North Shore Milwaukee in the 60s and 70s, from this vantage, certainly seems to have been a better, a simpler, a less threatening, time than the 2010s are unfolding themselves. Ayn Rand was making her way through and into the minds of high school students, who at times must have felt invigorated by her anthem of self-interest. Most of us discarded her amoral stance and became businessmen, leader, parents, and citizens.
Her name, her fiction, and her philosophy of life, however, continue to appear today in high school backpacks (together with Hunger Games and The Lady in Blue: both far better reads than Rand) across the North Shore. Today her name is well known among Tea Party activists; and the awful film version of The Fountainhead can be found in Red Box. Today, celebrity politician such as Wisconsin’s own Paul Ryan are paying vocal homage to Objectivism, while most of us do not understand the true and lasting damage and destruction that will be done to America if they succeed.
Personally, I’ve felt buoyed by the fact that I escaped the lure of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I grew up in “the big house”," a member of the elite, a plutocrat in training, surrounded by lifelong Republicans. In that same household dwelt occasionally, and visited all too frequently, am Uncle who proved to be a modern incarnation of both Iago and Claudius as well as my Weimar-Republic-based grandmother, but that is another story, perhaps for a different day. Today I merely want to lend some notes on the issue of Ayn Rand’s influence on American Tea Party politics and Wisconsin’s own Objectivist and photogenic “pretty boy," Paul Ryan.
Ryan, Walker, the Tea Party, and members of the extreme Conservatives display the “keen edge of fanaticism that was the hallmark of Ayn Rand.” [This and all other quotations are from Gary Weiss’s Ayn Rand Nation]. The Randian cult has been at work in the United States, albeit less visibly and less noisily, for many years. Alan Greenspan, arguably the worst head of the Federal Reserve in its history, was a devoted disciple. The trouble with turning the words of a good storyteller into a philosophy of self-interestedness that then guides a Nation is that the philosophy at best is amoral.
As Weiss points out in his very readable book, Greenspan’s contribution to the Depression of 2008 and these following years highlights “the fact that Rand had failed. Her ideas had collided with the real world, a world in which monomaniacal selfishness is not beneficial but harmful, in which businessmen are driven by the scent of money to act recklessly, and in which capitalism requires government oversight lest capitalistic excesses hurt the financial system and society as a whole” (235).
As fiction, Rand is a competent storyteller. In Weiss’s own words, “The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are beguilin …. discarding the ethical concepts that make life bearable. They make it seem so natural, so easy, so moral, to be utterly self-centered and greedy. Out most fundamental religious teachings – out. Service to the Nation – out. Aid to the poor and elderly, whether they are “worthy” or not – out. Selflessness – out. Altruism – out. By any reasonable ethical standard … taken as a whole they are staggeringly immoral books (emphasis mine), presenting an ideology that appeals to American values but is simply not American”(249).
Those of us who are Progressives and Progressive Conservatives must engage against the dark and evil forces of the Randian Right. The Tea Party, the Extreme Conservatives, Walker and Ryan, and now Romney. Regardless of their looks, their personalities, their personal fortunes, and their fine educations, the adherence of politicians such as Paul Ryan and the others to Objectivism makes them a HUGE danger to this Nation. America needs a new social contract and it must not be a Randian social contract. Instead, I believe that we need to work together to co-create a sustainable future for all, one characterized by the ability of all to flourish. Such a society needs the Public. The Public is the infrastructure and support upon which the Private stands and is able to succeed.
On the other hand, the Randians believe that “Government is inherently negative” (261). The tenets of Ayn Rand’s worldview have been circulated for decades, “its tenets reiterated endlessly by Rand and her disciples:"
— No government except the police, courts of law, and the armed services
— No regulation of anything by any government
— No Medicare or Medicaid.
— No Social Security.
— No Public Schools.
— No public hospitals.
— No public anything, in fact. Just individuals, each looking out for himself, not asking for help or giving help to anyone.” (261-2).
America’s democratic republic is being threatened by these Randians, by the Tea Party, by conservatives, and especially by our near-fascistic leaders like Ryan and Walker, whose divisive, unilateral decisions, and policies, have hurt, and unsettled, so many of us.
