Ayn Rand And The 2012 Presidential Campaign
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-20/ayn-rand-and-2012-presidential-campaign
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate has brought new attention to the philosopher Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan says as a young man he was inspired by Ayn Rand's writing. In her novels “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead,” she described the virtues of private enterprise and the evils of government. Those ideas resonated with Ryan, and in a campaign video from 2009 he said, "Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most." Ayn Rand was also an atheist, and Paul Ryan has distanced himself from Rand's religious views. But Ayn Rand remains an intriguing figure in American political thought. Senior fellow Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute, Slate political reporter David Weigel and Stanford history professor Jennifer burns join guest host Tom Gjelten to discuss her influence.
Guests
Onkar Ghate
senior fellow and vice president of intellectual leadership at the Ayn Rand Institute.
Jennifer Burns
assistant professor of history at Stanford University and author of "Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right."
David Weigel
political reporter for Slate.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I am disappointed that this show was so unfair to Onkar Ghate. He was not given a chance to answer most of the questions, all of which were hostile. Instead they were directed the other guests, who had anti-Rand agendas to begin with.
Our culture is full of misunderstanding of Ayn Rand's ideas. Not allowing Ghate the chance to answer only fuels that ignorance and hate.
Simple: Obama might have been influenced by Marshall, but likely as I, an atheist, have been influenced by Jesus and some more learnèd rabbis of his time and later, taking what seems decent and leaving all that were barbaric in the taking. Ayres appears to have been at most a friendly acquaintance useful for getting money and made respectable by virtue of being rich---and if youthful terrorism were an impediment, neither Menachem Begin nor Ollie North would have had any voice in the world. On the whole, Obama has, influences or no, acted as a capitalist/corporatist, as indicated by his saving companies in prefence to their workers and backing the Heritage Foundation's plan guarantying millions of customers for the insurance firms which any good communist or socialist would extirpate---the plan is not very laissez-faire-ish, but is very capitalist (the Free Market and Capitalism-as-it-is [as opposed to some unknowable ideal] have about as much in common as Kropotkinism and the Soviet Union).
Ryan, on the other hand, wishes to govern as a Randroid after a life-time mostly spent speaking and thinking as one (until he realised he needed the god-botherers).
Small quibble---you have misspelt "Democratic Party".
...which includes welfare programs.
"I am disappointed that this show was so unfair to Onkar Ghate. He was not given a chance to answer most of the questions, all of which were hostile. Instead they were directed the other guests, who had anti-Rand agendas to begin with."
That's interesting - I was very disappointed that none of the guests were sufficiently anti-Rand to provide a good overview of Rand as a societal factor.
I question the use of the term “thought” in connection with Ayn Rand. Instead, her writings are a temper tantrum resulting from a childhood trauma.
Her writings are set entirely in a fictional world of her own making, and cannot function in the real world. A classic example is Atlas Shrugged itself. It’s heroine (Dabney Taggert) inherited a railroad company from her father. How was it created? In the real world almost all railroads (certainly in this country) were the product of massive government involvement, including subsidies, bailouts, land grants and, on occasion, judges “bending the law” to allow the fledging companies to survive. In short, if we lived in Ayn Rand’s world Ms. Taggert wouldn’t have a railroad! (And the same is true of many other companies.)
I strongly urge everyone to read the two biographies of this creature now available, not just the one written by one of the guests (Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right). It, and the other (Ayn Rand and the World She Made), describe in detail the collection of contradictions, hypocrisy, and pathologies that made up her life.
Rand conducted her clique, the group of followers who made up her cult, with a ruthless totalitarianism Hitler and Stalin would envy. Everyone had to model themselves after her to the smallest detail: they bought the same furniture she bought, they listened to the same music she did (one noted pianist even gave away his collection of Brahms because she considered Brahms worthless), even their sex lives were twisted by her. As for individualism and free thought: Rand ruthlessly crushed anyone who demonstrated any of it!
My question to the supporters of Ayn Rand and laissez-faire Capitalism: If Government needs to stay out of Business then why does Business expect the Government to bail it out when it fails?
Well, I think the crash of 2008, the housing bubble, and the ensuing recession showed us what happens when we don't regulate Wall Street.
Rand should be and can be appreciated for her works of fiction that give insight to the way early life experience can shape ones belief structure.
I lived with a woman for a time that grew up under Russian occupation. She had a similar world view as Rand and sympathy was hard to bring out of her but she had some.
