Posted on 04/01/2013 7:47:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The cult of Ayn Rand has never been stronger on the American Right. Rand’s influence on groups such as the Tea Party and politicians like Rand Paul — who is, after all, named after her — is intense, and clearly growing in popularity. Indeed, the Tea Party began with a pundit who called himself “basically an Ayn Rander.” For many on the Right, Rand has become something approaching a messiah, or at least a patron saint. American conservatives, looking for a way up from the defeats of the Obama era, appear ready to embrace this trend. This is, needless to say, an extremely bad idea.
First, it is politically suicidal. The U.S. is mired in an economic crisis that has been brewing for some time, and shows few signs of disappearing. And this crisis was caused, to a great extent, by Randian economics. Eschewing traditional fiscal conservatism, the American Right embraced for the better part of three decades a messianic form of capitalism that demonized the state and society, while fostering an idolatry of the individual entrepreneur, the corporate CEO, and the unabashed pursuit of money as the highest moral good.
That this has had horrendous consequences cannot be denied. If money is the highest moral good, then making money — by whatever means — overrides all other concerns, even legality, prudence, and common sense. The result has been massive economic inequality, recklessness on the part of the private sector that brought it close to self-destruction, the gutting of public assets, and the negation of even the idea of a collective good.
This is much in contrast to traditional conservatism, which acknowledged the self-evident fact that society is a collective endeavor, and the interests of the individual must be balanced against those of the collective. It also acknowledged — indeed, insisted — that a society can reach a consensus on what constitutes the good, and pursue it on a collective level to the benefit of all. Indeed, Edmund Burke based his entire critique of the French Revolution on the idea that the good can only be achieved by particular communities with specific values, and not through universalist individualism. Rand, in contrast, regarded society as fundamentally evil and the mortal enemy of the individual; a point of view that can, in fact must, lead to a state of anarchy and social collapse that benefits no one and destroys precisely what traditional conservatism seeks to preserve.
The majority of the American people appear to have reached the same conclusion. They have twice voted for a president who rejects Rand’s ideas entirely, and polls indicate that an overwhelming number of them want policies like higher taxes on the rich that are anathema to Rand’s ideology.
Many Americans, moreover, are suffering under current economic conditions, and when people are suffering they will turn to anyone who promises to help alleviate that suffering. Rand demonized such people as “moochers” and parasites. It is very unlikely that Americans will vote for people who hate them. “Do not,” as the ancient proverb goes, “stand in the way of a hungry man.” To run on Randian principles may be popular with many on the Right, but on a national scale it can only lead to greater marginalization and defeat.
Second, Rand’s ideology is morally reprehensible. Rand proclaimed such things as compassion, generosity, charity, and empathy as evil and enemies of humanity. That this is monstrous should be readily apparent. Such sentiments are basic aspects of human nature and human relationships. To deny them makes us essentially inhuman. To vitiate them completely results in a condition in which power is the sole arbiter of justice and good. The ideologies of the 20th century that embraced such ideas have been among the ugliest. Indeed, they are the fundamental principles of totalitarianism. As conservative icon Whittaker Chambers pointed out, at the heart of Rand’s ideology is a voice screaming “to the gas chambers – go!” Ultimately, Rand’s ideas were based on a demonization of empathy; and in a post-modern world in which all gods are dead and people increasingly alienated from each other by social, economic, and technological forces, we are desperately in need of empathy. Without it, we will find ourselves in a world where, as French novelist Michel Houellebecq puts it, “it is simply impossible to live.”
Last, and contrary to her own claims, Rand was an enemy of intelligence and rational thought. She fancied herself a philosopher, but was at best a polemicist. Her understanding of philosophy and its history was amateurish at best. She demonized essential thinkers like Emmanuel Kant without addressing their ideas in any but the shallowest way. This disparaging attitude causes Rand’s acolytes to close themselves off in a tautological ideology that begins with Rand and ends with Rand.
To go down the Randian path, then, might be edifying for some on the Right, but would also be politically and intellectually disastrous. The American Right currently faces a situation fundamentally different from that which raised it to the commanding heights of American politics. If it cannot adapt to it, it will be either completely marginalized or eventually transformed into something unrecognizable.
This would bad not only for the Right but also for America. More than ever, the United States needs traditional conservatism — the conservatism of fiscal and social prudence that regards change and reform as not necessarily evil but not necessarily good, and views progress with reasoned skepticism. Its revival is the Right’s only path back to power. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely the Right will take this path, or it will take it only after a brutal civil war within the movement. One hopes that cooler and more conservative heads will eventually prevail.
****
Ayn Rand said:
I am done with the monster of “we,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”
Lucifer said:
Isaiah 14:14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Nope.
The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making
a messianic form of capitalism that demonized the state and society, while fostering an idolatry of the individual entrepreneur, the corporate CEO, and the unabashed pursuit of money as the highest moral good.
The capitalism favored by Ayn Rand conforms to and is compatible with the values of the Founding Fathers of limited government, individualism, a culture based on reason and rationality, and respect for the natural rights of liberty, private property, and pursuit of happiness by the individual.
The unabashed pursuit of money as the highest moral good:
In a modern division of labor economy, the earning of money becomes an essential aspect of productive activity. This is because in order to live in such an economy, one must obtain the goods and services of other people. These goods and services are not given away for free, nor, to any significant extent are they, or could they be, obtained through barter. To obtain the goods and service of others, one must possess money. Thus, if one's productive activity is to be appropriate to life in a division of labor society, that is to be the means of obtaining the goods and services of others, it is essential that it be moneymaking. Only then does one's activity make it possible for one to share in the benefits of a division of labor society.
