Letter: Sowell deals in facts, not prejudices

Steve McMurray’s recent letter (Jan. 24) to The Advocate demonstrates that Thomas Sowell gets under the skin of liberals in much the same way Paul Krugman irritates conservatives. But aside from throwing red meat to his fellow partisans, what value is McMurray’s criticism?

McMurray displays not only a cultivated aversion to facts, but disdain for them. Of Sowell he claims, “Even if his data are factual ... it doesn’t prove anything.”

Without facts, science is reduced to mere speculation. Facts can be verified; prejudices cannot, which is why science is an evolutionary enterprise that values facts over unsupported opinion.

McMurray nevertheless rejects facts as a legitimate basis for persuasive argument.

“It’s one thing to be partisan;” he says, “it’s another thing to be disconnected from reality.” But since facts have no place in his concept of reality, I wonder just what his “reality” consists of?

It is inadvisable to attribute motives to people unless you’re a psychologist. Presumably McMurray has no training in psychology, yet he does not hesitate to attribute motives to Sowell. But his attribution is specious. Why would Sowell strive to “fit in” with a political philosophy that is embraced by a tiny percentage of his race?

One could as easily argue that there are many more black people desperate to “fit in” with the far left.

For years, Sowell has been widely reviled as an “Uncle Tom” by his fellow African Americans, yet despite persistent and obviously hurtful scorn, he has the courage to speak his mind in public forums of all kinds, including the press. I find that courage admirable.

Thomas Sowell is a renowned scholar and author (12 books and numerous refereed journal articles).

He was trained in economics at the universities of Harvard, Columbia and Chicago. (Clearly, the first two institutions are not bastions of conservative thought).

He has experience as an economic analyst in industry and government, and has been affiliated with Stanford University for more than three decades.

His political commentary may irritate some people, but he is not a hack. He uncompromisingly bases his arguments on logic and facts, including historical experience. Of course, some people are not persuaded by facts unless they coincide with their prejudices.

Robert Hebert

economist

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by localgal - 02/02/2013

I love reading Thomas Sowell. His comments are void of the rabble-rousing name calling variety that is usually seen in newspaper columns. He does not denigrate his opponents. He just quietly refutes what is often flawed data and logic. THAT is what turns so many liberal columnists and letter-to-the-editor writers into hurlers of insults and emotional rants. Oh, I read all the others who have been mentioned, but none of them seems to have the calm rationality of Sowell. And another commenter put it very succinctly: Sowell breaks it down so people can understand it and relate to it. Otherwise, just mention economics and see the facial reaction of most to that word. Sowell is brilliant and despite attempts to rip his words apart, one finds his calm presentation very, very convincing and---unfortunately---true.

2) Comment by bourbon-soda - 02/02/2013

Relevance of Chu, in previous: Nobel Laureate.

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 02/02/2013

As a general thing, liberals claim to speak truth to power, but if it serves their ideology, capitulate to position and credentials. Neither a PhD nor a Nobel inoculates against stupidity or mendacity. Stephen Chu, Obama's Energy Dept. Secretary, seems to have been up to his ears in Solyndra. Other nobelistas have espoused foolishly, especially outside their fields. Before Nobel was an non-viable tissue mass, Sir Isaac Newton lost his shirt speculating on a bubble.

4) Comment by [e-mail] - 02/02/2013

If the quote “Even if his data are factual ... it doesn’t prove anything.” doesn't show exactly why one can't argue with liberals then nothing does. Great letter

5) Comment by Triple - 01/02/2013

Chem, An opinion yes, but to make it compelling as Mr. Hebert has, in his defense of Sowell, I'll side with him. Assuming the quote attributed to McMurray in the second paragraph is accurate, not much substance behind that opinion, in my opinion, then Hebert seals the victory three paragraphs later with, "facts have no place in his concept of reality". Hebert's argument that Sowell is conservative against all odds with a background in the black community, an alumni of left leaning institutions, is indeed testimony of his independence, also solid. Mark 1 for Hebert. You don't have to agree with Sowell's politics to acknowledge his accomplishments, many share the same admiration for Pres. Obama's accomplishments, but disagree with his politics. "It's hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions than to put those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong" Thomas Sowell. This type of thinking by Sowell is why I take the time to read his opinions. After all, if the only opinions we read agree with our own, what can we learn?