As has been said Rand went against her own teachings later in life as did most of the people who were involved with her movement. Nathaniel Branden who was her best student/advocate...boy toy, said that she failed to appreciate adequately the importance of kindness in human relationships.
To try and marry Rands teachings with Christianity is hard for me to understand. Others have posted teachings from the Bible that do seem to correlate to objectivistm however they are always quoting the Old Testament. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and his teachings are in the New Testament.
The proverb of teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish is Chinese in origin i believe. The New Testament gives us the parable of the loaves and fishes when Jesus feeds a multitude in need by collecting from those who had.
Have you ever wondered how things would shake out if we actually could choose what our taxes would go for? I have always thought it would be interesting if the I.R.S. (just for information) would put a line item asking you how you would like your taxes applied.
As for Rand vs. Marxism, in many ways she is the mirror image of it. Like Marx, she believed purely in a priori reasoning. As Ms. Burns put it in her book: “Rand denied any pathway of knowledge that did not derive from rational, conscious thought and did not lead to the conclusions she had syllogistically derived.” Goddess of the Market, page 237. Indeed, she “excluded any contradictory data deriving from experience”. Marx, of course, based his “economics” on his a priori metaphysics (known as Dialectical Materialism), with the same unrealistic results.
In this, Rand is literally Anti-American. Read the writings of the Founders, they all appeal to experience (especially history), not just to “noble” ideals pulled out of thin air. And, of course, the Founders believed compromise was essential to a democracy, and they set up a system designed to force compromise. Indeed, it can’t work without it!
The comment about Antitrust laws by the guest (Onkar Ghate, from the Ayn Rand Institute) is very telling. All he, and Rand, sees is corporations using such laws to crush their competitors. On what planet? The whole point of such laws is to break up oligarchic or monopolistic economic power, which is used to prevent any competition at all
And so what if she’s politically influential? So was Marx in his day (and still is in some places). So was a little book entitled Mein Kampf. If the mad views of this insane creature are influential today, the proper response is: be afraid, be very afraid!
In US constitution, Preamble, phrase : ...to promote the general welfare..." never meant, 'give poor people money', nor 'take from the producers to give to the non producers', or any such notion. In fact 'welfare' as we know it today, did not exist in any form in the 1770's . Orphans and derelicts were exclusively taken care of by religious factions and other private entities. Not by the State.
The phrase means the US shall: keep the Indians at bay, keep England and other enemy nations from interfering with our National and international rights to sovereignty, such as attacking and burning DC and Boston.... Promote and maintain order and trade between the states, maintain a viable and stable money supply, among other things.
Nowhere did anyone at this time expect or receive free benefits from the Taxpayers. This is a Marxist invention that was inserted into US achedemia in the last 80 years as a way to advance socialism/communism/Marxism.
The caller is clearly indoctrinated by 20th century State education which seeks to indoctrinate young people to believe the Government is and has always been, responsible for an equality of outcomes, by taxing the producers and redistributing to the losers in life's lottery.
Further proof of the corrupting power of Rand’s ramblings can be found in the remarks by her “disciple” (Onkar Ghate) about the Declaration of Independence. A few points about that.
First, the Declaration, while a noble document, is not part of our law. Indeed, it’s only legal effect is the part it is named for: the part that declares the United Colonies to be Free and Independent States. Only the Constitution is part of our law. Indeed, it is the supreme law of the land!
Second, the Declaration isn’t just about “individual freedom”. In fact, it is very much collectivist! Why are governments created? Why to secure those rights, with those governments “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The consent referred to is not unanimity (which is impossible to achieve), it’s majority rule. So, we collectively form a government in order that it, collectively, can secure those rights we, collectively through majority rule, decide should be secured.
Third, the Constitution reflects this. Only certain rights are considered so important that they are placed beyond the reach of majority rule. Among others are those in the Bill of Rights: freedom of religion (including freedom from government establishment of religion), freedom of speech, Due Process, and so on. Note that the “freedom” to make a buck, or the “freedom” to do whatever one wants, aren’t there.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for the “common welfare”, consider the words of James Madison (in The Federalist Papers, number 45): “the common good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.” That hardly sounds like a call for “individualism” (as Rand and Ghate define it).
By the way, Madison says this in connection with denying the American Revolution was fought to achieve State sovereignty, counter to that other conservative false idol: State’s Rights.
