaping punishment for crimes committed by criminals who fall below the state of the art in criminal evasion of the law." That particular Pandora's Box continues to release evils on the court's which continue to this day.

The opposing view was clearly voiced by one with a renowned constrained vision. Ronald Reagan said:

"I intend to go right on appointing highly qualified individuals of the highest personal integrity to the bench, individuals who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism." (Remarks during a White House Briefing for U.S. Attorneys)

The point, simply, is that when selectively followed, the unconstrained vision can make sense. The same Supreme Court that ruled on Miranda v. Arizona also handed down the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling a decade earlier. This negated the "separate but equal" Plessy v. Ferguson decision - clearly, a moral and right decision. It is particularly notable that, in this instance, it was the reversal of a bad decision (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) that dictated that the Court make a sociological change manifested by Brown v. Board of Education. The particulars of "Is it right? Is it good?" (the phrase made famous by Chief Justice Earl Warren) does not - in an of itself - justify advancing the cause of judicial activism from the standpoint of the constrained doctrines. But, when a previous decision was found to be flawed, certainly judicial righting-of-the-ship is justified.

In future columns, I will review several other societal interventions which have not been so uniquely positive and have, in fact, brought about some ripples that have clearly had less-than-positive outcomes. I will also examine other philosophical conflicts that are evident and equally important to defining the global dualism of these visions. In the next articles, we will examine selected economic and environmental interventions that highlight the conflicts that are inevitable with the constrained and unconstrained visions.

___________________________________________________________________