American needs to revitalize its Christian-founding ethics. We need a movement that is based upon Augustinian (or, Pauline) and Aristotelian purposes: Truth, Beauty, Unity, Goodness, Empathy, and Love – those moral & ethical foundations have guided us successfully, for the most part, during our nearly 250 years as a sovereign Nation. In stark contrast looms the America of the Tea Party, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and their ilk. “An Objectivist America would be a dark age…. In an Objectivist world, the reset button would be pushed on government services that we take for granted. They would not be cut back, not reduced – they would vanish” (262).
Tell the extreme right that America does not value Ayn Rand, her Objectivist philosophy, and her mantra of self-interest above all else. Keep America vital; do not let it become – as Fritz Lang envisioned the world of his 1927 film Metropolis - a “dystopian hell …with dull-eyed masses slaving away in the underworld to support the privileged classes.” We need to replace “selfishness with selflessness, radical capitalism with humanity, and underlined the need for government at a time when government is under attack” (260).
Thankfully, Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism – not having anything to do with objective reality – has been thoroughly debunked and rejected by the most of the rational world, a long, long time ago… its current devotees are largely people who are totally disconnected from reality and the “just released from Bellevue” crowd. Obama, Warren, Hillary – It Takes A Village – et al are suggesting, and attempting to make the point, that we all live in a COMMUNITY and that we owe that COMMUNITY much more than most of us would ever like to admit. Obviously, the wolf pack that raised you in the wilderness left you feeling inadequate, forlorn, unappreciated and unloved… now get your pack together, go kill and eat a lamb… you will feel better…
Yes, GWB sent him a snail mail missive informing him that 1) it was Internets (plural) and 2) GOD told him (GWB) that it was HIM who actually created the Internets…
The only thing that's clear is your hatred of religion. I think that it is causing you to see an intrusion when there really is none. Abstinence education is not religious dogma...
"Take care of the truly needy.... but don't give everybody including illegal aliens food stamps that are being increasingly fraudulently used." I get it, you don't like people of color - white is the absence of color – and your source for “illegal aliens” getting food stamps that are being increasingly fraudulently used is?
People joined communities for protection of their own private property. They do not form communities in order to redistribute their own wealth to those with less. In fact, as you start to destroy the personal property and wealthy of the individual in order to establish an arbitrary level of equality you destroy the community through the creation of class warfare. Suddenly the protection the community originally needed, erodes from the inside as groups attack other groups. The President through his statement regarding the individual not being able to take responsibility for his own success is in effect saying the property he owns was granted rather then earned. That the community allowed the individual to acquire his property, thus it is not his but the communities. That may run in line with a socialist agenda, but it runs contrary to freedom and the individuals ability to own property. In other words, the foundation that built our country.
1. That man has cognitively evolved to the extent to be capable of complete rationality, always logical, has attained mastery of his base nature, and fully understands the material reality which exists outside of his knowing and holds immutable truth. 2. For man to live an Objectivist philosophy based life; they must be capable and committed to pure morality and ethics. 3. The Objectivist must be able to see the benefit to one's self not only over the short term but, more importantly, over the long term. That value of exchange must be present in both the short term as well as the long term and that pursuing only short term value is a fallacy. 4. Objectivist philosophy requires all men to be equal and educated to the point that they are capable of rationality, morality and ethics. 5. Objectivist philosophy requires that all coercive force is rejected and is only used in self-defense. (continued)
The issue for me is that to be a true Objectivist, you are either full in or full out. It is a fallacy to adopt only those Randite qualities and values of Objectivitism that are convenient without committing to a fundamental change and adopting all the principles and values. It is nearly impossible to live as an Objectivist in a non-rational and immoral world. Just as Rand indicated, her philosophy is only the beginning of inquiry and not all and end all of truth.
