http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/1…atlas-shrugged/
A breath of fresh, conservative air from this quack.
He didn’t say anything nice? 
What I found most interesting was the comments (16 of them at the time of my reading); not one comment agreed with the author, in fact they wre all supportive of Objectivism. If this is the kind of readership The Washington Times attracts, I might consider getting a subscription for my Kindle.
What I found most interesting was the comments (16 of them at the time of my reading); not one comment agreed with the author, in fact they wre all supportive of Objectivism. If this is the kind of readership The Washington Times attracts, I might consider getting a subscription for my Kindle.
A lot of the commentators there were clearly Objectivists - which apparently included Jack Crawford, Ed Thompson and Harry Binswanger (!). I can’t tell from back here what sort of following or influence this Galupo guy has, so what concerns me more is that this article had so few comments. This lead me to wonder why on earth so many heavy-duty Objectivists would want to pile on?? Merely the fact that it is the Washington Times, or should we expect to see a flood of comments over this weekend? At the moment it looks as though there were several RPG rounds used to get rid of a single lame sheep that’s riddled with maggots.
JJM
An honest conservative
Not sure what your standards are, but he sounds neither honest nor like a conservative to me…
The author was definitely not a conservative, just another Liberal speaking to his fan base about the stupidity of conservatives and the childishness of Capitalism.
Not sure what your standards are, but he sounds neither honest nor like a conservative to me…
That’s what I was reading too. A person with an agenda trying to label, categorize, minimize and vilify the message of Rand and Atlas Shrugged to further the ideology of what’s currently happening.
To me, he sounds like a neo-conservative in that article; perhaps that’s why folks here detect liberal-sounding themes. The neo-cons basically come out of a very similar intellectual tradition as the “left”, with the only difference being of having retained God thrown in the mix, and being lighter on the government’s role in the economy. The favorable mention of David Frum is a small giveaway, but – more broadly – the thesis of the article is exactly what one would expect from a neo-con.: the call not to be carried away from their compassionate-conservativism to the libertarian or Rand style thinking on markets. Also typical is the mention that Rand is atheist. Basically, that’s the standard neo-con argument that they make to the broader GOP base: "Rand is for government that stays out of most economic laws, while we are not; Rand is an atheist, while we are religious. "
It is the type of article about Rand that I like to see, because it has few – if any – blatant misrepresentations, and does not try to throw in salacious nonsense about Rand’s personal life. (For instance, consider the recent Huffington Post article that was discussed in another thread.) An article like this one has no value to someone like me, or to most folks on the forum. However, to the person who is going to read it – the Washington Times newspaper reader – it broadly positions Rand where we would like to see her positioned: an interesting and important author, who was for small government, yet was an atheist. In addition, it provides a starting point, to which Objectivists can comment. In the comments, more important that the philosophical points is to leave the intelligent and honest reader thinking" “these Objectivists sound like a reasonable and intelligent bunch”. As Objectivists, we’ll almost always have criticism and find flaws; however, as long as Rand is portrayed broadly in the correct ballpark, the rest is up to the intelligent reader who is intrigued by the combination.
From what I could see, Galupo writes mainly on technology, music, video games, etc. I’m not sure what qualifies him as a “conservative”, but if he actually is one, then he’s a big government conservative out of the G.W. Bush mold.
As Snerd put it rather well, he’s a neocon.
…he’s a big government conservative out of the G.W. Bush mold.
I don’t see big government and conservative as being united in actuality. And Bush was not a conservative.
I don’t see big government and conservative as being united in actuality. And Bush was not a conservative.
There’s certainly a wing of conservatism that is in favor of small or smaller government. Bush claimed to be a conservative when it suited his purposes. Remember the term “compassionate conservative”?
I don’t see big government and conservative as being united in actuality. And Bush was not a conservative.
Well, the term “conservative” does not refer to some really well-defined viewpoint. Not sure how you use the term. You’re excluding Bush, do you also exclude the more religious folk, what about the neo-cons?
There’s certainly a wing of conservatism that is in favor of small or smaller government. Bush claimed to be a conservative when it suited his purposes. Remember the term “compassionate conservative”?
There’s a part of the Republican party that is in favor of small or smaller government. Those that are elected by the GOP however are more progressive in nature than conservative.
