The 100 Day Sprint: The pro-choice European atheist who is changing the Republican Party
Ayn Rand, who argued that religion is “evil,” has emerged as one of the leading philosophers of American conservatism. (Source: Wikipedia)
When Mitt Romney embraced the national budget plan laid out by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan during the GOP primary, he was elevating to the ultimate stage the economic and moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Rand, who was born at the dawn of the last century in Russia, and who passed away in 1982, has already built a remarkable influence over American conservatives.
Long-time Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was a devotee. When he took his first national post, during the Ford administration, Rand witnessed the ceremony in the Oval Office. “Alan is my disciple,” she declared. “He’s my man in Washington.”
In the decades since, novels like Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead have been elevated into the canon of right-wing literature.
The notion that the wealthy and productive hold near-exclusive title to an active and virtuous life of mind holds an obvious appeal, at least in some circles.
Rand argued that rational self-interest is the exclusive measure of morality. If a man succeeds and earns a great deal of money, he has created his own standard of goodness.
No need to thank a divine creator. No need to think about how others may have enabled your success. No need to think about the welfare of others in the society.
Paul Ryan, in a recent interview with the New Yorker, describes how Rand’s philosophy changed his politics:
“I said, ‘Wow, I’ve got to check out this economics thing.’ What I liked about her novels was their devastating indictment of the fatal conceit of socialism, of too much government.” He dived into Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman.
In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns.
“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”
But there is a problem for conservatives.
A central narrative of the modern right-wing movement is that religious values lie at the core of Western civilization. They widely ascribe the horrors of Nazism and communism to the rise of atheism.
Conservatives also generally attribute the modern, legal practice of abortion to the ‘cuture of death’ that has risen with modern secularism.
But Rand herself was a vehement, even aggressive atheist, describing faith as “evil.”
“I am against God for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason. How can I be against God? I am against those who conceived that idea. It gives man permission to function irrationally, to accept something above and outside the power of their reason….I don’t approve of religion.”
In her embrace of individualism — objectivism, she called it — Rand also concluded that abortion is a “moral right.”
An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
It’s worth noting that Rand’s views were viewed, at first, with deep hostility on the right. William F. Buckley, perhaps the greatest conservative mind of the last century, called Atlas Shrugged “a thousand pages of ideological fabulism.”
Buckley published a review of the novel in the National Review — written by famous conservative Whittaker Chamber — who described the book’s philosophy as dangerous.
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!”
Chamber’s view is, if nothing else, consistent with the conservative notion that secular humanism leads inevitably to the diminution of the value of the individual.
Modern conservatives tend to sidestep this dilemma at the heart of their movement, acknowledging publicly their fondness for Rand’s philosophy while disavowing her loathing of Christianity.
But anyone reading her work closely, or listening honestly to Rand’s own exegesis of her writing, will see that objectivism begins with the principle that there is no god. There is no good, she insists, no value, beyond the individual’s self-interest and reason.
Yes, socialist collectivism is one of Rand’s enemies — that’s the one conservatives latch on to — but the second pillar that props up all her thought is disdain for faith.
The irony, of course, is that modern conservatives rail constantly against European secularists who are changing our society from within, purportedly undermining the “real America.”
In 2012, Rand’s atheistic-humanist view of the world — born squarely out of the European tradition — is hardwired, for better or worse, into the spending plan espoused by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
Tags: election12, libertarianism, rand
Well, Alan Greenspan has admitted that he was wrong in his handling of the economy and Paul Ryan is in Congress because his family made lots of money building part of the Federal highway system and also because he used Social Security benefits to help finance his education.
Introduction of the terms “individualism” and “collectivism” underlies the problem. The verbal trick is employed, I believe, with cynical awareness and destructive purpose. How different it would sound if Mr. Ryan were to pose “a fight between selfishness and community.”
We’re concerned these days with the perversions of money in our civic and political life. We should be no less concerned with the perversion of our language.
By the by, Webster’s 1840 dictionary doesn’t even include the word ‘capitalism.” I guess the “real America” had not yet been spun.