People rationally engaged in communities in order to survive – strength in numbers… [In modern communities this has largely been replaced by strength in $$$, the ability of people with $$$ to actually write tax policy/property laws, give it to your Congressman and have it magically turned into law – “See, I’m doing everything on my taxes that is legal.”] I hardly think that they were sitting around a fire in their loincloths, holding their clubs and conversing, typing on their iPads and debating the esoteric pros and cons of “private property.” Although this picture would indeed be an accurate representation of the current Republican Party cabal… Class warfare is not a 21st century construct, contrary to what you and your fellow Tea Heads believe, Obama did not invent it. I’m going to call my good friend, Sheldon Adelson, and suggest that, rather than just purchase a president for the USA, a rather small feat and probably much beneath him, that we spend some of the money changing current laws, through the legislature, that would make ALL PROPERTY, PRIVATE PROPERTY. There really isn’t much of a need for there to be PUBLIC PROPERTY. These folks certainly didn’t build it, can’t pay for it and don’t really have any real need for it…
I didn’t say the Constitution was outdated, I said in today’s world, the Constitution is a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document. I did go on to say that, yes, it does have the ability to amend it. Actually, my full sentence was: I SAID: The Constitution, in today’s world, a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document, does NOT mention GOD, not even once... It is INEFFICIENT and INEFFECTUAL because the framers intentionally made it so; they created so many checks and balances and procedural hurdles that CHANGE would be extremely difficult to achieve. It has always been an INEFFICIENT and INEFFECTUAL document…[Perhaps a good thing in 1776 when CHANGE rarely happened.] In today’s world, however, where most people have the attention span of a Nat, and computers have come to dominate our lives, our commerce and financial institutions, laws and policies simply cannot and do not keep pace with a rapidly changing society, where just about everyone is attempting to game the system. Moreover, Bren, it is our Constitution that is the problem: it allows for all sorts of things – abetted by the Supreme Court – that allows for “… undue influence by special interests in our government.” As I said earlier, IT IS WHAT IT IS. It is what we have to use in an attempt to keep a free, equitable and just society…
Of course, the Constitution was a gift from GOD, I saw him come down from the mountain with 2 huge tablets... Oops, that was the menu from Pizza Hut...
"Obama, Warren, Hillary – It Takes A Village – et al are suggesting, and attempting to make the point, that we all live in a COMMUNITY and that we owe that COMMUNITY much more than most of us would ever like to admit." Ummm... once again, you're forgetting that a community is made up of people and that the only reason that a community is successful is because people within the community contribute to its success. Some, such as business owners/leaders, contribute much more to the success of the community than others that live within it do. And then there the takers, who contribute nothing of value to the community. You and the 'it takes a village' crowd believes that an individual owes their success to the community. Hoffa believes that in large part, the community owes its success to those shining stars that go above and beyond with the their contributions to the community. Without leaders, without initiators, without dreamers, without innovators, without risk takers, etc., a community is little more than a village full of idiots. A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe until an individual proved it wrong. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat until an individual proved it wrong. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow if you wake up and start thinking for yourself!
While you do have a working understanding of Objectivism, your conclusions are flawed. Objectivism is a body of ideas. It is only "full in or full out" in the context its consistency as a whole system, but that does not affect the applicability of its separate conclusions. The validity, applicability, and resulting benefits of the philosophy's principle that a political system must prohibit initiated force among men does not diminish if some men disagree on the underlying foundation of that principle. What diminishes is only the ability of those men to substantiate their position to others. The principle remains valid and unaffected by that. The adoption of philosophies is a slow process, and even when dominant , they are never unanimously adopted. Furthermore, progress in the influence in a philosophy is not a matter of our species evolving, it is a matter of personal choices to think. The process begins with a philosopher, who influences an enthusiastic cadre of intellectuals who gain a following among influential people like teachers and politicians and business men, who influence their students, constituency, and employees, who influence relatives, especially their children, all of whom spread it throughout the culture in colloquial attitudes and platitudes. Only the tiniest minority of these will ever actually understand the dominant philosophy or that it is the source of their contemporary culture and the reason people feel and act the way they do.
