Myth: Ayn Rand Was a Conservative | Election 2012 | The Atlas Society
From the Atlas Society site, written by William R Thomas. If anyone wonders why conservatism and Objectivism sometimes butt heads, here is a good example of why. I would love to hear some thoughts on this!
So what?
What I object to is the ignorant, bigoted characterization of conservatives:
"Her philosophy, Objectivism, advocates reason, individualism, and personal happiness. Conservatives are more likely to favor faith, tradition, and duty as core values. "
Okay, I can say that liberals are more likely to value buttf*ing squirrels and eating their acorns to rational thought. Wouldn't make it so.
The flaw in that assertion is that the left is that the left *is driven by emotion*.
The objection to religious doctrine (principally Christian)? It's not really the truth or falsehood of the belief; it's the discipline of it. That it makes some people feel bad. It's not the moral judgments to which they object; it's that moral judgments are made... at all. Because, again, they can make people feel bad. This is why you'll find liberals (in its modern meaning, btw) as vehemently opposed to Objectivism as they are to Christianity, as exemplified by one person here.
Look at their policies to alleviate poverty. Throw money at it. Advertise the fact far and wide. Ray Kroc had his Ronald McDonald houses for years before they were ever advertised.
Conservative: teach a man to fish and make him responsible to feed himself.
Liberal: You heartless bastard! It's not his fault he can't fish and hold a beer can at the same time! Give him one of your fish, you greedy s.o.b.! You have more than you need!
This is not intelligence or rationality, but emotion.
"Hate speech" and "hate crime" legislation, something I believe the Founding Fathers would have rejected instantly, are not a result of intellectual consideration, but a result of emotion.
In spite of the left's characterization of alleged "conservative" Presidents being bumbling idiots and alleged "liberal" Presidents being intellectual giants, the left continually promotes candidates upon emotional grounds.
"Bubba" Clinton was "the first black President" for reasons no one could clearly articulate. He was liked for reasons including his willingness to share his underwear choice with the world and play the sax on tv like a performing seal.
But, the one example that should make it clear to everyone that it's not intellect but emotion that matters to liberals is the current occupant of the White House.
There's another post of Bawbwa Wawa proclaiming how the left thought Obama would be a messiah. Well, a messiah is a savior... they didn't say he'd be a genius (of course, because he was so far to the left, of course he was a genius). The appeal of Obama, his "hopey change", was based entirely on emotion and utterly devoid of reason.
And yet the left are intellectual giants while conservatives are emotional fools relying on such ridiculous things as "tradition".
You don't re-invent the wheel. The thoughtful person does not abandon what has worked for a theory of what might work. The thoughtful person doesn't start destroying entire industries, taxing essential elements, and replace already perfectly adequate lightbulbs with toxic, inferior and more expensive CFLs, based on theories formed upon faulty data, questionable science, and dislike of the human species.
A shame she's not alive today to prove or disprove that myth. If it is a myth, I'd love to face her in such a debate. I don't often get the opportunity to utterly destroy a cultural icon.
To speak to the point: Ayn Rand had more than enough words of condemnation for liberals. I only point out that she had praise for them, as well. Similarly, while her marginalia to "Conscience of a Conservative" was biting in its criticisms, she nonetheless endorsed Sen. Goldwater's candidacy for the presidency.
Technical philosophy requires an analytic and synthetic approach at the same time, a rational integration of empirical concretes into wider abstractions. Determining the context for a problem is critical to defining its objective characteristics. Hence, the philosophy is called "Objectivism" not "Absolutism."
Because she was right on many issues, as well.
And how am I a moocher again?
Learning to parse simple English sentences might help your arguments more than using more complex descriptions in an effort to present an image of intellectual superiority:
"If what you say is true" - thus begins my reply.
If what you say is *not* the case, then it's not Rand who's full of shit.
For example: I have no obligation or duty to help the poor, but I have the right to do so if I so choose. I choose to do so because it makes me feel good (provides value to me) to help another and that is my sole motivation for doing so. People understand this to varying levels.
I hate calling oneself a conservative, liberal, libertarian or any other canned group. I am far closer to a Libertarian than any other group, but I do not agree with some things that platform likes as well.
I am me. If I am in a room with one or more other person and we agree on everything one or more of us is not using reasoning and the mind. This creates a failure to discuss our differences, which hopefully would cause all in the discussion to double check there premises for conflicts with there core values exposing areas where all is not clearly understood and reflection on what is not understood, thus creating a better understanding for all.
The real problem with the "Conservitives" is that they are conservative (meaning small government) in economics and liberal (meaning large intrusive government) in social policy.
What I think of as a true conservative does not want to use force to push their ideas on others, period.
A true liberal wants to push there values on others.
Example: A woman should never be forces to get or not get an abortion but a doctor should never be forced to give or not give one. Let each person do according to there values.
Both the traditional liberals and traditional conservatives have issues they attempt to use force to make happen for all. It is the places where force is used that they are both out of line with God, Objectivity and reason.
I think that the left is just equating her with Republicans because of the recent influx of libertarian thinking into the party mainstream. From what I have read, she certainly supported capitalism and individual rights over any collective, ideas that many conservatives share, but she was also a pro-choice atheist, which provides common ground for many on the left.
"Conservatives are more likely to favor faith, tradition, and duty as core values."
Many young conservatives/Republicans are actually leaning, as you noted, libertarian. Likewise, many young liberals/Democrats are acting in line with faith (in society), tradition (of the New Deal), and duty (to other people).
This polarization of so much of society and the willingness of so many to embrace a label of being either on the left or the right is troubling to me. They defend positions like a fan would root for a team, rather than by open debate, exchange of ideas and thoughtful conclusions.