The term compassionate conservative? LOL! Yeah, it’s memorable. Honestly, I think it’s a progressive GOP ploy to try to be more altruistic like the radical progressives on the Democratic side. There are those that “feel” that that is their pathway to more control and power in government. By that nature, it’s obviously going to lead to bigger government.
The term compassionate conservative? LOL! Yeah, it’s memorable. Honestly, I think it’s a progressive GOP ploy to try to be more altruistic like the radical progressives on the Democratic side. There are those that “feel” that that is their pathway to more control and power in government. By that nature, it’s obviously going to lead to bigger government.
If the Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from the Democrats, they are doomed to electoral mediocrity at best. Why vote for Democrat Lite (i.e. the current GOP), when you can vote for the real thing?
The term compassionate conservative? LOL! Yeah, it’s memorable. Honestly, I think it’s a progressive GOP ploy to try to be more altruistic like the radical progressives on the Democratic side.
I think your cynicism about people like Bush who speak of “compassionate conservativsm” is misplaced. Of course there will be people who simply see the marketing potential, but it is a mistake to think that this does not also form a part of the core beliefs of many in the GOP. Both parties have cynics, but there is an undercurrent of real intellectual ideas in both.
If you have not already, check out Bradley Thompson’s article on conservativsm. It’s long, but very well-researched and well worth studying.
If the Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from the Democrats, they are doomed to electoral mediocrity at best. Why vote for Democrat Lite (i.e. the current GOP), when you can vote for the real thing?
I agree. But seldom is there an opportunity for the real thing.
I do believe that we might be seeing a change. I certainly want that as I recognize that there are many others that are irritated with the constant intrusion. Certainly, Rand’s message is good.
On edit…seeing change. I recognize that more are willing to listen if not invite more discussion about the general talking points of what ABC, CBS, etc. present as the talking points for politics. What are others thoughts?
Both parties have cynics, but there is an undercurrent of real intellectual ideas in both.
Right, although much of the ideology is itself very cynical.
The author was definitely not a conservative, just another Liberal speaking to his fan base about the stupidity of conservatives and the childishness of Capitalism.
He is a conservative if you’ve read other things from him. Also, the source I got it from calls him a god-fearing small government conservative, or some such laughable non-sense.
Although the author was down on Ayn Rand, it was a good article, because it was honest and well written. I enjoyed reading it for those reasons.
The guy does come across as a neo-con and you have to remember there are conservatives who have a strong dislike for Ayn Rand, even more than many liberals. Neo-cons, btw, are, at foundation, Marxist. There was an excellent article in The Objective Standard from a couple of years ago revealing this.
He didn’t say anything nice?
Awwww! we bwoke his widdwle bawoon: Poor baby!
I keep telling you gues. we’ve been part of the Right for 35 years. in fact the first political group founded on Objectivism was called the New Righ Coalition in 1971 or 2 in the heart of enemy territory, the Peoples’ Repubic of Massatwochitts. I had two of their buttons a fuscia on that said “Who is John Galt” and a yellow one that said “FIGHT FOR CAPITAL$M”. I used to war them to college.
while we may not share the specific beliefs of the conservatives, or what passes for conservatives, we’ve long since co-opted the attitudes and values: Purpose, productivity, achievement-orientedness. moral absolutism and unbashed pro-Amricanism. I think we ought to take the whole thing over before the libertarians and conservatives frig it up beyond all redeemabilty. If we did, it really would br right.
Just to show how much this douchebag knows. Rand was not a “strident atheist” and has said as much. How strident an atheist can you be and have a philosophical crush on St Thomas Aquinas or say “If I were a religious person, I would say ‘God Bless America’. I am saying it anyway”? Could you imagine Madalyn Murray O’Hare, who once described the persons of the Soviet Union as “happy atheists”? doing either of those? Read Raned’s assessment of religion in RM. It is not one of hostility but of sympathy (in the real meaning of that word).
And what’s more Fantasy Island than a political group whose beliefs includes demons and angels? Or did I take a wrong turn at Alpha Centauri?
Looks like it’ll be the Elves and Hobbits to the rescue. Oh well, It’s a good thing I still have that crush on Galdriel (beats the livin’ crap out of having one on Nancy Pelosi). In fact Tolkien was a member of the Oxford English Dictionary Committee (or something like that) and a Thomist. which is the Catholic branch of the Aristotelian family of philosphy