This recent Ayn Rand obsession amonst the teabagging conservatives is really getting my goat. Have they ever actually read her works? All of them, not just Atlas Shrugged? Do they really understand her philosophy and how badly they are cherry picking it to meet their goals of the moment? I am sorry to say I do not respect the conservative movement at all right now. Maybe if they stay consistent and actually build a real movement, I might. But the hypocrisy of staying silent while billions are wasted over the last eight years and only creating a hullabaloo when it's a Democrat doing it makes them ridiculous, not serious. And what makes them even less serious is this sudden interest in an author of a philosophy they don't even embrace whole heartedly and don't even really understand.
Dagny Taggert didn't sit idly by while bubbles formed and popped and call it capitalism. She screamed and fought while stupid non-capitalist decisions were being made. Francisco destroyed his fortune rather than allow it to be used for anything that violated his principles. John Galt didn't check out after the bubble popped, he foresaw it coming and got out so he wouldn't be any part of it. Where were all the Ayn Rand enthusiasts when the oh-so-obvious bubble was forming? A bubble that no real adherent of Ayn Rand would have had anything to do with and in fact would have been screaming from the rooftops wasn't real industry, real capitalism, or in any way shape or form objectivism. But they didn't. As long as the going was good, they stayed silent. Trading worthless pieces of paper is not capitalism and Dagny, Hank, Francisco, and John wouldn't have stood for it for two seconds. So anyone who stayed silent for the last eight years can take themselves off to Galt's Gulch as soon as they find that oh-so-not-a-capitalist Francisco to finance it for them.
A true Ayn Rand aficionado would have stood up for rights of privacy and habeas corpus and would have been wholeheartedly opposed to invading a country that never attacked us. "Let them fail" would have been their credo and they wouldn't have cared a whit for the human rights of the oppressed Iraqis. Afghanistan in an objectivist viewpoint would have been annihilated.
If it's not obvious, I've actually read quite a bit of Ayn Rand. Not just her badly written fiction, but her very well thought out treatises of non-fiction. And one thing is perfectly clear when you read all of her work. There is no cherry picking. Her philosophy is one that you adhere to totally or not at all. And I don't think your "conservative" base really understands what embracing Ayn Rand really means. Here's a primer:
- Atheist. Completely. And not just free-to-be-you-and-me atheism. Complete hatred and utter contempt for religion of any kind. No favorites, no lesser of two evils. All religion is evil in objectivism.
- Complete and total libertarian attitude on all social issues: Drugs, sex, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. are all A-OK.
- No government intervention in anything but what is absolutely necessary to physically defend the country. That means no Iraq, no private consulting firms to outsource defense to (you know, those same ones who have lost billions of our tax dollars that only we liberals seemed to be upset about); no real reverence for veterans (she so conveniently omits them from her writings); no bridges, roads, disaster recovery, nothing. Tell me how much you hate government on your morning commute. Tell me how much you ate government when you have to call 911 to protect your personal property. You don't, nor should you. Because it is quintessentially American to cherry pick our philosophies.
In regards to the tea parties, I hear a lot about the Founding Fathers. But no group has been more cherry picked then these men. Regardless of our ideology, we take from them what we want and conveniently ignore what is inconvenient to our ideology. As a nation, we pick and choose holistically: we already decide that their decisions on slavery, voting rights, women, and property are outdated and unconstitutional. We've passed several amendments deciding that the Founding Fathers were wrong. But some ideologues conveniently forget that when citing them. Isn't it time we started deciding for ourselves and acknowledging that the Founding Fathers might be good to cite in part, but not revered? How much cherry picking is OK or not OK?
The unspoken truth about American ideology is this: We are ideologues until our emotions come into play. Once those pesky heart strings are plucked, anything—anything at all—can be rationalized. I don't care which side of the ideological divide you purport to be on. For example:
- Your upset about the 9/11 terrorist attacks so all of a sudden you're in favor of nation building.
- You believe drugs are OK until it causes a friend of yours to die or worse kill others. Then it's a nationwide drug treatment program.
- States rights rule supreme until a state decides to legalize gay marriage (Vermont); then a federal statute is required.
- Individual rights reign until Terry Shiavo dies.
- Laissez faire in everything outside the bedroom, but dictatorial tyranny inside.
- Individual rights in everything inside the bedroom, but collective rights in everything outside it.
No matter which side you're on, the majority of Americans decide issues emotionally not rationally. Philosophies demand rational thought, not emotional.
I can't decide for you what you want. I can only point out that emotional decisions are not philosophical by their very definition. I can only ask, beg, plead, that before you start cherry picking philosophers, you know that you are doing so and own up to it. Do not claim Ayn Rand when you refuse the full force of her philosophy. Do not claim economic libertarianism and eschew the necessary social aspects of it at that same time. Do not claim collective good of the all and demand individual rights for all. Most importantly, do not believe that America is divided between left and right. There is no such thing. We are all a confusing chaos of conflicting ideas and beliefs that we can only defend about 50% of. The rest are emotion and feelings that we don't spend much time analyzing. Very few of us spend any time reconciling these beliefs, only using our lizard brains to decide which is right and wrong without any rational thought going into it.
