Why liberals and conservatives talk past each other

A Basic Conflict of Visions

Glenn Reynolds recommends sending New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman a link to this dynamite video by Bill Whittle. The video starts out with a discussion of A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.

Maybe by thinking about the video and doing some related reading, we will better understand the basic differences in world view which often cause liberals and conservatives to talk past each other.

Case Study: Thomas Friedman

Well, do I think I'd be able to "connect" with Thomas Friedman if I really understood his underlying "vision"? ? ? There's some fascinating information at the links below:

The reason that Glen Reynolds recommends the video above to Thomas Friedman is that the latter has just written a piece extolling the advantages of an enlightened autocracy. The current regime in China in particular.

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

Some conservatives and libertarians are alarmed. Uncle Jimbo fisks Friedman's piece.

Others think that the piece confirms the soft, benevolent "despotic impulse" lurking in current climate change and health care legislation. Jonah Goldberg:

I cannot begin to tell you how this is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s. . . . This is the argument for an "economic dictatorship" pushed by Stuart Chase and the New Dealers. It's the dream of Herbert Croly and a great many of the Progressives.

I have no idea why I still have the capacity to be shocked by such things. A few years ago, during the worst part of the Iraq war, I wrote a column saying that Iraq needed a Pinochet type to bring order to Iraq and help develop democratic and liberal institutions. To this day, I get vicious hate mail from liberal and leftist readers for my "pro-dictator" stance. Meanwhile, Thomas Friedman, golden boy of the NYT op-ed page, is writing love-letters to dictatorships because they have the foresight to invest in electric batteries and waterless toilets or something. It looks like there's reason to hope I was wrong about Iraq (I certainly hope I was). But at least I favored a dictatorship of sorts — for another country! — because I thought it would lead to a liberal democracy. Here, Friedman lives in a liberal democracy but has his nose pressed up against the candy store window of a cruel, undemocratic, regime and all he can do is drool over the prospect of having the same power here. . .

Also, read Goldberg's update from a friend concerning India.

To tell the truth, I haven't really had the heart to look around to see if there are liberal voices out there congratulating Friedman for stating what is obvious to them, too. So far, I have not developed a desire to modify my views in order to compromise with anyone who agrees with Friedman about the advantages of an enlightened autocracy over a constitutional democracy (or republic). Though I can at least accept the idea that they have good intentions.

To repeat Andrew Klavan: "Free people can treat each other justly, but they can't make life fair. To get rid of the unfairness among individuals, you have to exercise power over them. The more fairness you want, the more power you need. Thus, all dreams of fairness become dreams of tyranny in the end."

Update: The King of Parody finds Mr. Friedman's first draft.