DEMOCRATS: THE ANGRY CAVEWOMEN BLAMING THE CAVEMEN FOR EVERY DAMNED THING

 

In the grim theater of American politics the actors on the left and the right still perform their perennial roles with psychotic fervor, but one must observe a peculiar asymmetry -- to the conservative eye, the progressive left appears as a chorus of deranged, hysterical, unmoored from reality, and perpetually aggrieved mental patients as if afflicted by some collective malady that defies diagnosis. Yet this perception, far from being mere partisan sniping, reveals a deeper fracture in human cognition and temperament. Thomas Sowell, that venerable economist from Harlem's hardscrabble streets, who evolved from Marxist sympathies to conservative erudition, posits that our political battles stem not from mere policy disagreements but from fundamental "visions" of human nature—constrained and unconstrained. In his sadly invisible-to-the-Left’s master work A Conflict of Visions, he dissects the ideological origins of political strife with a philosopher's scalpel. According to Sowell these visions, like the ancient duality of yin and yang, or perhaps more aptly, the masculine and feminine archetypes that have shaped civilizations since hunter-gatherer days, explain why the left's utopian zeal so often strikes the right as lunatic folly.

Sowell's constrained vision maps more to conservative thought and acknowledges the ineradicable flaws of humanity. Men and women are selfish, imperfect creatures driven by base impulses that no social engineering can hope to eradicate. Society, therefore, must be governed by trade-offs, incentives, and time-tested institutions that channel these flaws toward productive ends. As Sowell elucidates, this view draws from thinkers like Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, who saw human potential as limited by inherent constraints—scarcity, knowledge deficits, and moral frailties. In contrast, the unconstrained vision, championed by the likes of William Godwin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, posits that human nature is malleable, perfectible through reason and will. Problems are not inevitable but solvable; evil arises not from man's essence but from flawed systems that can be dismantled and rebuilt. This optimism, Sowell argues, leads to a focus on articulated rationality and surrogate decision-makers—elites who presume to know better than the masses.

It is here that we may fruitfully overlay Sowell's framework with the primordial energies of gender, not as a crude biological determinism but as metaphorical archetypes that resonate through history. The constrained vision embodies a masculine ethos: stoic, pragmatic, attuned to the harsh realities of existence. Like the hunters of antiquity, who braved the wilderness to protect kith and kin, this vision accepts that nature is indifferent, predators lurk, and survival demands vigilance and rules. Floods, famines, or foes are not failures of guardianship but contingencies to be mitigated with fortitude. The unconstrained vision, conversely, evokes a feminine nurturing impulse: compassionate, inclusive, ever striving for harmony and equity. It is the maternal drive to shelter the vulnerable, to insist that no child—literal or metaphorical—be left behind, even if it disrupts the game at hand.

Recall those all-to-extinct days of street baseball, where a well-meaning mother might compel the inclusion of a younger sibling into the roster, ruining the competitive spirit for all. Fitness uber alis. This, in microcosm, captures the left's excesses: a nurturing zeal that morphs into coercive equity, as seen in diversity initiatives that prioritize representation over merit, or leniency toward criminals viewed not as moral agents but as victims of systemic ills. The unconstrained left dreams of a world purged of hardship, where discomfort signals injustice rather than life's inexorable trials. Thus, they advocate for policies that soften edges—universal basic income to erase toil, restorative justice to forgive transgressions—believing perfection attainable if only the vicious obstacles (read: conservatives) are removed.

This venerable feminine archetype, just as its masculine counterpart does in so obvious a manner, veers slyly and stealthily into pathology of a toxically empathic nurturing feminity, when unchecked, manifesting as a magical thinking that defies empirical bounds. Sowell notes how the unconstrained vision dismisses trade-offs; for instance, gun control advocates ignore the defensive utility of firearms, fixating on an idealized disarmament. In contemporary America, this extends to gender ideology, where progressives insist parents affirm a child's self-diagnosed gender dysphoria, even endorsing irreversible surgeries on minors. Dissenters—be they concerned mothers or conservative commentators—are branded abusers, excised from the fold through a kind of revolutionary online anonymous tribunal. The left's intolerance for internal deviation underscores Sowell's point: the unconstrained seek not compromise but conversion, viewing imperfection as betrayal.