It has been manifestly obvious for quite some time, that you are confused; it is, though, refreshing to see you honestly admit to that. You should, moreover, port that small bit of honesty to your posts, particularily when you mis-site, mis-represent and mis-quote me. Your intellectual dishonesty is only surpassed by your lack of facts… Don’t take a subordinate clause from my quote, make a spaceship out of it, and pretend that you have done something, other than be completely intellectually dishonest. The Constitution has always been inefficient and ineffectual; the framers created it that way, purposefully, as they wanted it to be very difficult to make CHANGES to it. They did not like CHANGE, but they recognized that there just might be some situation, albeit light years away, where a CHANGE might be needed. Recognizing that inbred southern bias, they did allow for Amendments. Again, your intellectual dishonesty is referenced: “Obviously to claim that modern science has surpassed the capabilities of the constitution, you must have evidence that the technology of 1789 was used as a determining factor in its drafting." Look, JBS, learn something, the Constitution was signed into law on September 17 of 1787; the Constitution was already 2-years old in 1789, while you claim it was still being drafted! Again, your intellectual dishonesty and lack of facts…
The "ball peen hammer" was a reference to JRH using your head as a hammer... sorry you missed that... but you seem to miss a lot...
Since when did carrying water for the Republican Party = thinking for yourself? You are indeed the Matrix...
I still maintain that the problems of philosophical application makes the philosophy impractical. To make it viable, the least of humans would have to be capable of without coercion. We are clearly not there yet and probably never will be. Since all utopian systems are impractical, and this is clearly a utopian idea, then it isn't worth pursuing at this time. The environment must change first.
The constitution went into effect on March 4th, 1789 as the law of land. On September 17, 1787 was the date it was signed and accepted by the Constitutional Convention (aka its date of creation). However, you failed to provide any evidence that science has had role in the drafting of the constitution that would make the science of today incapable of fitting the mold provided by the founders. My claim is that you think the constitution is "inefficient and ineffectual" and thus requires change. You only continue to support my claim with your rantings. I have been intellectually dishonest about nothing. You are anti-constitution. If you feel that constitution is "inefficient and ineffectual" (which by the way is opinion and not fact) and don't want change then you are intellectually dishonest. I have added nothing but your quotes and used nothing but your ideas in proving my points. In return, you insult me and lie about your own position. As for the hammer, you need to lighten up.
Paul Ryan forcing his entire legislative staff in Washington DC and satellites in Wisconsin to read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and the complete works of Ayn Rand would be a free exercise of a contract between an employer and employee. I use the word FORCED here because he informed them they had to do this; this was not an option open for debate or discussion. He did not brandish a gun nor did he violate any employment or other current law. Obviously, these folks, to an individual, could have simply said, NO. Of course, they would not be working for Paul Ryan today… there is that. However, they did not say, NO, electing instead, to give up some hours of freedom so they could be employed and become part of the Ryan cabal. A similar situation exists today in the employment arena regarding Facebook. Employers are asking candidates for a position to give them their login & password to their Facebook account. Obviously, so the employer can learn as much as possible about a potential employee. The potential employee can say, NO. Chances of employment with that company would probably be very slim. MS Rand would say… what?
Isn't that why we value individual liberty and have embraced an incentive based capitalistic, as opposed to a planned / controlled / centralized economy? You make your own position within the community via your personal choices and decisions, which everyone in this country is free to do. Without the shining stars, what would the community look like? And let's face it, the shining stars could be personally successful and self sufficient without the need for other's contributions. It's in the sharing that everyone is elevated, but it's the stars that end up giving the most at the end of the day, so why shouldn't they be justly rewarded for such disproportionate contribution? Certainly, the community needs the stars much more than it needs non-contributor takers. That's why capitalism has lead to the creation of the socio-economic classes. We've all seen what happens when the mass of the community tries to make everyone in the community equal, haven't we?
