Article "Wealthcare" at The New Republic

[Grames]

On the occasion of two new books about Rand to be released in October 2009, The New Republic publishes an article by Jonathon Chait about conservatism and Ayn Rand.

Opening paragraph notes a new idea among those on the right, "that the United States is divided into two classes--the hard-working productive elite, and the indolent masses leeching off their labor by means of confiscatory taxes and transfer programs." Instances of the idea are furnished in quotes from the AEI, Senator Jim Demint, Pat Toomey, some anonymous hedge-fund analysts, and Rick Santelli and Rudolph Giuliani.

Then he makes an identification: "There is another way to describe this conservative idea. It is the ideology of Ayn Rand." Ayn Rand, whom he identifies as "a strange and rather sinister figure".

How many ways is this false?

There is no correspondence between the virtue of productivity and being hard-working. There is no correspondence between being productive and being elite. The masses are not indolent or we would have been dead long ago. Conservatives cannot understand Ayn Rand. Conservatives agree that Ayn Rand is "a strange and rather sinister figure".

I look forward to the books, but this article says very little about the books themselves and serve only as an excuse for Chait's own article.

[Thales]

Then he makes an identification: "There is another way to describe this conservative idea. It is the ideology of Ayn Rand." Ayn Rand, whom he identifies as "a strange and rather sinister figure".

When someone uses the word "strange" to describe Ayn Rand -- I see it often enough -- it tells me that they can't relate to the ideas and they refuse to think them through. "Sinister", well, that just follows from their view that she is "strange". The guy doesn't understand her ideas at all. That's the real confession here.

[PatriotResistance]

When someone uses the word "strange" to describe Ayn Rand -- I see it often enough -- it tells me that they can't relate to the ideas and they refuse to think them through. "Sinister", well, that just follows from their view that she is "strange". The guy doesn't understand her ideas at all. That's the real confession here.

Yes.

But I think it's even worse. I think most people don't make any attempt to understand, they just want a 7-second sound bite. And no matter what they may be told or what they read, what they "H-E-A-R" is:

- selfish, greedy, screw everybody else for my gain

- zero compassion, whatever happens is too bad for you

- a select few people are smart enough to be producers, the rest owe their existence to them

And I think Objectivism comes off as being too intellectual for most people. So it's too easy to get turned off right away. Does Objectivism need better marketing?

What would be a good 7-second sound bite? Ayn Rand made an attempt at a quick summary. My paraphrase of her answer is:

"The essence of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is that reality is an objective absolute, that people of reason choose to think and act, that their highest moral purpose is their own self-interest and happiness, that capitalism (rights protected by rule of law) is the best source of justice and liberty for moral, intelligent and thinking people."

Bob

The Essence of Objectivism

Edited September 21, 2009 by PatriotResistance

[kainscalia]

And just read the replies. It's a parade of imbeciles, no doubt about that. Look at this quote:

"I love this nonsensical quote: She "has an excellent grasp of the way capitalism is supposed to work, the efficiencies of free enterprise, the central role of private property and the profit motive, the social and political costs of welfare schemes which seek to compel a false benevolence," he wrote, but unfortunately she rejects "the Christian culture which has given birth to all our freedoms."

Amazing how Evans reduced Christianity to nothing more than an acquired culture built up over time, as opposed to what it is, a radical theology which is an utter refutation of Ayn Rand and her beliefs, a belief in the value of the other above and beyond how we should value ourselves. For Christians it is God, family, and Country above oneself. She was completely delusional if she could ever imagine the masses would be willing to fight and die against external threats so that the elite "supermen" could exalt themselves over the "common" man.

One of the more interesting things to watch is the battle between Randians and fundies in the Republican party, it was, after all, who coined the term "club for greed" in place of "club for growth.""