Thanks Brian, for the fascinating post. I’m thankful for anyone who can explain the Ayn Rand debate because what I’ve read about her work — and the page or two of it I’ve read — convinces me that, above all, I’d be bored reading it. What I think of when I hear people like Paul Ryan espousing Randisms (?) — Randiness (?) — is, I can’t trust the judgment of anyone who would spend their time immersed in something so dull.
Laugh, laugh!
Back in my younger and conservative days, living in the East Village of the 60’s, I read all of Ayn Rand’s novels and was a bit of a fan for her ideas. Not so much now, though she did make some good points.
But what I find funny about the Republicans who like her economic ideas but reject (so they say) her views on religion is that there is not a darn thing Christian about the Republicans when it comes to social issues.
Oh, yes, they talk like the Pope when it comes to sex but that’s about it. And, I might add, Jesus never made a big deal about sex. It was Paul was got carried away over sex.
So, it would seem, the current crop of Tea Party Republicans are a bit schizophrenic when it comes to Rand, much as they are when it comes to the teachings of Jesus.
Will –
Opinion differs wildly on the actual literary merit of Rand’s writing. I actually think she’s a pretty great polemic fiction writer, a propagandist who incorporated some of Dickens strategies. The good guys are really really good. The bad guys are really really bad.
One weird aspect to her writing is that she incorporates some fairly salacious stuff. Atlas Shrugged is, in order of weight, a novel of ideas, a science fiction novel, and (to a really significant degree) a good old fashioned bodice ripper.
In the canon of polemic fiction writers, I would say that she stands well below Dickens, but heads and shoulders above, say, L. Ron Hubbard.
–Brian, NCPR
Will wrote:
“..when I hear people… espousing Randisms, [I think that] I can’t trust the judgment of anyone who would spend their time immersed in something so dull.”
Yep. Agreed.
Now replace the word “Randisms” with the name of any religion or any book called “holy” or “sacred.”
When will religious people realize that what they believe is unimportant to anyone else? It’s a little like sitting mid-flight in a crowded plane and having the boor next to you describe his landscaping.
I guess Ayn Rand had a point. Wow. Never thought I’d say that.
ahah, yes I agree a little above L Ron Hubbard, but not far.
I think you make excellent points, the worship of selfishness I think may be where unbridled Capitalism in the end leads, which I think is sometimes OK, as long as we realize that the economic sphere of our world and life is subsidiary to our actual being and humanity and country for that matter.
It is fascinating how many Christians in the US have been drawn into this, which in almost every way is antithetical to the basic tenants of our faith.
My favorite fact about Ayn Rand is that in her final years she collected Social Security and was on Medicare. You can’t make this stuff up.
“The good guys are really really good. The bad guys are really really bad.”
That’s the beauty of writing fiction, you have total control of your characters and what they do so naturally everything works out as the author intends it should. Try the same thing in a society of individuals each pursuing his or her own agenda and utopian ideas like Rand’s don’t hold up so well. Yes, she was a utopian and she made the same fundamental error that all utopians make, she believed that within a perfect system people would behave according to how she thought they would/should with the result (in her novels) that her theory worked.
The same is true of fantasy novels. The difference is that no one fools themselves into believing that the fantasy novel is or could be made into reality, at least no sane person does.
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 will be in theaters Oct 12, 2012.
These Republicans pledge allegiance to Ayn Rand’s illusions (which Brian points out includes dismissing of religion) yet the Religious Right continues to support them. The hypocrisy meter is off the charts for both Republicans and the Religious Right.
The Ayn Rand crusade is nothing more than a cult worshiping selfishness as a virtue. Morally vacuous politicians like Greenspan and Ryan are drawn to Rand’s fantasies as justification for unregulated capitalism and government of, by and for the rich.
Greenspan couldn’t conceive of the banks or Wall Street getting into trouble because it would not be in their self-interest. Could there have been a person more wrong to head the Federal Reserve?
Ryan thinks the poor deserve to be poor and that government should reward the rich for being successful. Could there be a guy more clueless? I would love to see how successful Ryan and the other Rand kool-aid drinkers would have been had they been born in Somalia or similar country with no rule of law, no safety or stability, no public education, no stable currency, no public highways, no public universities, no public…..etc., etc.
