One of the concepts that has stuck with me from reading Thomas Sowell is the idea of the Constrained Vision versus the Unconstrained Vision. The constrained vision holds that humans are fallible and imperfect, and that this is not a fault of society but inherent in individuals. It also recognizes that scarcity is a fundamental feature of the world, and because of the limits of both the world and human nature, there are no permanent solutions to society’s problems — only tradeoffs. This means society will never be perfected, but it can be improved through various institutional arrangements.
The constrained vision manifests on both the left and the right. For example, some progressives advocate for a more generous welfare state but recognize the risks of over-taxation or creating dependency — that’s a constrained view. Others push for climate action while openly grappling with the economic tradeoffs involved.
The unconstrained vision is more utopian. It sees people as perfectible and holds that society and institutions are primarily to blame for what ails us. With the right arrangement of policies, we could eventually achieve something like heaven on earth. On the left, people might argue that poverty can be eliminated through government programs, educational reform, and taxing the wealthy, or that climate change can be solved without real tradeoffs. On the right, some conservatives believe illegal immigration can be solved without confronting economic tradeoffs; Christian nationalists believe imposing biblical law would create a godly nation; and some libertarians hold an unconstrained vision that free markets can solve all of society’s problems if only government would get out of the way.
As these examples show, the unconstrained vision can be found on both the left and the right. Whether it’s woke progressives or MAGA populists, the unconstrained vision can be seductive because it allows for simple rhetoric and appealing beliefs. We’re told we don’t need to make tradeoffs between economic growth and addressing climate change, or balance incentives when managing income redistribution and taxes.
By contrast, the constrained vision is more tragic because it accepts that we can’t permanently solve these problems — or at least, we can’t solve one problem without creating others or sacrificing something else. For instance, we might imagine that redistributing the wealth of billionaires would end poverty. But doing so would create other problems — economic, political, and social — which would, in turn, generate new challenges and tradeoffs.
The two-visions model isn’t perfect. Sometimes, the two seem to blend. For example, in the civil rights movement, there was often a rhetorical unconstrained vision, but the chief accomplishments came from working within the system to achieve the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This shows that the constrained vision can actually work to make improvements and expand rights for more people.
While the model has limits — as all models do, since it’s a simplification of reality — it provides a useful tool for analyzing political movements, rhetoric, and ideology. Through this framework, we can look under the hood to better understand those on the other side, perhaps seeing more common ground than we might have recognized, and also seeing how we might better negotiate political compromises.
Finally, as someone who sees politics through the lens of the constrained vision, it has kept me humble by reminding me that there are no permanent solutions, only tradeoffs — and almost anytime you hear someone claiming otherwise, they are probably trying to sell you a magic potion.