The true venom of this divide emerges in the left's visceral hatred for the right whom they portray not as opponents but as existential villains. Through the unconstrained lens, conservatives are not merely wrong but wicked—obstructors of paradise, culpable for every societal woe. Witness the rhetoric surrounding climate change: progressives blame Republican denialism for hurricanes and heatwaves, suggesting that if we gave trillions of dollars to some anointed leftist politician it could could tame nature's fury, echoing the ancient matriarch's accusation that men's laxity invited disaster. This blame-shifting escalates to demonization; conservatives are labeled fascists, racists, or threats to democracy, with media outlets amplifying narratives of right-wing extremism while downplaying leftist violence. Examples abound: Democratic figures decry Trump as a Hitler analogue, implying his supporters are complicit in authoritarianism, while pundits lament failed attempts on conservative lives with ghoulish regret. Such hyperbole, as Brookings analyses suggest, correlates with real-world violence, fueling attacks on political opponents under the guise of moral urgency.

This hatred is no aberration but a logical outgrowth of the unconstrained vision's perfectionism. If utopia is achievable, then those who resist—clinging to constrained realism—are not debating partners but saboteurs. Sowell traces this to a faith in human goodness: the left assumes malice only in structures, not individuals, yet paradoxically attributes malevolence to conservatives who defend those structures. Thus, Republicans become the "most vile people on earth," as evidenced in surveys where Democrats view right-wing extremism as America's gravest threat, far outpacing concerns over their own side's radicalism. The right, by contrast, critiques leftist policies as naive, not inherently evil—a masculine restraint that eschews personal vilification for systemic critique.

In hunter-gatherer epochs, this dynamic ensured balance: feminine demands for security pushed masculine innovation, while masculine pragmatism tempered feminine idealism. Today, however, the left's dominance in cultural institutions—academia, media, Hollywood—amplifies their unconstrained narrative, marginalizing the constrained voice as retrograde. Yet history favors Sowell's constrained wisdom: revolutions born of utopian fervor, from France to Russia, devolve into tyranny and mass murder when human nature asserts itself.

Ultimately, this conflict of visions is as eternal as the sexes it reflects. The left's "maniacal" lunacy, to the right, is but the unconstrained heart's cry for a flawless world; the right's "heartless" rigidity, to the left, is the constrained mindIn the now grubby theater of American politics the actors on the left and the right perform their perennial roles with psychotic fervor, but one must observe a peculiar asymmetry -- to the conservative eye, the progressive left appears as a chorus of deranged, hysterical, unmoored from reality, and perpetually aggrieved mental patients as if afflicted by some collective malady that defies diagnosis. Yet this perception, far from being mere partisan sniping, reveals a deeper fracture in human cognition and temperament. Thomas Sowell, that venerable economist from Harlem's hardscrabble streets, who evolved from Marxist sympathies to conservative erudition, posits that our political battles stem not from mere policy disagreements but from fundamental "visions" of human nature—constrained and unconstrained. In his sadly invisible-to-the-Left’s master work A Conflict of Visions, he dissects the ideological origins of political strife with a philosopher's scalpel. According to Sowell these visions, like the ancient duality of yin and yang, or perhaps more aptly, the masculine and feminine archetypes that have shaped civilizations since hunter-gatherer days, explain why the left's utopian zeal so often strikes the right as lunatic folly.

Sowell's constrained vision maps more to conservative thought and acknowledges the ineradicable flaws of humanity. Men and women are selfish, imperfect creatures driven by base impulses that no social engineering can hope to eradicate. Society, therefore, must be governed by trade-offs, incentives, and time-tested institutions that channel these flaws toward productive ends. As Sowell elucidates, this view draws from thinkers like Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, who saw human potential as limited by inherent constraints—scarcity, knowledge deficits, and moral frailties. In contrast, the unconstrained vision, championed by the likes of William Godwin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, posits that human nature is malleable, perfectible through reason and will. Problems are not inevitable but solvable; evil arises not from man's essence but from flawed systems that can be dismantled and rebuilt. This optimism, Sowell argues, leads to a focus on articulated rationality and surrogate decision-makers—elites who presume to know better than the masses.

It is here that we may fruitfully overlay Sowell's framework with the primordial energies of gender, not as a crude biological determinism but as metaphorical archetypes that resonate through history. The constrained vision embodies a masculine ethos: stoic, pragmatic, attuned to the harsh realities of existence. Like the hunters of antiquity, who braved the wilderness to protect kith and kin, this vision accepts that nature is indifferent, predators lurk, and survival demands vigilance and rules. Floods, famines, or foes are not failures of guardianship but contingencies to be mitigated with fortitude. The unconstrained vision, conversely, evokes a feminine nurturing impulse: compassionate, inclusive, ever striving for harmony and equity. It is the maternal drive to shelter the vulnerable, to insist that no child—literal or metaphorical—be left behind, even if it disrupts the game at hand.