The fact is Greenspan has single-handedly proven that Rand’s policies ultimately lead to economic and social breakdown and her discredited fantasies should have no place in a modern political party.
But there is a problem for conservatives.
No there isn’t! Conservatives can (and will) just deny that Rand was an atheist. End of story.
L. Ron Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth is the greatest film ever made. Ever.
That’s a pretty neat trick, Will Doolittle, to summarily dismiss an author’s work in the same sentence in which you admit you haven’t read it. How can readers trust anything you write when you admit you haven’t done your homework? You really should start thinking about what you write before you press that Submit Comment button!
Yes, socialist collectivism is one of Rand’s enemies — that’s the one conservatives latch on to — but the second pillar that props up all her thought is disdain for faith.
Perhaps too much is being made of Paul Ryan’s acceptance of Rand’s position on socialism and dismissing her position on religion. It is not necessarily a convenient compromise, but like Gov. Huckabee recently stated, he is still a customer of Starbuck’s, Amazon, Ben and Jerry’s … even though he does not support their personal and/or political beliefs.
Larry, I haven’t read Ms. Rand’s novels either but I know what her philosophy was and she’s wrong just like Karl Marx was wrong in the other direction. They are both utopians and make the same error as all other utopians. You will never find an economic system at either extreme that everyone will buy into. The best we can do is a compromise that is a mix which serves most people.
There is absolutely nothing in Christianity that would support capitalism; from that perspective Rand is making a good point or at least shedding some light. She is consistent in that regard I guess is what I am saying. If devout Christians would read her they may end up with a different view toward blind adherence to Capitalism. I know I did; she helped me understand some of my basic spiritual problems with a society based on materialism and the worship of self.
Like it or not, Jesus was basically a socialist.
I don’t think enough is being made in the media of Ryan’s adherence to Rand’s crackpot utopian philosophy. Whether or not former Gov Huckabee gets a coffee at Starbucks is not quite the same as Ryan wanting to impose draconian policies on millions of Americans that will redistribute wealth to the already rich and cut services and impoverish seniors, low income workers and the middle class.
You take care of the poor for utilitarian reasons, they may revolt if you don’t, they have to be healthy to work etc., caring for them for other reasons would not make any sense in the sort of thinking that Rand would put forward.
Socialism of course can be just as bad, the same elements could be at work in that system as well.
Pete, I don’t think He would be overtly against it or for it; after all it’s the world, what did Satan offer Jesus when He tempted Him?; the kingdoms of the world. His early followers certainly lived a communal lifestyle however.
But anyway I do find it interesting that Christians would support Rand, well not interesting more like crazily inconsistent.
I think it is a US phenom. (Christians supporting Rand), she does not hold much sway intellectually over the Global Christian Church, thank God.
Why not just burn all the books you haven’t read but which espouse philosophies you are sure you don’t agree with? That way, you can complete the circle of ignorance and intolerance: I don’t know anything about that philosophy but I know it’s bad, I can’t believe anyone takes it seriously so I will oppose them, lets just trash this nonsense and move on, my way is the only way. Blindly opposing a political or social philosophy from a position of admitted ignorance about it is a dangerous and destructive business. What a bunch of philistines!
I don’t read Ayn Rand for the same reason I don’t listen to Donald Hassig. It’s a waste of my time.
Not reading a particular author is one thing, condemning something you refuse to investigate is something else all together.
Because Conservative Christians are staunch in their positions, their opponents are quick to point it out when they seem to be conveniently compromising on their position. But aren’t Liberals staunch as well? And yes, Conservatives point it out, too.
Isn’t that why we have this huge debate between Conservatives and Liberals? Each has their own paradigm.
That said, some may see Ryan as compromising on principle. How dare he embrace Rand’s position on socialism with her disdain of religion?
I think Gov. Huckabee’s perspective does correlate with Ryan as it is water from the same well, if you will. These men love their country and their position is to conserve the Constitution as they interpret it – originalism.
It’s no different than Liberals moving forward with their position.
And as long as there is bantering back and forth, looking for an a-ha! moment with each other, it solves nothing.
I am not Mormon. I don’t agree with much of the Mormon tenets. But that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Romney. I agree with him on some of his principles which I think are valuable for running the country.
