Conservative or Liberal or What?
It is an easy claim that most admirers of Ayn Rand's works consider themselves conservatives. When presented with that, I believe that many will balk, insisting on their atheism as an easy out. A woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is another delineation. Yet, I suggest that a formal poll on specific issues and specific politicians would reveal a strong correlation across the American political right, including admirers of Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan and Ron Paul are perhaps paradigmatic.
Analogs among Democrats seem non-existent. I do offer Christopher Hitchens as self-defined political liberal who publicly denigrated Ayn Rand, yet whose own words often were echoic of her own sentiments - and not just on atheism. He was perhaps the Austen Heller of our time.
In "Ayn Rand Answers: the best of her Q&A" the subject of gun control appears twice. She was ambivalent providing no easy answer but only an open question: how do we balance your right to self-defense with the state's monopoly on force? The only purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being, she said, and no one has that right. (Yes, you can hunt handgun. That is not the issue she was addressing.) This is not a debate about gun control, but only an identification of the issue as a way to sort conservative from liberal, Republican from Democrat, in America today. On that issue, as on religion, and on abortion, Ayn Rand was liberal. In fact, in the Objectivist Newsletter she was explicit in her affinity for the fact that liberals take an intellectual approach to problems, whereas conservatives fall back on tradition.
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
A minor point, a subject she herself did not explicitly address, but which unites the right wing, is the place of gold currency in the economy. In "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" the essay on gold was the work of Alan Greenspan. In the Valley, when John Galt pays Dagny with a gold coin, she asks him "On whose authority?" and he points to the legend "United States of America." That anyone should be able to create their own money was not a specific consideration. In that, held an implicitly liberal or progressivist view.
Retreatism crosses the left-right distinction. Back in the 60s, the "Whole Earth Catalog" sold goods and ideas to people who wanted to get out of the cities and back to the land. Today's conservatives share that same fear of cities. Ayn Rand, of course, glorified New York City. In that, she shared a passion for urban culture with Jane Jacobs, an avowed socialist, who also rhapsodized about the success of civilization as (literally) city culture, urbanity.
Ayn Rand found homosexuality disgusting. Whether she would be laissez faire about gay marriage is a moot point. It is easy to project from her actual writings that she would consider it none of the state's business. But that would apply, also, to smoking marijuana, which she definitely did not advocate. Rand developed Objectivism as a philosophy for personal living. In other words, you may well have a political right to be irrational, but, morally, it is wrong.
That takes Ayn Rand off the political scale (or plane) entirely.
Analogs among Democrats seem non-existent. I do offer Christopher Hitchens as self-defined political liberal who publicly denigrated Ayn Rand, yet whose own words often were echoic of her own sentiments - and not just on atheism. He was perhaps the Austen Heller of our time.
In "Ayn Rand Answers: the best of her Q&A" the subject of gun control appears twice. She was ambivalent providing no easy answer but only an open question: how do we balance your right to self-defense with the state's monopoly on force? The only purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being, she said, and no one has that right. (Yes, you can hunt handgun. That is not the issue she was addressing.) This is not a debate about gun control, but only an identification of the issue as a way to sort conservative from liberal, Republican from Democrat, in America today. On that issue, as on religion, and on abortion, Ayn Rand was liberal. In fact, in the Objectivist Newsletter she was explicit in her affinity for the fact that liberals take an intellectual approach to problems, whereas conservatives fall back on tradition.
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
A minor point, a subject she herself did not explicitly address, but which unites the right wing, is the place of gold currency in the economy. In "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" the essay on gold was the work of Alan Greenspan. In the Valley, when John Galt pays Dagny with a gold coin, she asks him "On whose authority?" and he points to the legend "United States of America." That anyone should be able to create their own money was not a specific consideration. In that, held an implicitly liberal or progressivist view.
Retreatism crosses the left-right distinction. Back in the 60s, the "Whole Earth Catalog" sold goods and ideas to people who wanted to get out of the cities and back to the land. Today's conservatives share that same fear of cities. Ayn Rand, of course, glorified New York City. In that, she shared a passion for urban culture with Jane Jacobs, an avowed socialist, who also rhapsodized about the success of civilization as (literally) city culture, urbanity.
Ayn Rand found homosexuality disgusting. Whether she would be laissez faire about gay marriage is a moot point. It is easy to project from her actual writings that she would consider it none of the state's business. But that would apply, also, to smoking marijuana, which she definitely did not advocate. Rand developed Objectivism as a philosophy for personal living. In other words, you may well have a political right to be irrational, but, morally, it is wrong.
That takes Ayn Rand off the political scale (or plane) entirely.
If both parties take it as a fact of life that taking other people's money is good, and only argue about how they will spend it, they are the same.
A difference which makes no difference, IS no difference.
Our national debt has actually remained static for the past 70 days straight...instead of increasing with each sunrise.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/70-strai...
You nailed it. Too many people don't have principles OR the gumption to pay attention enough to decide on a candidate without someone else telling them who to vote for. They lack personal philosophy and flim flam their way through life.
I want to be able to vote "none of the above".
