Posted on 04/14/2011 7:13:39 AM PDT by iowamark
I should note at the outset of this piece that many conservatives properly owe a debt of thought to Ayn Rand. Rands attacks against the excesses of liberalism are some of the most cogent that have ever been penned; much of Rands writing is dedicated to the laudable principle that industry and ingenuity should be rewarded and slothfulness should be punished. That said, while Rand was unquestionably an enemy of liberalism, she is Exhibit 1 in illustrating the principle that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
It is one thing to tip an acknowledging nod towards Rands influence on conservatives, particularly young conservatives. However, it is another thing entirely to find allegedly grown and serious men worshiping her philosophy devoutly. For instance, according to this Daily Beast article (which I guess must be taken with an appropriate measure of salt given the source), Tea Party messiah Paul Ryan describes himself as a Rand nut and goes so far as force his staffers to read Rands tracts. Furthermore, FreedomWorks President and would-be Tea Party leader Matt Kibbe is likewise a proud Rand devotee who has gushingly called the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie (which by all accounts from the previews looks to be equal parts camp and trainwreck) an important Tea Party movie and urged Tea Partiers everywhere to see the movie.
While Ayn Rands Objectivist philosophy had many useful things to say about liberalism, when applied as a positive philosophy to life, it leads to results just as monstrous as communism. No one who, as a mature adult, espouses it without reservation should be taken seriously or considered a leader of conservative thought. And, although I am admittedly not plugged in to the Tea Pary movement, I would wager that a vast majority of its rank and file members would be surprised to learn that the movement is supposedly animated by an atheistic and rabidly pro-choice materialist.
The first and most obvious objection to coopting conservatism in the name of Rands objectivism is that Rand herself rejected conservatism. She hated religion and all founding traditions. Anything that stood in the way of the accumulation of wealth and pleasure (for the few in this world who are fortunate enough to be beautiful and talented) is to be rejected. As Whittaker Chambers noted long ago in what is still the definitive repudiation of Rand, in this Rand was in fact not meaningfully different from the Marxism she sought to repudiate:
So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the books last line, that a character traces in the air, over the desolate earth, the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the mysticism of mind and the mysticism of muscle).
That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rands ideas that the good life is one which has resolved personal worth into exchange value, has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous cash-payment. The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript: And I mean it. But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired naked self-interest (in its time and place), and for much the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment.
As Chambers pointed out, this sort of inspired naked atheistic matieralism that brooks no dissent and seeks to level the entire world before it inevitably leads to disaster, whether animated by Marx or Rand:
Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.
Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitlers National Socialism and Stalins brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?
Something of this implication is fixed in the books dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: To a gas chamber go! The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.
In truth, Rands philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, was so monstrous that she was unable to live it personally even though she boldly and often claimed that she did. As Charles Murray (who is a Rand fan) notes, there is much to admire (for some people) in her works and novels; however, her philosophy is simply not something that can be consistently lived, and to try is to invite a life of misery and madness.
I would certainly not begrudge anyone who enjoyed Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. I myself read them as a teenager and enjoyed both, and to this day they are two of the books which most encapsulate what is wrong with liberalism today. The concern I have - and the concern which it seems to me many rank and file Tea Party members should have - is that many of the self-appointed leading lights of the Tea Party movement have apparently undertaken to uncritically appoint Rands philosophy as a guiding principle of the Tea Party movement. Rands philosophy undoubtedly contains some wheat, but the vast majority of it is inedible chaff, and a prescription for the death of the traditions and institutions that make America great. One need look no farther than Rands open disdain for Reagan as a puppet of the religious right to understand that she does not speak for almost any self-identified conservative in this country. One wonders, then, why so many self-appointed conservative leaders seem determined to let her speak for them.
Awwww, how cute, the Anti-Rand brigade thinks they still have a leg to stand on.
Bravo!!!!
Though Ayn Rand highlights certain economic truths....her overall philosophy was the antithesis of Judeo-Christian thought. People need to be very aware of this....
RedState, a subsidiary of CNN.
Awwww, how cute, the Anti-Rand brigade thinks they still have a leg to stand on.
**********************
Amusing, isn’t it? At this stage of terminal decline. I guess we should all be over at National Review, where things are holding up so well.
Man every man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
I wasn't quite sure how literally I should take this one of Rand's "commandments". I could interpret it to a reasonable bit of advice; but strict adherence to it would be clear evil.
As a novelist, I think Rand could have benefited from a good editor (too lengthy). As a philosopher, I think Rand could have benefited from a better sense of morality. For her, atheism was important. I think her message about economics and social issues could have been stronger with the incorporation of Judeo-Christian morality.
If all morality comes from man's self-interest, then we are going to have problems. Seeking moral guidance from outside of man, provides a more objective and impartial viewpoint. But that's not where Rand wanted to go.
Capitalism only works with the dual combination of self-interest and moral uprightness. The thief, in the end, is the most nakedly self-interested person on earth, which is why Rand-ism does not work.
"....Now, one thing individualism implies -- as we shall see -- is God. Therefore, ideologies that promote individualism in the absence of God (and this includes some varieties of conservatism, e.g., [atheist] Ayn Rand) are not only intellectually bizarre but frankly destructive and disorganizing. ..." ~ Dr. Robert W. Godwin, Ph.D Clinical Psychology (Blogs as "Gagdad Bob")bttt
“I guess we should all be over at National Review, where things are holding up so well.”
Go to CPAC and you’ll see what the problem is.
+1
I liked reading Rand when I was younger, but her rejection of Christianity (replacing the sign of the Cross with the sign of the Dollar) shares a lot in common with the atheistic/nihilist thoughts of Nietzche.
Exactly. (See #9 above)
My, what a thoughtful response. Are all of you’re views as half-baked as Rand’s?
Makes me more than a little suspicious of the intent of the article's author.
In Judeo-Christian thought, however, the individual is prized specifically because he is made in the image of the Most High God.
Oops - that’s “your”.
Duh. Anyone who espouses any philosophy "without reservation" is simply building strawmen for their opponents.
thank you , voice of realism and reason
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.