Second, Rand’s ideology is morally reprehensible. Rand proclaimed such things as compassion, generosity, charity, and empathy as evil and enemies of humanity.
Nope.
Rand's ethics were influenced by Aristotle and were the product of both reason and observation of reality. She considered the initiation of physical force, evasion of reality, failure to be rational in thought and action, altruism, collectivism, and socialism to be the enemies of humanity. Benevolence, generosity, compassion, charity were acceptable if they were not forced and were not a sacrifice of one's values.
Last, and contrary to her own claims, Rand was an enemy of intelligence and rational thought. She fancied herself a philosopher, but was at best a polemicist. Her understanding of philosophy and its history was amateurish at best. She demonized essential thinkers like Emmanuel Kant without addressing their ideas in any but the shallowest way.
Ayn Rand's theory of concepts was brilliant. It provides a way to achieve objectivity of knowledge, values, concepts, and truth. She corrected Aristotle's errors and produced the pathway to integration that produces objective principles. Kant's philosophy is of a set of affirmations, worldly or otherworldly, but of negations. In metaphysics Kant denies the reality of this world not n favor of a higher realm, such as God, but in favor of an inconceivable-that is, of a nothing, nothing to human consciousness; he denies for sake of the denial. In epistemology, Kant condemns man's consciousness as impotent to grasp real truth, not because our mind is inferior to some higher consciousness, but because, like every kind of consciousness it requires a means of consciousness. Again, Kant denies for the sake of the denial. These negations make Kant the father of disintegration and negation of principles.
True enough.
However, explain her belief system to most people and you will get a horrified rejection.
I’m not saying they’re necessarily right to have this reaction, but that they do is a fact of critical political importance.
I submit this crisis has little to do with "Randian Economics", and everything to do with the unconstitutional statutory laws that have been ensconced since an unlawful Opinion was released from the US Supreme Court in a Tax Case at:
Neither the Court or Congress bothered to correct the false statement placed in the Syllabus taken from the 'Instructions to the Lawyers' instead of from trial's evidence and adjudication. That pernicious error has turned "We the People ... into "We the Corporations ..." and is the starting point of our demise.Too bad Ayn Rand was an atheist.
FUDB!
Have you ever heard of Sir John Maynard Keynes? You know, the educated idiot that said a government can spend its way out of any economic problem. Someday the world may finally find that the Austrian School and Chicago School of Economics is the only way for a great nation to stay great. Ludwig von Mises' and Friedrich Hayek's teachings would be a refreshing change to the Socialist tinkerers that never met an economy they could force to its knees.
Benji, try reading "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" and get back to me. [no, I haven't read it myself. I am saving that for the day I retire and have a couple of years to dedicate to it.]
that is - could not - but you know what I mean
politicians like Rand Paul — who is, after all, named after her
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I am sure this ‘author’? has this on good opinion.
Seems Paul’s birth name was Randal, he grew up as Randy and his wife ‘changed’ it to Rand.
Guess if you follow the theory that Clinton was the 1st Black President, Obama the 1st Jewish pResident and Hillary was named after an obsure soda jerk named Edmund Hillary, this is perfectly good logic.....
This guy is obviously a GOP political strategist and the Tea Party and Rand Paul scare the crap out of him.
I’m glad. The Old Guard Rockefeller Republicans should be scared. Their days are numbered.
They have cooperated with the socialist that have been systematically destroying this country and from what I read in his article he wishes to continue this collaboration on the expansion of the socialist state.
Wrong...We need Business that believe they a moral responsibility for what they do as well politicians that recognize what the Founders always knew.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams
Corporations are now global entities, they have no loyalty to any nation.
Stand by for the Randian attack. :)
It is good that we can have our own interpretation of Rand's ideas.
She allows people to practice unbridled capitalism, just like all the Isms allow unbridled government.
Man unrestrained by morality does not improve the condition of man in the world.
</Humanism>
there was a scienties to published a paper about altruism is really self interest. He died trying to disprove his paper. Today one of the few papers ever published with no footnotes and an entirely original piece.
Rand has a viable and logical message in this day and age. Conceeding reason and sole reliance on mere faith alone guarantees defeat in a political debate.
The fact of the matter is the left has no morality. The left is left to practice whatever hedonism, fetish or tactile indulgence is needed to cultivate their low information followers. In the 1960’s hippies were seduced by mind numbing drugs. in the 1950’s thespians were seduced by egotism and illusery significance via communism. Today it is just “Obamma gonna’ pay mah mortgage!”
The medium is the message. Not logic, no reason.
Forgive the rambling.
Go ahead, make your case against Ayn Rand, there's a lot to criticize. But you jumped the shark with that statement. It's simply delusional and I couldn't read further.
Ping.
Stopped reading right there as the author has no knowledge of Rand, nor the "philosophy" around money and how it is clearly stated it is NOT the tools of the very premise he put forth.
Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced. ~~Atlas Shrugged, The Money Speech
Ayn Rand had a clear idea who the baddies were, her good guys” were horrible though
Her short story “Anthem” is short enough for anyone to get and it spells out her ideas well.
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.