Walsh’s argument collapses when viewed through Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions Sowell’s central distinction is between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision: • The constrained vision (the classic American/Founding/conservative one) starts from the premise that human nature is limited, flawed, and self-interested. No group of people is wise or virtuous enough to be trusted with concentrated power. Therefore the primary task of politics is to create processes and constraints that limit what any faction can do. Knowledge is dispersed, trade-offs are inevitable, and good intentions are secondary to incentives and institutional restraints. Berry’s line: “None are good, so limit government power” is pure constrained vision • The unconstrained vision starts from the opposite premise: human nature is malleable or perfectible, and the right people (the anointed, the moral, “our people”) can be trusted to use power to reshape society for the better. Once the correct group holds power, the main obstacles disappear. “Our people are good, so give us power” is the unconstrained formula, whether it comes from the left or from post-liberals on the right. Walsh’s reply: “You still need to have power in order to limit it…otherwise your movement is impotent” treats the constrained premise as optional or absurd. He is saying the desire for power must come first, and the principle of limitation is secondary. That is a quiet shift into the unconstrained vision: the moral correctness of the cause (or the team) is assumed to make the acquisition and use of power safe and necessary. In Sowell’s terms, Walsh is no longer arguing from the constrained view that no one is good enough; he is arguing that our side must seize power because the alternative is defeat. The “none are good” restraint becomes a luxury that only the winners can afford later The constrained vision does not forbid seeking electoral power. It insists that the justification for seeking it must remain the same: we need power precisely because we do not trust ourselves (or anyone else) with it. Once you drop that and start reasoning “we need power because our people are the ones who will use it rightly,” you have adopted the unconstrained logic. History under both left and right versions of that logic shows the same pattern: the constraints erode, the state expands, and the next faction inherits the larger machinery Berry is defending the constrained vision, Walsh is advocating for the unconstrained vision Up next for postliberals: “Well what the hell does Thomas Sowell know anyway!?”