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.
****
The author should look at who has been peddling those things to the public over the last 80 years and why, and then ask himself what really is monstrous.
Most people have never heard of Ayn Rand and have no clue who she was.
That's my take.
Original article was posted to PJ on 3/28.
So yes, the original Author is serious...
And apparently mildly retarded.
Aye, there's the rub.....It's the same with Karl Marx, he could explain all of the problems with Capitalism, but his "cure" was even worse than the disease.
mildly retarded? i think not;)
I disagree with some of the points made by the author.It’s been several yrs since i read “Atlas Shrugged”.But i recall the primary theme addressed the incremental encroachment by the government upon society/economy to the point where big gov had almost total control.The result was an economy that was dysfunctional-at best.I do agree that Rand comes across as a bareknuckles anything goes capitalist and(imo)rather deficient in the empathy department(read “The Fountainhead”).She was certainly flawed(quite a character!).Anyways,I’m not a “Randian”,but I agree with much of her philosophy-to a point.Thanx for the post.
Like anything else, mine the gold and leave the tailings.
“There is no way to rule innocent men...” - Ayn Rand
No need to read past here without a HUGE barf alert. The guy's a rube.
Mr. Kerstein doesn’t seem to know much about U.S. economics and either hasn’t actually read or understood Ayn Rand’s work. In my experience, communists-at-heart find Rand so threatening to their world view that they can’t get a mental grip on her meaning. To protect themselves, they misrepresent her views, and try to take her novels literally, rather than as abstract presentations of principles.
Rand had no problem with VOLUNTARY social activity, specialization of labor, complex integrated societies, and compassion/charity. What she opposed was COERCION. Through the application of reason to experience, Rand knew that socialists inevitably force others to join communal efforts against their interests and will — precisely because the type of people who join freely are the takers, not the makers. Hillary Clinton is a perfect Rand villain; her justification for forcing young healthy people into paying for healthcare for others is classic: “We need their money in the system”. Armed robbery for what she dictates is a “benevolent” purpose is ok.
Rand relentlessly exposed the Left’s game of false benevolence and compulsory altruism as a scam. “Collective” action wherein an elite determines the will of the group turns the group members into dehumanized slaves, who receive more than they contribute temporarily —until it all dries up, and everyone has nothing. Rand’s work argues, correctly, that individuals creating wealth through free market economics bring freedom and higher standards of living for all that are sustainable. But that’s not what the Democrats/Socialists/Leftists really want, is it?
“Beware of the moneychangers”. Even Rand chastized those who sought to make money for the sake of making money, or more aptly, printing money out of thin air, so that they could gamble it to make profits out of thin air. Once currency stopped being a store of value and work, and became nothing more than gambling fodder, is when the financial structure of the west started to fall apart. Once people lose faith in the currency and financial institutions, expect the events that have unfolded in Cyprus and the EU to happen here.
Rand ping. And I don’t mean Paul....
Your time is too valuable to try and rebut this drivel. At worst, you'll get into a game of "whack-a-mole" in a discussion with those who disagree with you.
I get into arguments with my liberal alumni friends all the time. What Rand says to me revolves around personal choice.
For example, I give to my church because I am trading value for value, not because I feel an obligation to do so. My parish plays a large role in strengthening my faith and my family...it's only natural that I would support it through donations of time and money.
My current reading is focused on Hank Rearden and his interactions with his family, and the extreme "danger" of the "guiltless man". A good friend of mine here at work was having the same problem with his daughters (18 & 23) as Hank was having with his mother and brother: the guilt trip being laid on him for not bending to their every whim.
I laughed and said, "going Galt, are you?" When he responded with a WTF look, I responded "you really need to read AS, and focus on the family troubles of Hank Rearden." His daughters are in for a rude awakening! lol
Coining “The Aristocracy of Pull” was brilliant.
mark - maybe read later
I am not sure that Objectivism is compatible with Christianity
This tool doesn’t have even the slightest idea what Rand’s philosophy is all about. There’s nothing “randian” that created the latest crash. There’s nothing evil about helping the poor and greed is not a moral good.
Rand was about keeping to your own values, not subverting them to someone else’s.
Liberals never seem to notice that Ms. Rand glorified "men of the mind" regardless of how lofty or lowly were their professions.
Definitely a double-digit IQ... But can probably tie their own shoes without help.
To Rand, mystics were deceivers of moochers - no better, and possibly worse - than looters.
For comparison, think of Muslim clerics, the Reverend Moon, the Reverend Jessie Jackson and a litany of "spiritual leaders" deceiving their flocks.
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.