6) Comment by chem - 01/02/2013

So Hebert knocks McMurry for his opinions by asking "...what value is McMurry's criticism." Then Hebert presumes that McMurry is not psychologist. Well, Hebert, like anyone who writes a letter is just expressing his opinion. As are those that comment on this forum. Hebert's opinion is not worth any more than McMurry's.

7) Comment by InPVille - 01/02/2013

@ex-louisianian: "Sowell has an audience only because the Hoover Institute provides him one." -[**]- This comment makes no sense. I could see how someone might seek to argue that the Hoover Institute might provide people with a soap box. But in the same way people did or did not stand around and listen to the arguments at "Free Speech Alley" when I was an LSU student in the 60s, it doesn't mean that any one is automatically going to stand around and listen to what is said from the soap box. That publishers publish Dr. Sowell's books which have a sufficient audience of readers to warrant publishers agreeing to publish subsequent books by Dr. Sowell is the reason his books have an audience. The reason his columns have an audience are of the same stuff. That he has an audience is the reason he has book publishers and papers carry his columns.

8) Comment by crazycajun - 01/02/2013

Yeah jdk, u bet ur bottom buddy. LOL

9) Comment by potkcalb - 01/02/2013

Attila you are revealing your ignorance to the reading public by making sneering assumptions about my politics or my political philosophy. I try to avoid overworked terms like liberal and conservative because at best they are used as labels, at worst as hostile pejoratives. In general I find liberal rants as offensive as rigidly right wing ones because both are predictable and neither provide new information.

10) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/02/2013

Econ Journal Review is funded by Atlas Network (as in Atlas Shrugged) and is a libertarian group. Non partisan? Hardly. Peer reviewed? Hardly. Libertarian reviewed? maybe... and quoting "Newsbusters"? seriously? Conditions change and deficit spending may be necessary in some situations. To automatically assume that a TRUE economist changes his stance just because a Dem is in charge is ludicrous

11) Comment by agagent - 01/02/2013

Krugman is a liberal and his ideology is reflected in his economic writings. In spite of the failure of the federal stimulus his excuse is that it was not big enough. He opposes tax cuts in spite of all the evidence from JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush tax cuts which improved the economy, increased government revenues, and lower the deficit.

12) Comment by agagent - 01/02/2013

"Krugman has changed his tune in a significant way regarding the budget deficit when the White House has changed party," found Brett Barkley, an economics student at George Mason University. The study, published in Econ Journal Watch, a peer reviewed journal, examined statements from 17 economists from 1981 through 2009, and gauged the consistency of their stances on deficit spending and reduction during Republican and Democratic administrations. According to the study, Krugman was the only economist of the 17 to "significantly" change his stance on the federal budget deficit for partisan reasons."--News Busters

13) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/02/2013

jdk944, the Noble Prize in Economics is named in the memory of Alfred Nobel but is not awarded by the same committee that awards the Peace Prize. "The Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901." - http://www.nobelprize.org

14) Comment by jdk944 - 01/02/2013

Yea crazycajun - the same organization that gave Obama one - REALLY?

15) Comment by Attila - 01/02/2013

@potcalb: Your response is just what I would suspect from a left winger. We know what your opinion is of Mr. Sowell I wonder what it is of Dana Milbank, Froma Harrop, Jules Whitcover, Clarence Page, E J Dionne, etc? I'll bet that you soak up their writings like a sponge and believe it as gospel. Your comment that you do not read Sowell because of his partisanship speaks volumes as to your close mindedness.Of course we all know that none of the above mentioned liberals are partisan. I do not agree with most of what the liberal editorial writers produce, but I read it to keep up with the opposition...and for a good chuckle sometimes.,

16) Comment by Whatnow - 01/02/2013

Wonderful letter, Mr. Hebert. Thank you.

17) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/02/2013

agagent, which is it? Is Krugman hyper-partisan or not? Your two preceding post contradict themselves. And as usual, you make claims like "many of his fellow economists would say Krugman is the most partisan economist in the country" without stating which economists feel this way? Many? Is that 1 (including Sowell?)

18) Comment by ScotB - 01/02/2013

Thomas Sowell grew up in Harlem. He cares about what really works, backed up by data. He is a good man who provides insightful commentary on the issues of our day. Krugman is a brilliant man, but he has dove off into the theoretical so deep, he has lost track of reality. The other thing I like about Sowell is his ability to take a complex economic concept and frame it in terms an everyday person not trained in economics can understand.

