Posted on 08/14/2012 5:29:32 AM PDT by AmonAmarth
Ask Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan how he became a conservative and he'll probably answer by citing a book. It might be Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Or perhaps he'll come up with Friedrich Hayek's "Road to Serfdom," or even Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative."
All of these books are staples of the modern conservative canon, works with the reputed power to radicalize even the most tepid Republican. Over the last half-century, they have been vital to the conservative movement's success - and to liberalism's demise.
We tend to think of the conservative influence in purely political terms: electing Ronald Reagan in 1980, picking away at Social Security, reducing taxes for the wealthy. But one of the movement's most lasting successes has been in developing a common intellectual heritage.
Any self-respecting young conservative knows the names you're supposed to spout: Hayek, Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock. There are some older thinkers too - Edmund Burke, for instance - but for the most part the favored thinkers come out of the movement's mid-20th century origins in opposition to Soviet communism and the New Deal.
Liberals, by contrast, have been moving in the other direction over the last half-century, abandoning the idea that ideas can be powerful political tools. This may seem like a strange statement at a moment when American universities are widely understood to be bastions of liberalism, and when liberals themselves are often derided as eggheaded elites.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Because there's no need for one? Because our contemporary culture is so saturated with Marxist dialectical materialism that most writers are predictably and reflexively liberal? Rand stands out only because she isn't a knee-jerk leftist?
Diversity includes opposition,
and the left does everything it can, including using physical force,
to oppress and exclude opposing viewpoints.
Possibly, but she could also be regarded as the anti-Mary, the not-so-virginal mother of the anti-Jesus.
Fine article until the end where she avers “Nobody wants to return to an era in which politics and political ideas were dominated by a handful of white men, however thoughtful.”
The common conservative thought and heritage she praises sprung from the minds of those men. When they governed, we had a coherent and unified nation. Many people posit that our problems have sprung from the 19th Amendment.
“The Ignorati”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I
By electing Obama we proved to the world we were not ‘Racist’. Now we have to prove in this election we are not STUPID!
For the same reason there isn’t warm ice.
I swear to my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine. Ayn Rand John Galt
Liberals can not live on their own. They need other people’s creations to exist,
Um, I thought they already had their Ayn Rand.
A guy by the name of Marx. Wrote a book I believe.
Rules for radicals!!
Lots of food for thought here. Good comments from FReepers too.
There is.
His name was Karl Marx..........
Wading through some of their sleep-inducing "arguments," I came across this bit of comic relief.
Seriously?? Rand is considered to be "intellectual" material? Even in high school when I tried to understand the political viewpoint of a Republican friend, Ayn Rand's writing appeared as schlock. So the modern conservative movement still bases its philosophy on dime store magazine rack concepts? Comm'on, Ms. Gage, certainly the modern liberal canon that includes Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Galbraith, Bill Moyers, Melissa Harris-Perry,Katha Pollit(...I'll just stop)has just a bit more meat than Rand ever will.
“and to liberalism’s demise.”
What demise? Liberals haven’t slowed down a bit, even after the minor speedbumps they have had to deal with...
Is this author living in a cave? They have Alynski and Marx...
There is no liberal Ayn Rand because no one wants to read a fictional novel that asserts and glorifies the inherent truth of liberalism: it’s a failed philosophy that has killed millions.
Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they’ve been established and millions have died in the process of establishing those socialist and communist societies.
Neither Charles Dickens nor Mark Twain could make such a story appealing. And I suspect neither could J.R.R. Tolkien nor George R.R. Martin even with the world of fantasy in their writers’ toolboxes.
true - all liberals I know appeal to emotional soundbites which are followed by accusatory statements aimed at conservatives.
All they “know” is that they dislike conservatism - without fully understanding why.
They can’t form a solid logical argument because they are too busy ranting and foaming at the mouth
Studs Turkel (sp?)?
Mark
The "ideas" have been worked out of them....all that's left are "feelings"
They are "Hooked on a Feeling"...unfortunately it's a catchy tune......
(Ooga-Chaka Ooga-Ooga)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.