"In particular, the Large banks expected a bail out from US taxpayers, because they could get it. The reason they could is complex, but boils down to two words. Fed Reserve. The Fed Reserve was/is in charge of overseeing Fannie and Fredie, and, purposely extended these GSE's massive credit, causing soaring housing prices, causing massive borrowing and spending. The Fed Reserve also initiated and sponsored, the monitization of all this bad debt, they were instrumental in creating, thus foisting upon the US public, a vast fraud.
Note; None will be prosecuted in this scheme because the Fed and Friends are protected by a wide net of well placed public servants, prosecutors, newspapers editors and owners and achedemia.
When the whole thing collapsed in 2007, the Fed friend banks and reinsurers Chase, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, B of A, AIG ... were all bailed out by DC, at the instructions of the Fed.
The Fed owns congress, owns the giant banks and and collectively these great banking houses and the Fed, own the Media, literally, through stock ownerships and directors.
So you see, Capitalism was not in charge of obtaining bail outs for great banks, the Fed Reserve was. A private , Central Bank."
From 200 Years of Central Banks, by Thomas M. Cole
And remember, there is nothing moral about Capitalism. That’s not a criticism, but a simple statement of fact. There’s also nothing moral about Physics, Chemistry, or any of the “hard” sciences. Why should the “soft” sciences be based on morality either?
The “father” of Capitalism (Adam Smith) recognized this. Far from believing economics was moral, he proposed his Theory of Moral Sentiments (which bases morality on sympathy, the capacity to empathize with others) as a necessary and fundamental counter-force to the self-interest at the heart of economics. In his view no society can survive based solely on greed.
Indeed, in his classic work (The Wealth of Nations) he warns against trusting the greed of businessmen, and (recognizing our “collective” responsibilities) supports progressive taxation, finding nothing wrong with the idea that those who have benefited the most from society should pay the most back to it! (I question whether Smith would support the version of Laissez-Faire Rand and today’s Republicans champion.)
Of course, Smith provides a more realistic and sound philosophy because he was of the school of philosophy known as British Empiricism, the very opposite of Rand’s approach to “philosophy”! Thus, it’s no wonder she produces ideas which are not merely amoral (without morality), but positively immoral!. (Again, the same is true of Marx, her mirror image.)
Perhaps you protest to much.
It should come as no surprise that Ryan is actually a “cafeteria Randian”, after all he’s also a “cafeteria” Catholic: picking and choosing which words of his god to follow, and ignoring the rest. (Of course, he has the right to do that as a matter of individual faith. He has no right to rule our lives that way!)
At bottom, Rand’s philosophy (like too much of modern “Libertarianism”) is simply warmed over Social Darwinism (which actually has little to do with Darwin). The basic hypocrisy of political conservatives embracing her views (except on Atheism) matches that of conservative Christians who reject all things “Darwinian”, except this bastard offspring of his ideas.
But then, as Benjamin Disraeli observed, a conservative government is an organized hypocrisy!
In the end, Ryan (and Rand’s other supporters) are living proof that an old saying is true:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
The other, of course, involves orcs."
Please don’t let this woman’s “ideas”, or the people who admire them, govern our nation!
randalland on August 20, 2012 @ 1:52 pm wrote: “Have you ever wondered how things would shake out if we actually could choose what our taxes would go for? I have always thought it would be interesting if the I.R.S. (just for information) would put a line item asking you how you would like your taxes applied.”
I’ve often wondered the same thing. Perhaps it could consist of the categories of things our taxes pay for (national defense, crime control, social programs, pollution control, etc.) with us either indicating which ones we want, or even able to specify the percentage of taxes to go to each one (some getting zero percent). It would certainly do away with the (silly actually) complaint that in a democracy it’s unfair to tax people for programs they don’t support. That’s one problem solved!
(Of course, I’d advise making this a pilot program, and one not legally binding on the government!)
"Bo Jones wrote:
from a column by David Harsani:
For the casual Rand fan, it’s the rigid and idealistic conviction about individual freedom and capitalism that is most seductive. For ardent detractors, people who believe that compassion and charity are best meted out by economic systems and government policy, this is depravity. Ayn Rand believed that individuals have the moral responsibility for their own actions. In free will."
Fair enough. Does she then define her moral responsiblities, which actions are Moral and which are not or does she leave it movable??