Recall those all-to-extinct days of street baseball, where a well-meaning mother might compel the inclusion of a younger sibling into the roster, ruining the competitive spirit for all. Fitness uber alis. This, in microcosm, captures the left's excesses: a nurturing zeal that morphs into coercive equity, as seen in diversity initiatives that prioritize representation over merit, or leniency toward criminals viewed not as moral agents but as victims of systemic ills. The unconstrained left dreams of a world purged of hardship, where discomfort signals injustice rather than life's inexorable trials. Thus, they advocate for policies that soften edges—universal basic income to erase toil, restorative justice to forgive transgressions—believing perfection attainable if only the vicious obstacles (read: conservatives) are removed.

This venerable feminine archetype, just as its masculine counterpart does in so obvious a manner, veers slyly and stealthily into pathology of a toxically empathic nurturing feminity, when unchecked, manifesting as a magical thinking that defies empirical bounds. Sowell notes how the unconstrained vision dismisses trade-offs; for instance, gun control advocates ignore the defensive utility of firearms, fixating on an idealized disarmament. In contemporary America, this extends to gender ideology, where progressives insist parents affirm a child's self-diagnosed gender dysphoria, even endorsing irreversible surgeries on minors. Dissenters—be they concerned mothers or conservative commentators—are branded abusers, excised from the fold through a kind of revolutionary online anonymous tribunal. The left's intolerance for internal deviation underscores Sowell's point: the unconstrained seek not compromise but conversion, viewing imperfection as betrayal.

The true venom of this divide emerges in the left's visceral hatred for the right whom they portray not as opponents but as existential villains. Through the unconstrained lens, conservatives are not merely wrong but wicked—obstructors of paradise, culpable for every societal woe. Witness the rhetoric surrounding climate change: progressives blame Republican denialism for hurricanes and heatwaves, suggesting that if we gave trillions of dollars to some anointed leftist politician it could could tame nature's fury, echoing the ancient matriarch's accusation that men's laxity invited disaster. This blame-shifting escalates to demonization; conservatives are labeled fascists, racists, or threats to democracy, with media outlets amplifying narratives of right-wing extremism while downplaying leftist violence. Examples abound: Democratic figures decry Trump as a Hitler analogue, implying his supporters are complicit in authoritarianism, while pundits lament failed attempts on conservative lives with ghoulish regret. Such hyperbole, as Brookings analyses suggest, correlates with real-world violence, fueling attacks on political opponents under the guise of moral urgency.

This hatred is no aberration but a logical outgrowth of the unconstrained vision's perfectionism. If utopia is achievable, then those who resist—clinging to constrained realism—are not debating partners but saboteurs. Sowell traces this to a faith in human goodness: the left assumes malice only in structures, not individuals, yet paradoxically attributes malevolence to conservatives who defend those structures. Thus, Republicans become the "most vile people on earth," as evidenced in surveys where Democrats view right-wing extremism as America's gravest threat, far outpacing concerns over their own side's radicalism. The right, by contrast, critiques leftist policies as naive, not inherently evil—a masculine restraint that eschews personal vilification for systemic critique.

In hunter-gatherer epochs, this dynamic ensured balance: feminine demands for security pushed masculine innovation, while masculine pragmatism tempered feminine idealism. Today, however, the left's dominance in cultural institutions—academia, media, Hollywood—amplifies their unconstrained narrative, marginalizing the constrained voice as retrograde. Yet history favors Sowell's constrained wisdom: revolutions born of utopian fervor, from France to Russia, devolve into tyranny and mass murder when human nature asserts itself.

Ultimately, this conflict of visions is as eternal as the sexes it reflects. The left's "maniacal" lunacy, to the right, is but the unconstrained heart's cry for a flawless world; the right's "heartless" rigidity, to the left, is the constrained mind's sober realism. Reconciliation eludes us, for as Sowell implies, these visions are intuitive, not rational—rooted in temperament, not argument. In an age of polarized rhetoric, where the left's hatred risks inciting the very chaos they decry, perhaps the wisest course is Buckley's old dictum: to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!"—lest the unconstrained dream consume all.

Can we stop….

's sober realism. Reconciliation eludes us, for as Sowell implies, these visions are intuitive, not rational—rooted in temperament, not argument. In an age of polarized rhetoric, where the left's hatred risks inciting the very chaos they decry, perhaps the wisest course is Buckley's old dictum: to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!"—lest the unconstrained dream consume all.

Can we stop….