Visions and Conflict

I recently read Thomas Sowell's book titled "A Conflict of Visions".  I admit I was shocked by the outcome of the last election.  It seems inconceivable that a majority of Americans would vote for more of the same economic malaise that the papers report on daily. I have been searching for an explanation that goes deeper than those offered by the talking heads on TV. Sowell's central idea is that what divides the political spectrum is a fundamental difference in visions.  He differentiates visions from interests. Interests are short term while visions "dominate history".  The insight he offers helps explain why persons of good will can come down on opposite sides of almost any policy debate. 
The definition he offers for vision is a "pre-analytic cognitive act". This was the definition originally offered by Joseph Schumpeter in his book "History of Economic Analysis".  This definition is supposed to describe what we emote about an issue before we analyze it systematically.  It precedes theory. It is the teleological backbone of theory.  Visions are about causation and set the "agenda for thought and action."
A theologian friend of mine used to say that "every ideology assumes an anthropology." What he meant was that it is our ideas about the nature of man that directs our formation of theories about society, history, law, justice, and politics.  Sowell is saying much the same thing as he lays out the contrast of the Constrained vs. the Unconstrained vision.
 The constrained vision sees man as intrinsically  flawed with many moral limitation.  One is tempted to resurrect a theological term and call it original sin.  The constrained vision seeks to make the best of a bad situation.  This is the vision of thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Friedrich A. Hayek, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and  Milton Friedman.
The unconstrained vision sees man as perfectible with no intrinsic moral limitations.  It sees a possible utopia since there is an infinite well of goodness at the heart of man.  This is the vision of thinkers such as William Godwin, Rousseau, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith, Ronald Dworkin, Saint-Simon, George Bernard Shaw, and Earl Warren.
With respect to social decisions the "marketplace" is seen as inadequate, even evil by adherents of the unconstrained vision and as the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people by those adhering to the constrained vision.  The alternative to the marketplace for the unconstrained vision adherents is a meritocracy where an elite "far seeing" group decides what is best for society.  The fears of those who hold to the constrained vision is that this group of elites can disintegrate into tyranny very quickly.  They would point to the excesses of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. as historical examples. The adoration of the intellectual elite by the true believers on the unconstrained vision is justified in their view since they and they alone have the articulated rationality to guide society towards the utopian ideal.
The different visions give different value to "experience vs. articulated rationality". This leads naturally to a youth vs. age debate with respect to the value of their respective insights and the attending societal value of each.  The unconstrained vision sees the institutions and existing beliefs of society holding back its progressive agenda.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge.  What it is and how it is acquired. It seems clear that language is key to the acquisition of knowledge because words have meaning.  If we cannot agree on what a word means it seems pointless to pursue knowledge of what that word depicts.  Take the word freedom for example.  The constrained vision interprets the word to mean liberty, equal opportunity and the individuals "pursuit of happiness".  The unconstrained vision can take the word  freedom to mean equal outcomes, the absence of hunger or poverty and a society free of prejudice and conflict.  Clearly trying to understand what freedom means is colored by our underlying vision. Knowledge is seen as widely distributed and broader in definition by those with a constrained vision.  It is not the province of a gifted elite as seen by those with unconstrained vision.     
The labels of conservative and liberal are inadequate in my opinion to describe what Sowell sees as a contrast of visions.  It will take me some time to digest the implications of this essay but I embark on it eagerly.