"And why aren’t we focusing on more contemporary cases of guilt by intellectual association? You will remember that the mere mention of the president’s pastor or his academic roots or his graduate work or his reading material or his testimonial dinners to terrorist apologists were irrelevant to the man."
I can't tell where Harsani leaves off and you begin so I pray you allow me to remind you of some Historical facts.
It was Reagan who incorporated The Rapture into his attack on the Soviets, leaving some of our Allies bemused and others convinced that Reagan was indeed nuts!!
It was the forenamed Four Named GHW Bush who gave the Ayatollah the Secret Bonesman Kiss of Ultimate Pleasure for sinking the reelection of Carter, an honorable and decent Man, unlike the 3 Generations of Traitorous Bush Crypto Jews who have led us to the lowest state in at least 4 Generations.
Imagine, 2 Presidents with gaps in their Diaries which they refuse to explain!!!
"This administration has put together an all-star team of Malthusian nuts, truthers and Mao-quoting czarinas and czars, yet that doesn’t mean a thing."
The Obama Administration... Malthusian nuts, truthers and Mao-quoting czarinas and czars????
What a curious device, to accuse us of their crimes or insanities!!!
August 20, 2012 - 10:54 am
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Rand considered people on government assistance: "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness."
She meant it. The newspapers at that time were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism."
...
Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.
I don't find it hard to understand why this happened to Rand: I feel sympathy for her, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are people—large numbers of people—who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? What in American culture did she drill into? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this, the only great question about her.
TMCole31 on August 20, 2012 @ 2:10 pm wrote: “In US constitution, Preamble, phrase : ... ‘to promote the general welfare...’ means the US shall: keep the Indians at bay, keep England and other enemy nations from interfering with our National and international rights to sovereignty, such as attacking and burning DC and Boston.... Promote and maintain order and trade between the states, maintain a viable and stable money supply, among other things.”
Nonsense! That’s what the provisions of the Constitution which provide for the “common defense” (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1), regulating commerce “among the several States” (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Paragraph 3), or regulating the value of money (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Paragraph 5) are for (among other things).
Ah, and what of those “other things”. Well, take a good look at that first paragraph of Article, 1, Section 8. Not only does it provide Congress the power to “tax and spend” in order to pay America’s debts, and to provide for the common defense, but also to provide for the general welfare! Get it? The general welfare is in addition to all those other “things”.
And note: I am citing from the actual legal provisions of the Constitution, not just the Preamble (which is a fine statement of intent, but not legally binding).
But bravo! You are a true Randian (and Republi-Con): ideology, not facts and reason, guide you. And anyone who deviates from your views in the slightest degree must be a “collectivist” or Marxist. Nothing like demanding everyone “toe the Party line” - you’d fit right in as a member of the Supreme Soviet!
"Walter13 wrote:
"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."
This is a woman I truly hate.
August 20, 2012 - 11:38 am"
What else would you expect from a probable Zionist??
When the Zionists and Feinsmecker defenders of Zionists have exhausted their supply of lame justifications for their brutal, inhumane and genocidal slaughter of the Palestinian People and, unfortunately, in the manner of the most stereotypical greedy insatiable Jew, theft of their Land, their Olives and their Organs, they dig out our treatment of the Native Americans.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
I always wondered what Ayn Rand would think of the ancient Phalanx system, and how people would interpret it. I find that many people struggle with her precept that looking out for oneself will result in a better society, we try and understand how basic tenants of society, such as trust, fit with her philosophy.
A phalanx required that your shield protected the solder to your left, and that you trusted the man to the right to protect you with his shield. It is widely agreed that the phalanx was successful in war, and so how does her philosophy account for this concept of, 'protect the man to your left before you protect yourself'?
I don't believe Ayn Rand had a good answer for this. I've sat in discussions with the Atlas society in Washington and tried to tackle this by suggesting that if you know helping someone else will help yourself, much like the phalanx, then it is in your self interest. Unfortunately this requires trust, which is too close to Altruism, and so the concept is lost.
I do believe the best lesson you can take from Ayn's work is that people abuse systems, abuse trust, abuse altruism, to take for themselves. These people are not the 'doers' of society, they are the parasites. Never trust people who's first instinct is to 'game a system'.
Unfortunately, the characters she creates are impossibly extreme; either impossibly capable or impossibly parasitic. No one can pay attention to all things all the time, people are good at some things and not as good at others. As a result, people with good intentions, who are good at what they do, may come across as parasitic to others.