19) Comment by crazycajun - 01/02/2013

Is that not the same Krugman that was awarded the Nobel for economics. Yeah you geniuses are on the same playing field with him. LOL

20) Comment by bourbon-soda - 01/02/2013

Truth depends on credentials. Who knew.

21) Comment by agagent - 01/02/2013

Krugman has the credentials but many of his fellow economists would say Krugman is the most partisan economist in the country. He supported deficit reduction when Republicans were in the white house and argued against deficit reduction when Clinton was in office and now that Obama is President.

22) Comment by agagent - 01/02/2013

Sometimes Obama should listen to Paul Krugman. Krugman argues against extending unemployment benefits, yet Obama used the fiscal cliff deal to extend them: “Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect.”--Paul Krugman

23) Comment by prbeav - 01/02/2013

I think Sowell is among the few modern patriots and am grateful to the Advocate for publishing his letters.>>>>Thank you, Mr. Hebert for your letter.

24) Comment by crazycajun - 01/02/2013

Meanwhile we have geniuses like being stupid,agagent, tea slayer passing judgement on someone with the credentials of Mr. Sowell. You know the ROADS scholars of the comment section. LOL

25) Comment by ex-louisianian - 01/02/2013

All economists are lickspittles for capitalists and apologists for the powerful, but some are more competent at their task than others. Krugman has obvious faults, above all, his parochial American politics, but in no sense should he be compared to a pi-sant like Sowell. Sowell has an audience only because the Hoover Institute provides him one. He is a kept boy in every sense.

26) Comment by Whatchange - 01/02/2013

Great letter.

27) Comment by agagent - 01/02/2013

If the Obama economic team knew what they were talking about we would not have had negative growth last quarter, unemployment would have never gone above 8%, we would be enjoying 5 or 6% unemployment now, and Obama would have created 5 million new green jobs.

28) Comment by Being_Stupid - 01/02/2013

Extreme Left are extreme racists. Democrat Party = Racist Party

29) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 01/02/2013

I'd put Paul Krugman's credentials against Sowell's any day of the week. I could care less what color his skin is, he is still a partisan hack.

30) Comment by lovemykids - 01/02/2013

Extreme right or extreme left both idiotic.

31) Comment by agagent - 01/02/2013

If you do not want to believe an economist like Dr. Sowell, just think about who liberals trust for their economic news: Axelrod, the journalist with only a rudimentary knowledge economics, and Plough (sic), whose background is political science. They focus group tested talking points that sound good without regard to facts. Most people want their news in 30-second sound bites, so the Obama team suited them. Most voters are not going read a detailed, fact-based article from an economist.

32) Comment by agagent - 01/02/2013

I remember a column written by Dr. Sowell explaining the root causes of the financial crisis. He said the ones most at fault in the crisis (the Democrats) gained a political advantage from the crisis in 2008 even though their policies led to the crisis. The media reacted to Obama like swooning school girls and never reported Dr. Sowell’s work. Instead most of the media repeat the dishonest, focus group tested Obama talking points. Obama voters went to the polls not even knowing that Democrats had controlled Congress and the balance of power in the federal government since January, 2007. Since Dr. Sowell’s comments did not support the liberal view point the media wrote him off as a reputable economist.

33) Comment by potkcalb - 01/02/2013

Not being an economist I can't judge Sowell on his profession , but his editorials are so partisan that I stopped reading them quite a while back.

34) Comment by Being_Stupid - 01/02/2013

The "Uncle Toms" are Jesse Jackson, Louis Faraklan, Gregory Meeks, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, and Charlie Rangel. Thomas Sowell is a modern day Fredrick Douglass.

35) Comment by Being_Stupid - 01/02/2013

Thomas Sowell is a student of Milton Friedman.

36) Comment by slye753 - 01/02/2013

Sowell is so intelligient and deals only in facts. even though he gets knocked around by the libs for saying it. liberals get their spin page everyday from their trainers. check it out. they all say the same thing on the given day.

37) Comment by gary - 01/02/2013

Robert, you being an economist - you should at least listed Paul Krugman's background in education and training - to do what he does. Your last sentence defines Mr. Sowell to a tee.

38) Comment by Chucky - 31/01/2013

Good letter Robert.