The first thought you provoked today has to do with Ayn Rand: I think that, despite her claims to the contrary (that she was an Aristotelian), her system of Objectivism actually reduces to a fundamentally Hegelian system....
Along those lines, Whittaker Chambers famously dimissed Ms. Rand's philosophy as a cheap knock-off of Nietzsche's, and in that he was probably correct. But I was struck by how well the following seems to describe the basis of her philosophy:
The first “partner” of the Great Hierarchy that had to go was God. This was necessary in order to make room for Hegel as the “new Christ” who would usher in the “third religion” of his System of Absolute Science, so to be the Messiah, the New Christ, of the new age a-borning. The point here is that with God “gone,” man himself becomes a pure abstraction and, as such, an ideologically manipulatable entity and nothing more.
When you look at her work with a critical eye, it is fairly evident that Rand selected a set of axioms that seemed to fit a pre-selected conclusion. (Her axioms might best be described as the 10 Commandments, carefully edited to remove those pesky references to God). I've long thought that the fatal weakness of Rand's philosophy was the inability of her "fundamental" axioms to withstand careful scrutiny. In that context, it's instructive to assess Rand's supposedly reality-based conclusions in the light of the scientific evidence for evolution (which Rand's philosophy would presumably consider to be determinative). Her axioms do not fare well at all. For example, in a world where evolution holds sway one can quite logically argue that we are necessarily a means to our children's ends and not, as Rand would have it, a means to our own ends.
And thus, "it’s interesting to note that many students of the [Rand's philosophy] consistently over time have reported that to be drawn into the “magic circle” of this enterprise is to enter into a perfectly logically self-consistent construction — so long as one does not use the criteria of First Reality to judge it." Where Rand's ideas are concerned, Libertarians are the most obvious example of this phenomenon, but we conservatives are prone to it as well.
There is much in your discourse that is useful for us conservatives, in this time when we find our philosophy in a terrible state of disarray.
You correctly observe that Mr. Obama's campaign is a fine example of a "Second Reality" movement. I would say that we conservatives are guilty of the same thing, albeit we're a lot worse at the process than the Democrats seem to be. Our "conservative" tenets seem to have been reduced to the level of slogans and catch-phrases -- they're like Hegel's "magic words," in that we seem to repeat them over and over, hoping that they'll create the desired effect. (That we keep repeating them to less and less effect may suggest that we could be headed toward Mr. Nietzsche's unhappy fate.)
What we really need, is a return to our own "First Reality." We need to expound what the Declaration of Independence proclaims: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...."
And we need to convince people of the truth of what John Adams famously said:
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
It is difficult to imagine a politically "conservative" society such as we all claim to desire, operating within the context of a society that is "unbridled by morality and religion." Well, guess what: we live in a society whose culture is very much influenced by media and entertainment organs for whom Adams' brand of "morality and religion" are onerous at best. While I don't believe that the main body of the American population is actually opposed, much less irredeemably lost to "morality and religion," many people aren't actively for them, either.
I would propose that what "conservatism" needs most, is what one might call a "First Reality Project." We need to understand the reality we actually inhabit rather than assuming (pretending) that we live in a reality that we claim to desire.
We also need to figure out how to effectively expose and explain a "Second Reality" such as is being propounded by Mr. Obama -- without falling into a "Second Reality" trap of our own. (The fall of Mr. Newt Gingrich comes to mind....)
Just simply brilliant insights, r9etb! I just knew you would come at this problem from an "interesting angle!" And I think you (and Whittaker Chambers) are right, that "When you look at [Rand's] work with a critical eye, it is fairly evident that Rand selected a set of axioms that seemed to fit a pre-selected conclusion."
Doctrinal thinking (or "system-building" in general) usually does not disclose its most fundamental premises/presuppositions; instead, it masks them by appeals to "axioms." But it sure knows where it wants to go — to the end or purpose it seeks to justify. If it's got a great big libido dominandi behind it (as arguably was the case with Hegel), then it can effectively be established without an appeal to reason or actual experience at all.
Ayn Rand, as influential as she's been, simply wasn't in that class of ideologue. Her main problem (it seems to me) is she hadn't mastered the Greeks well enough. If she understood anything of what they were really up to, she wouldn't have turned Plato into a Socialist (or even Communist), and Aristotle into a Libertarian.
Jeepers, she lost me right there.
Thank you so much for your elegant, brilliant essay-post!
p.s.: In short, conservatives need to be reminded of exactly what they are "conserving." If it isn't the foundations of American culture and the Constitution, then I don't know what it could possibly be.
And yes, Newt Gingrich is a most instructive case. His analysis of the ills afflicting the Body Politic had it all right; but finally, he gave free rein to his ego. And so the problem was no longer about what is right, what is just, but only about how Newt could best ride the tide of his own genius.
Human nature is "frail" indeed — even among the "great ones."
The quote by Adams is held up as axiomatic, chosen to produce a preordained conclusion, and upon it built a "second reality" wherein all of the Founders share the same religious beliefs, and subscribe to the same sectarian/denominational doctines as the person making the argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2126186/posts?page=12#12
... For two long we’ve tried to reduce our philosophy of economics and governance to bumper-stickers about tax-cuts.
Tax-cuts don’t motivate people. Tax-cuts don’t explain the proper role of government, or the relationship between liberty and prosperity, or the importance of personal liberty for its own sake, or why people should govern themselves and their families and their communities and why letting government manage them is such a tragic mistake.
We don’t explain those things, we just talk about cutting taxes because in an MTV world we figure no one has the attention span for the whole philosophical discussion.
And in a world in which there are a hundred channels, thats understandable. Most people don’t have the attention span. But too many Repubs don’t have a talent for this kind of discussion even when they have the stage and the microphone.
After decades of a dumbed down education system, most Americans don’t know what the defining principles of this country are. They don’t know what socialism is or why we should not want it. They don’t know why an infantilized populace is bad and wouldn’t recognize themselves in the description.
We’ve abdicated control of the education of our own kids. We’ve abdicated control of the news and entertainment media. Lose the schools and universities, lose the news and entertainment media, and you’ve lost the game. Maybe not immediately, but you’re fighting a rear-guard action from that moment forward. Sooner or later an Obama shows up and down you come.