Can we be done with hard line adherence sometime soon? Can we truly embrace both a Virtue of Selfishness and a sustainable society and figure out how it all works? Can we all determine at some point that we all need a philosophy and that philosophy doesn't have to adhere to a published standard, only a rational one? Can we please stop opposing for the sake of opposing and stop ignoring the fact that we cherry pick every day from those we both revere and despise?
Can we, in short, create an American philosophy?
6 comments:
The philosophy we need was "created" by Ayn Rand. If, at this point, you don't realize this, you should just sit down and be quiet.
Believing or not believing in her philosophy isn't my point. My point is that the recent support for Ayn Rand is half assed and from a group that completely ignores half of objectivism in favor of religion, their government services of choice, and neocon military invasions. That's not an objectivist.
Sit down and be quiet btw is an environment that dear Ms. Rand fled and is not a worthy sentiment from one of her adherents.
Can we, in short, create an American philosophy?What is an American philosophy? Why isn't Objectivism an American philosophy? I sensed that you were dismissing Objectvism in favor of something new. BTW, the "support for Rand" is derived from the plot of Atlas Shrugged, not her philosophy. Besides, "we" are not capable of creating a philosophy. I do apologize for the nasty comment, though.
What is an American philosophy? I don't know, but it certainly isn't objectivism. I dismiss objectivism because it isn't practiced by anyone in America other than a small sliver of libertarians. Objectivism isn't just about economics and as I illustrated, conservatives and liberals alike only take small slices and disregard the whole. If the majority of Americans don't want to embrace objectivism, they need to embrace another philosophy or create one. A philosophy, by definition, is a logical, consistent belief system arrived at through rational means.
The plot of Atlas Shrugged is her philosophy. It's the novelization of objectivism, and not just the economic aspects of it.
First of all, let me say that I agree with the majority of the observations that you made. But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Tea Party protests are a conservative movement which has cherry-picked ideas from Ayn Rand. Since I have yet to see any sort of Tea Party Manifesto, I assume you are making this connection due to the signs at the Tea Parties. If this is the case, then why is it so hard to make the connection that there are Objectivists at the protests, as opposed to the protesters cherry-picking Objectivist ideas?
There are a lot of people out there with a lot of different ideas that don't fit within the linear Liberal/Conservative scale. And a lot of those people (including Objectivists) ended up at the Tea Parties.
@ Gypsy Kaz
You have missed a most significant view of the conservative flirtation with Rand. You show little or no understanding of the process by which one navigates the transition from bleeding heart liberal or bible bound conservative to being a full blown, relentlessly rational Objectivist. You say, "I dismiss objectivism because it isn't practiced by anyone in America other than a small sliver of libertarians." What is the relevance of that to the validity of the ideas that constitute the philosophy? Zero. It is actually the other way around. Objectivism rejects you, because its leitmotif is that only ideas matter — the what and why of life. Yours is, so far, mired in who, how many or much, and where.
It is the inherent value of Rand's thinking that is key to the importance of the conservative's discovery of John Galt. Initially, they are responding only to her uncanny (to them) prophecy. And we all know how vulnerable Christians are to prophecies. So what? They immediately rushed Amazon, propelling Atlas Shrugged to #1. I fully expect and invite them to cherry pick the philosophy. Divorcing God is a process, not an event. But every chain of events starts with one. And for many conservatives, their Tea Party will be it.
I have for 45 years explained my personal journey through that transition by relating how Rand captured my mind by answering just a single major question that plagued me. "Hmm", I then said, "I wonder what she has to say about this, or that and so on." Like making a chain, one link at a time, the question repeated itself after she answered each previous one. And I'm still adding links to it today. Also, have you forgotten the part where she explains how the philosopher teaches the intellectual and the intellectuals become the professors, and they teach the students who become parents who train their children who are the masses who spread ideas with sayings and maxims and scribbles on bathroom walls? Beyond the philosopher and a smattering of intellectuals, few of the rest are ever more than cherry pickers.
Objectivism is the quintessential American philosophy. America is nothing if it is not the achievement of liberty by immigrants and the benefits that flow therefrom. What philosopher has explained that better while endowing it with a secular moral foundation? But that is not the source of Objectivism's value, it is its recognition — only the ideas are the philosophy, and they stand on their own merit.
Here, you are pleading with us to join you in dismissing Rand to search of another American philosophy. Long before we would do that, you have to show us you have properly and sufficiently dealt with this one. Dismissing it on the basis of some presumed number of adherents just doesn't cut it!
Post a Comment