As for voting "none of the above"...my truck burns up too much gas for me to waste the trip! ;-)
And, if you REALLY, REALLY want to vote NOTA, just call me and I'll give you a ride to the polling place. Probably.
A "75% evil person" will set your agenda back more than a "50% evil person". Can't work any other way.
The 'all or nothing' approach will get you...nothing.
We do have the opportunity of implementing Ayn's philosophy if we go about it intelligently...and that means that we work with what we have (read: reality).
The "work with what we have" argument is what has kept Libertarians out of office, among other arguments. Somebody's always trying to get us to tone freedom down because otherwise, it's too scary for most people to contemplate.
Real courage is proceeding with the right even though you're scared and it's scary.
The very point of Atlas Shrugged is that such compromises brought about the failure of 19th century capitalism. The most destructive compromises were NOT political: those were consequences.
See "Doesn't Life Require Compromise" by Ayn Rand in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
But speaking of politics, read "The Anatomy of a Compromise" by Ayn Rand in _Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal_.
That is not what I said.
I said that Randian ideas can be introduced where the occasion allows, and change can be accomplished, however small. Intelligent approaches will win the battles, and that winning the 'war' could take generations.
It is easy to bat 1.000 here in this blog, just spouting "give me Objectivism, or give me death!"
But what are you batting in your everyday life...?
A rhetorical exercise...no need to do any calculations.
The irony is that I might actually be doing more to promote Ayn's dreams than you are, since I seek ways to make it happen in my everyday mundane life...without giving up if I don't always get my way 100%, and without any compromise.
I've voted Libertarian for a BUNCH of years, and I always get to have the "but your candidate can't win!" discussion - or argument. Yeah, she can't win because even though you like what she stands for, you won't vote for her.
What I don't get is why most voters are so desperate to be on the winning side that they will ignore what they know, what they see, what they read [oops, sorry - if it's not 140 characters, if doesn't count] - ignore evidence to make sure they vote for the winner?
I really don't get that.
If a libertarian were to win the primary ticket, would you vote one of the two major parties?
If I understand your question [the LP is not usually involved in the primary process, at least in CO], if the choice on the ballot was Libertarian or Demo/Repub? Taking it as a given that I would research any Libertarian candidate thoroughly [way too many of them actually WANT to be elected] I would vote Libertarian and leave with a smile on my face. If the LP put up a candidate that I researched and thought wasn't really in favor of liberty [they have!] I would cast a blank {I have].
If that happens, would you cast your vote for the GOP ticket?
It's the same question as above - would I vote GOP if the candidate held some Libertarian positions? No.
Keep in mind, however, that I do a LOT more research that most voters. I have been burned just often enough that I have to decide personally whether someone is a Libertarian or not. I start with reading the LP platform, because there are changes in it. Then I compare what the candidate says to what that platform says. Then I start researching the candidate's campaign materials, reading for real ideas, real hard-line Libertarian points. If the LP candidate is just another evil, I won't vote for him, no matter which party he says he belongs to.
So, what are YOUR criteria for voting for someone?
The most conservative, and libertarian, and on one of the two major party tickets.
Anything else is pissing against the wind....
What are your criteria? What part of the conservative agenda will you swallow to get what part? What parts of the libertarian platform do you look for when voting?
Not anarchy, but a government responsive to the hopes of the Founding Fathers.
There are politicians today, that give me that hope. One just happens to be a libertarian...and goes in the GOP camp. He isn't 'perfect', but my guess is that John Galt would consider voting for him....
The solution to the conundrum, is to get beyond the left-right dichotomy, as reflected in the first two comments. The Nolan Chart does present a two-dimensional array. That is why I close the original post with: "That takes Ayn Rand off the political scale (or plane) entirely."
It is too easy to see _Atlas Shrugged_ as a political novel. Political events are only the stage upon which personal conflicts play out.
Rand warned often against grabbing concrete facts out of context. That is why the discussion so far ignored the thesis of the original post. It is an easy generalization that "Atlas Shrugged" attracts political conservatives who respond to the arguments for economic capitalism and minimum government. Basic to that, however, Ayn Rand developed an entire philosophical system. Rand often said that discussions about political change were pointless without an antecedent PHILOSOPHICAL change in society. That did not mean that a numerical majority must subscribe to her philosophy of Objectivism, but only that the dominant culture of society - most people's basic assumptions - would be consonant with rational-empiricism (objectivism with a small "o") as during the Athenian golden age, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment.
Yet here we are arguing "Republican versus Democrat - with Libertarians as the Wild Card." It is fruitless.
Read "John Galt's Speech." In 60 pages he says nothing about which of the looters' tax policies is least destructive to his business. He did not call for a new political party.
Far from it.
We don't randomly choose a political party...study its core values...then adapt our lives accordingly.
What we do is to develop our own set of values, and then seek the political party that best meets our self discovered value system. We then support that party in our own self interest, infusing changes where we can.
The real world in our Republic grants powers to one of the two major parties, and if you want any 'skin' in the game, you find your niche. From there you can work towards applying Ayn's philosophy both into your personal life, and into the core values of your representatives. It is an evolutionary process, and none of us will probably live to see the final Randian results.