Universal Principles of Liberalism and the Politics of Race

 

Thomas Sowell, the renowned economist, is often viewed unfavorably by certain groups within the self-identified Black community. Some critics label him an “Uncle Tom,” a term used to accuse Black individuals of betraying their own race. An anonymous social media user who regularly posts Sowell’s quotes on Facebook said this kind of criticism appears “every single day—multiple times a day.”

His critics rarely engage with his actual arguments. They seldom quote his writings, reference his books, or point out specific flaws in his reasoning. Instead, they simply call him an “Uncle Tom,” using the label as a substitute for meaningful discussion.

…

Sowell’s credentials are remarkable. He studied at Harvard and Columbia, earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, taught at prestigious universities such as Cornell and UCLA, and authored dozens of influential books. Throughout his career, he has argued that many of the policies supported by his critics have ultimately harmed the very communities those policies were intended to help.

Yet despite these accomplishments, he is often dismissed with a two-word insult—one that, according to his supporters, is meant to discredit him for holding independent views rather than engaging with his ideas.

One reason Thomas Sowell’s critics strongly disagree with him is his habit of comparing the experiences of Black Americans with those of people from other countries and cultures. Some believe these comparisons overlook the unique historical and social circumstances surrounding Black Americans, while Sowell argues that broader comparisons can reveal patterns that apply across societies.

A defining feature of Sowell’s work as an economist is his search for general principles rather than explanations limited to a single group or situation. He relies on cause-and-effect analysis to examine issues that affect people across different societies, aiming to understand how particular outcomes develop over time. In Markets and Minorities, he explains this approach by emphasizing the importance of identifying the underlying forces that shape social and economic conditions.

When applying the general principles of decision-making to specific social issues, we must recognize the unique features of each situation while remembering that human nature remains fundamentally the same across different settings. Whether people work in government, business, or education, they are motivated by many of the same incentives and constraints. We should not assume that public officials possess a different moral character from everyone else, nor view government as a special force that operates independently of the ordinary motivations and behaviors that influence all human beings.

Sowell argues that using broad, universal principles creates space for genuine discussion between people with different political or ideological views. Rather than framing every issue through racial identity or group loyalty, he believes debates should be grounded in evidence, logic, and cause-and-effect reasoning. In his view, without a shared framework for evaluating ideas, disagreements risk turning into little more than shouting matches—or, in the worst cases, open conflict.

This perspective runs throughout much of his writing. In Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, he compares affirmative action and similar policies across countries including India, Nigeria, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and the United States. Likewise, in The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective, he examines the experiences of groups such as overseas Chinese communities and European emigrants to identify recurring social and economic patterns.

According to Sowell, these cross-national comparisons reveal striking similarities. He argues that preferential policies often fail to achieve their intended goals and, in many cases, produce unintended consequences that outweigh their benefits. By drawing on evidence from multiple countries and populations, he contends that these conclusions reflect broader patterns rather than the experience of any single group.

Supporters view this comparative, evidence-based approach as one of Sowell’s greatest strengths, while many critics argue that it overlooks the distinct historical and social realities of Black Americans. The disagreement centers on whether lessons from other societies can be meaningfully applied to the American context. Similar debates surrounded Sowell’s friend and fellow economist, Walter E. Williams, who maintained that the principles of private property and voluntary exchange benefit Black Americans in the same fundamental way they benefit other groups.

When discussing slavery, Sowell acknowledges that the history of Black Americans is unique within the United States because slavery shaped their experience in ways unlike those of most other minority groups. At the same time, he emphasizes that slavery has existed in many forms across civilizations and continents throughout history. By placing American slavery within this broader historical context, he seeks to identify general lessons about human societies rather than treating it as an entirely isolated phenomenon.

Sowell also argues that some activists emphasize the uniqueness of their group's historical experiences and may resist comparisons with other groups. He believes that examining similar challenges across different societies can provide valuable insights into public policy and social outcomes. As an example, he recounts a conversation with a Māori social justice activist in New Zealand who maintained that her people's historical experience was unique, illustrating what he saw as a broader tendency to view particular grievances as incomparable.

She insisted that her people's experience was unlike any other. Yet, Sowell observed that the ideas she expressed, her tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, familiar activist slogans, and her tendency to respond to difficult questions with deflection, accusations, or counterattacks all closely resembled the behavior he had encountered among advocates of many other groups seeking or receiving preferential treatment in large cities across the United States.

When analyzed, it turned out that “the arguments and connotations were closer to being universal than unique.” It is this message—the universality of the human condition—that they reject. Comparisons with others are offensive to them because if their grievances are not seen as unique, they would struggle to justify the special treatment they demand. Equality before the law is perceived as a threat that exposes them—with their unique vulnerability—to unique forms of discrimination from those who hate them. That was why Sowell famously observed that, “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”

The issues that arise when everyone’s problems are unique may be illustrated by the work of the Bradford Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel in West Yorkshire, England. The role of this panel is to scrutinize “hate crime” and for this purpose it is instructed to be “impartial” in relation to all the victim-groups. For context, the population of Bradford is approximately 61 percent white and 31 percent Muslim, the majority from Pakistan.

The chairman of the panel was recently fired for failing the impartiality test after an Islamist attack on a synagogue in Manchester. She was unable to avoid accusations of hate against Muslims in her attempt to police hate against Jews.

Further, she was suspected of having potentially committed a “hate crime,” accused of showing bias against Muslims when she said, “there is one community that this is coming from.” This was seen as “pointing blame at a community as a whole,” which is hate.

One story headline read, “Police sacked hate crime adviser who warned force favoured Muslims over Jews.” The story is illustrated with a photograph captioned, “Protesters gather for the ‘Britain Stands With British Jews’ rally at Downing Street.” Their placards ask the government to “Make Jews Feel Safe Again.” No mention is made of the white British man from Bradford who is still in hiding, together with his family, because he received death threats after offending Muslims. There is no placard asking the government to make white people in Bradford feel safe again.

The great benefit of liberalism in the classical tradition is that it transcends all these types of inter-group disputes—who needs the law to protect them, who is the biggest victim, who is the most vulnerable, who hates whom the most. Instead of fighting each other to win the Victimology Olympics, all citizens are treated as equally deserving of the protection of the law. No group is considered “more equal” than others.