The primary question for a philosophy is not practical or impractical. It is right or wrong. If it is right, it is practical. It is absurd to suggest that failing unanimity, one should pursue an irrational ethics/politics on the grounds that it would be more practical. Objectivists do not wait to start living by the philosophy until they get others to go along with it. As I have indicated, one pursues a rational philosophy in order to cope with a world of irrational men. It is to the extent that men choose to live by Objectivism that the culture will change. The Founding Fathers integrated Enlightenment philosophy into the government they formed without waiting for unanimity. Throughout its history there have been countless "agents" who have not adhered to the expected "rationality, morality, and ethics." But as long as they acted so in private and did not apply force to it, they remained free to do so. If they did use force the government followed the dictates of the Constitution and kept the free market open. You do not need unanimity. You only need agreement of the dominant portion of the population. In an Objectivist dominated society is they who will assure that value exchanges are voluntary. While it is immoral (and impossible) for anyone to coerce men to be rational, it is not immoral to coerce them to abstain from initiating force. Since we already do that successfully in most instances, all we need to do is extend that to all instances.
The basic tenets of the Constitution are sound, I believe. What we need are elected officials who are more interested in service and not in lining their own nests and preparing for post-career lecture and consulting gigs.
We were discussing the DRAFTING and SIGNING of the Constitution; you stated that they were still drafting the Constitution in 1789! If it was SIGNED on September 17, 1787, they were all done drafting it... As Judge Judy would say, “REEEDICKULOUS!” Moving on… “However, you failed to provide any evidence..." I did not provide any evidence, because I DID NOT SAY THAT… YOU DID! I stated that the 'framers did not have to deal with modern science in there time…' that is irrefutable… “My claim is that you think the constitution is "inefficient and ineffectual" and thus requires change.” That’s YOUR CLAIM… deal with it… Mine: 'The Constitution, in today’s world, a horribly inefficient and ineffectual document, does NOT mention GOD, not even once...’ Don’t take a subordinate clause from my quote, make a spaceship out of it, and pretend that you have done something, other than be completely intellectually dishonest. Further, in America, it is alright to criticize our government, our Constitution, our government officials, in fact, it is our duty as citizens and it is guaranteed by the mighty 1st Amendment… If anyone wants to change the Constitution they must be “Anti-Constitution.” Well, there certainly are a lot of people in America that are “Anti-Constitution” considering WE THE PEOPLE have amended it 27 times! Golly Gomer, you are slow… As for the hammer, it is so fitting…
Your right, you didn't say what you said and its my fault for saying what you said.
Abstinence Only sex education is nothing but religious dogma and it is horrible public policy too! I don’t really think that religion should be fostered upon rational human beings; its deleterious and obscenely pernicious effects upon mankind in general and the USA in particular fills history books with the inhumanity upon humanity that it has created. There is no need for religion in a rational world; MAN created GOD to control the unruly masses, he can certainly dispense with that artifice… Abstinence Only sex education comes from the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is fostered and promoted by the Catholic Church. It is a natural outgrowth of the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control. They are simply against birth control in any form, except the Vatican Roulette method. That is, you track your ovulation and abstain – precursor to abstinence only – from sex during the time you are fertile. The Pope controls the vagina and all reproduction apparatus of women, because they are MEN and are told by GOD to assume that role. Yes, I do understand… Some, many other Christian religions – (R) presidential candidate, Sanatorium’s Church, for example – teach that the only church approved reason to engage in sexual intercourse is 1) with your wife, and 2) ONLY for the reason that you are consciously attempting to get the wife pregnant. NO PLEASURE ONLY SEX! Yes, I do understand… Yes, I really do understand...
Honesty and humility is the path to enlightenment…
“The basic tenets of the Constitution are sound…” To that I have to say, I agree. Not to be stubborn or unusually obstinate, however, I still think – as opposed to all the FEELING folks on this blog, who feel this way and that way – that it is an inefficient and ineffectual document as a whole. Again, it is all that we have to work with… Further, as Americans, we would be loath to even look at other nations Constitutions – even as an academic exercise – to sort of look for “best practices” or even elements that might pique our curiosity. After all, if it doesn’t come from America, well, it just isn’t any good. Corporations have embraced a “World View” and because of that they are making $$$ at an unprecedented rate. [Not that $$$ should be our sole metric for judging a society or nation] Individuals in America are so tied to their county, state and the folly of American Exceptionalism, that, in the end, they really see nothing… every country in the world thinks that they are Exceptional…