Kathy,
Well said. But I have to ask, what are Romney’s principles? They’ve changed so much in the past few years I honestly don’t know what they are on any given day. Your help, or anyone’s for that matter, in my quest to find out would be most appreciated.
Kathy you agree with the Ryan budget?
Clapton:
1) Personal Responsibility
2) Free Markets
3) Limited Government
4) Fiscal Responsibility
A few days ago he spoke this at a factory he was visiting, pledging to:
“end a culture of dependency and restore a culture of good hard work.”
I think this is a timeless statement that can only encourage our growth as a nation. But it begins with regaining personal responsibility. And I’m all about that.
Zeke:
Yes. At least he has a sensible plan which requires a remedy as deep as the economic pit we have to climb out of.
Kathy, I don’t understand how you would believe that Romney is a better representative for that list of principles than Obama.
And I know you don’t mean it as an insult but I get offended by people who start talking about restoring a culture of good hard work. There are lots of people who have been good hard worker their whole lives who have found themselves among the long term unemployed in the last few years.
KHL, I think Romney is a better representative because he primarily represents the Republican – Conservative core principles.
Of course there are good, hard working people who have found themselves unemployed. There is no way I’m talking about those people.
But there is an entitlement mentality in our society. For every young person who is hard working and responsible, there’s another who sits around playing video games all day expecting the world owes them a living.
Laziness or entitlement attitudes have always been around, but surely you see the increase in numbers.
“For every young person who is hard working and responsible, there’s another who sits around playing video games all day expecting the world owes them a living.”
Wow, what a sad view of the world and the capabilities of our young people. Where do you get information to make a crazy statement like that? That is just silly strawman stuff Republicans make up to get people all riled up about “welfare queens” and zillions of other no good leaches that have caused the deficit. Except none of it is true.
And why does personal responsibility and accountability only apply to the little guy? What about politicians who lie us into a needless war and authorize torture? Why aren’t they held responsible?
The entitlement mentality starts at the top with CEOs who expect exorbitant salaries while their companies commit fraud and are yet they are not held accountable.
I would much rather have a couple of kids playing video games than corrupt politicians and CEOs causing so much damage to the country.
Wow, what a sad view of the world and the capabilities of our young people.
Yup, it is, isn’t it?
And why are you talking about war and torture?
And where did you get your information in regard to corrupt CEOs?
The “kids” are our future. And obviously you do not have much contact with that generation since everyone knows a huge percentage of young people today have a poor work ethic.
If Paul Ryan is Romney’s VP much more needs to be said about Ryan’s obsession with Ayn Rand’s bizarre utopian fantasies.
Please, it is nothing like Huckabee getting coffee at Starbucks. Ryan wants to cut taxes on the wealthy even though the rates are the lowest since the 1920s. He wants to turn Medicare into a gift for the health insurance companies. He doesn’t deal with the increasing cost of medical services – just passes it along to seniors who will not be able to afford the insurance.
His economic philosophy is pure Ayn Rand – survival of the fittest and everyone for himself. There is no value in the concept of public or community. It is embarrassing that so many people in this country unwittingly embrace such an un-American (and un-Christian) philosophy.
My experience with “kids these days” is that on the whole they are really good, decent people – much better than the kids I knew when I was a kid. I think that is due to a change in parenting over time. I know I didn’t beat my kids half as much as my parents beat me.
I also think that same change in parenting has resulted in lots of kids who don’t know how to work. I think parents coddle their kids more than they used to and give them things that most of us had to work for back in the olden times when everything was harder and gravity was stronger. It seems like many parents are living vicariously through their kids and wanting their kids to be “cool” because the parent has psychological problems deeply rooted in their own schoolyard days.
But every generation believes the next generation isn’t up to the challenges of life and yet the world keeps turning. Are kids today lazy? Maybe. Was most of my generation drunk or stoned every weekend? For the most part, yes. Which is worse?
I don’t really see any increase in the numbers kathy.
I do see the grandchildren of families who have been poor for multiple generations.
I just don’t understand the obsession with welfare programs.