To best follow her philosophy we must surround ourselves with people who, from our perspective, are 'doers', people who help us achieve our visions.
TMCole31 on August 20, 2012 @ 2:32 pm wrote: “The Fed Reserve was/is in charge of overseeing Fannie and Fredie, . . . .”
Very interesting, but I have to question the accuracy of what appears to be an ideological ranting by Mr. Cole. You see, the Reserve wasn’t “in charge of overseeing Fannie and Fredie”. They were privately owned (although publicly chartered). And after the economic meltdown, their supervision was given to the (newly created) Federal Housing Finance Agency “an independent federal agency”.
While it’s true the Reserve played a role in the “bailing out” of these entities, it was mostly advisory. (After all, the Reserve is loaded with economists happy to give advice on a moment’s notice.) But to say it was “in charge” is an exaggeration.
Cautionary note: This mostly comes from Wikipedia articles on the “Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”, “Government-sponsored enterprise”, and the “Federal Housing Finance Agency”. So, I’d take this with a grain of salt. But then, I advise the same for Mr. Cole’s book.
And, of course, you are ignoring the most important point of all: what philosophy was in charge of allowing all those toxic mortgages, credit default swaps, derivatives, and all the other "innovative" new financial instruments that were the root cause of the economic mess? Answer: the mindless deregulation of such followers of Rand's ideas as Greenspan, the Bush Administration, and (oh yes) Paul Ryan!
The bailout may or may not have been "capitalist", but what caused the collapse sure was. (Or, rather, the distorted view of Capitalism promoted by the likes of Rand, and her followers.)
TMCole31 August 20, 2012 @ 2:41 pm wrote: "Perhaps you protest to much."
Perhaps you should address the substance of what I wrote, instead of evading and avoiding it.
mchaun on August 20, 2012 @ 2:59 pm wrote: “unlike the 3 Generations of Traitorous Bush Crypto Jews who have led us to the lowest state in at least 4 Generations.”
I have no idea what you, Bo Jones, or this Harsani guy are raving about. (Talk of stream-of-conciousness writing!) But as a real Jew, I find that remark offensive.
(And I was no Bush supporter.)
mchaun on August 20, 2012 @ 3:10 pm wrote: “When the Zionists and Feinsmecker defenders of Zionists have exhausted their supply of lame justifications for their brutal, inhumane and genocidal slaughter of the Palestinian People. . . .”
Since I don’t write in the language of Euphemism, I must protest your Anti-Semitism.
Since when has Israel engaged in a campaign of “genocidal slaughter”? I agree some things done by its government (particularly the Likud) have been wrong, but they almost pale to insignificance compared to the actions of the “Palestinian People” and their supporters. How many wheelchair bound old men has Israel thrown into the sea to drown (the Achille Lauro hijacking)? How many Olympic athletes has it targeted and murdered (Munich)? How many office buildings has it flown planes into, killing thousands, while Israeli’s danced for joy in the streets, and passed out candy to their children in celebration (9/11)? And the list goes on and on.
(The answer, by the way, is none!)
Even the Israeli government's wrongdoing in response to rocket attacks from Gaza were, after all, responses to the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas (etc.). That, of course, is what all these incidents by the “poor, innocent, Palestinians” have in common: deliberate targeting of civilians, not military locations. When it comes to morality, the Palestinians are in a sewer.
As for Israel’s right to exist, it’s not based on some notion of “Manifest Destiny” (as was the treatment of our Native Americans). It’s based on International Law, which is also the basis for the right of a Palestine to exist. Criticize the Likud government for allowing illegal settlements - I’ll be right there with you. But stop pretending the existence of Israel is in anyway illegitimate.
My son had me read 'Atlas Shrugged' (I think because it was a thick book and we were on a long road trip). The ideas in the book did change my thinking and the concepts raised are still valid. But to really understand the book's message, it helps to understand the messenger. Ayn Rand's idealogy was a direct reaction to the communism she grew up in. Her life was lived as self-centered as the characters in her book and the people who use her idealogy to guide their lives are just as narrow-mindedly self-interested. On the other hand, there are those who view it their right to expect government to take care of them. Not facing the reality of greed and self-interest, both in those in business who take as much as they can get and those dependent on government taking as much as they can get, has brought this country a world of hurt.
insdel2006, exactly!
She tapped into greed and selfishness, that desire that we all have as 2 year olds when we say 'Mine!' about anything we want.