I do agree with a culture of hard work and we can look at ways to do that. But as a fading conservative, I have to agree with Knuckle, of the values you listed, just on the numbers I don’t believe Obama would be any different from Romney on; personal responsibility, limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility. Well I actually think he may be better on fiscal responsibility.
As far as a culture of dependency goes take a look at this recent CNN article.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3
Good article Mervel. This whole “culture of dependency” scam is so 1980s. But Republicans replay it over and over for the resentment it creates that some poor person might be getting something for nothing.
Today the real “culture of dependency” is at the corporate level and both parties are guilty of spooning out billions of tax dollars to bank bailouts, Wall Street crooks and military contractors.
Myown, the problem is that the folks on Wall Street that took TARP money have paid it back with interest (for the most part, smaller banks have had some problems). Most people think this was a good move.
Paul, that just isn’t true. The gov still has money in AIG, Chevy and a number of other companies. Beyond that the gov “acquired” all sorts of toxic bonds and derivatives that the Wall Street casino banks were glad to get rid of to improve their balance sheets. The banks have also offloaded bad mortgages to the two gov agencies which will ultimately cost the taxpayers millions. And today the big banks are even bigger and the culture of dependency even worse. Too big to fail is the ultimate dependency. It allows these big corporations to gamble with other peoples’ money knowing that if it blows up the gov will bail them out. Once again they are privatizing profits and socializing the losses.
BTW, I was in favor of TARP but it should have come with conditions including firing of CEOs and their Directors. Claw-back of CEO salaries. Prohibition of bonuses. Breaking the big banks up. Criminal procedures for CEOs and accountants who lied about the safety of the derivatives they were pushing, etc., etc.
In the immortal words of Wimpy, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Few people realize that J. Wellington Wimpy became an international financier from a small investment in hamburgers sold short in 1937. It is one of the great but little known investment stories of our time. I believe that Mr. Wimpy once dated Ms. Rand in her younger years and he was the basis for characters throughout her writings.
It allows these big corporations to gamble with other peoples’ money knowing that if it blows up the gov will bail them out.
And the “little guy” also gambles with your money and my money, expecting the gov to bail them out.
I am not against people who really need it. But far too many people are unwilling to do menial jobs or take 2 jobs when the gov will give them money.
There was a time when having a school lunch card or those big, ugly food stamps – both looking like the scarlet letter – were embarrassing. Today, perhaps in the name of tolerance and not benevolence, we have made it more convenient to not be noticed when using such things. It used to be when people were on unemployment they said “I’m between jobs”. It was embarrassing not to have a job. But many people will obviously max out the weeks on unemployment instead of taking a job that pays less. It’s even easier to qualify for disability today. And just look at how people can sue over the most trivial of things.
The mindset of society has shifted to leading less principled lives.
“But far too many people are unwilling to do menial jobs or take 2 jobs when the gov will give them money.”
Kathy, how many? What do you base this assertion on?
“The mindset of society has shifted to leading less principled lives.”
No disagreement there, but let’s not pretend that principle is lacking predominately amongst the poor– the number of corporations paying record fines makes it clear that principle is lacking at all levels of our society.
The one thing I have noticed is that many people seem to think that they should not have to move to where the jobs are. We have no assurance that because we like to live somewhere that is where the employment opportunities are going to be. It is scary, but that is part of life.
For example, right now there is a huge truck driver shortage in the US, particularly in the oil producing areas along with a variety of other skills shortages. You don’t have to have a college degree for these jobs, you have to have a CDL, which is a training commitment but not a huge one.
The fact is there are jobs out there and there is a shortage of workers in many areas, the bottom line is though you have to go to where those jobs are, work insane hours and be trained in the skills needed. The jobs are not coming to us anymore, and really have not for a long time the sooner we get used to that fact the better we will be.
I mean yeah it would be nice to have a trust fund or to have a small business or to be an artisan and so forth, these are really cool things to be and do in the North Country. But most of us don’t have the skills or family set up for that kind of thing. Most of us are just regular people who have to work regular jobs, those types of jobs are very rare in the North Country. I am blessed to have one, but I have no illusions that we would be able to stay here if I or my wife lost their employment. I look at the job adds and there is nothing there.