Ayn Rand versus conservatives
Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
Since so much of Galt's Gulch Online content has become conservative headline aggregation posting and commentary over the last several months, let's discuss what Ayn Rand thought of conservatives and conservativism. She put forth quite a bit of commentary on the subject, particularly after Atlas Shrugged came out.
To put it bluntly, she considered conservatives as big a danger to this country as she did liberals/progressives, considering both leading the country down a path towards statism, socialism, anti-capitalism, and most importantly-anti-freedom. Following is just one quote, there are a number:
“Conservatives”
Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . .
Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .
Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done.
The Objectivist Newsletter
“Choose Your Issues,”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1
So What Do You Think Conservatives
To put it bluntly, she considered conservatives as big a danger to this country as she did liberals/progressives, considering both leading the country down a path towards statism, socialism, anti-capitalism, and most importantly-anti-freedom. Following is just one quote, there are a number:
“Conservatives”
Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . .
Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .
Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done.
The Objectivist Newsletter
“Choose Your Issues,”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1
So What Do You Think Conservatives
Previous comments...
And it wasn't to a smirking shyster or even to a country . It was to the Constitution. That was good enough for me for I saw the unused potential.
One day I chanced on a quote from Ben Franklin who was asked something about what had been created. "A Republic if you can keep it." The second quote from those days I don't have this quite correct was something about you have a government now you need a philosophy.
It dawned on me as sometimes these things do I had both a Constitution and a philosophy. Which puts me ahead of most of the people of the country. I am so glad I didn't dwell on the support clause of the second amendment and forget the primary clause. Likewise I'm happy to have the underpinning for making that choice and taking that oath of office. Which says nothing about country, government, citizens and does not exclude Presidents from the requirements.
As we were taught in the military back in the last century Commanders-In-Chief and officers appointed over meant those who also had not forgotten their oath of office. I wonder how much training the troops today get on that oath. I know the draftees can be excluded as it was a forced oath not voluntary but we regulars have no such escape hatch. Part of it says I take this oath with no purposes of evasion. It doesn't say 'to the best of my ability.'
My experience here has provided the solid foundation that before was more faith and a matter of personal integrity. I looked back and realized I had the training had I only interpreted AS through the lens of Philosophy Who Needs It. Had writers like Rand, Caldwell, and Heinlein made so much practical sense I might well have missed the boat that was there all the time.
My own evaluation was based on comments of friends from other countries and others unknown met along the way. "What happened to your country? It is such a fascist police state now?" Another: "no matter our differences we always considered America to be the hope of the world a shining light of freedom. What happened?"
I shrugged and could only agree. "I can't deny that. I've noticed it myself."
So.. with that introduction in the 1980's after a stint in the military I worked as a police officer fo for the old Panama Canal Zone. We worked for the Pan Canal Government branch not the company branch and provided local police services though we were federal and one of four at that time. One of three I think that had nation wide police powers. After the canal treaty there remained three. Washington DC, White House, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The rest were territorial such as PR, Guam, Samoa. Soon after the Department of Defense Police was added and over the years almost every agency and department ended up with it's own federal police including all the law enforcement agencies.
A good many of them and the major portion were instituted during the first Bush Presidency. So much for smaller government and a kinder gentler thousand points of light. No matter he may have temporarily called off the IRS Dogs of War but it only went so far.
In the end the amount is now what 30 plus certainly not more than 40. End conclusion a police state in the making.
At that time the Representatives carried out a political revolution the Contract With America. Most of it was passed most of it was rescinded or quashed and not just by the increasingly socialist fascist left the still separate Democrat liberals.
Much of it was - and in answer I'm sure to the provisions of the contract which threatened them directly - carried out by the so called conservative Republicans the well entrenched and of course the rest is history.
The Republicans drifted ever leftward and now are part and parcel of the left mostly Republicans in Name only and a few still claiming to be conservative but....
Their claims and their actions do not coincide.
and have not through 27 years from Bush One to Obama The Last and that is a hopeful statement as the two parties have become one and far far from any conservative principles being discussed here.
That I submit is part of the problem.. You are discussing something that no longer exists.
However the fix is easy. Quit callijng the remnants conservatives decide if there is any group commonality and use names such as Libertarian, Constitutionalists or none of the above for the 30 plus percent of citizens no longer represented.
for capitalism -- faith, tradition, depravity -- are excellent.
the conservative argument for capitalism which works is
a fourth one::: capitalism fits humans as they are. . no matter
how humans got the way they are -- human nature requires that
freedom of choice be acknowledged, that capitalism be affirmed,
as the interactive system which fits human nature.
faith need not be involved;; tradition need not be cited;;
depravity need not be claimed. . study people and it's obvious --
freedom is our natural state, and capitalism our natural system.
if this is, or is not, a conservative view -- who cares? . it's still true. -- j
.
.
It's a case by case evaluation....where as liberals are openly now socialists but conservative i wouldn't even use the term it's meaningless...
If "conservatism" was properly defined, wouldn't it have the same meaning?
which periodical, but I think it was in The Ayn Rand Letter--I believe, at any rate, it is reprinted in
The Objectivist Lexicon; Ayn Rand A to Z-- in which she dealt with "conservatives" vs. "liberals". She used to always put those words
in quotation marks.
The Lexicon quote is from “Censorship: Local and Express” in Philosophy: Who Needs It and first published in The Ayn Rand Letter in three parts in 1973.
You can either focus on the differences or you can focus on the similarities and build from there.
People don't change because they are forced to. They change and adapt new ways of thinking when they understand how it will benefit them.
Think of it this way: do you walk into a party with new people you've never met and immediately launch into a tirade at the top of your voice about the evils of socialism? Only if you're trying to never get yourself invited to a party again. No. What you do is make small talk with a few people and find commonalities. Then when the subject comes up, you present your viewpoint. Best of all, you let the logic of the argument do all the talking.
Making enemies is pathetically easy. Making allies is much more difficult, but rewarding.
"Conservatives who don't obnoxiously push their religion are often open to reason in many realms."
As I stated before, you're not going to catch flies with vinegar. If the only way you can look at someone who isn't 100% Objectivist is with contempt, you're going to be a lousy missionary of Objectivism. Your attitude has to be one of patience in explanation - not condescension. You can't force someone to change their mind.
You don't have to agree 100% with someone philosophically to work with them politically. But you aren't going to accomplish anything politically without allies.
No one said that a political candidate cannot be supported who doesn't agree '100% with Ayn Rand'. Ayn Rand didn't say that either. You made it up to try to intimidate your targets as 'extremist'. It is you and your misrepresentations that insist on packaging a religious agenda in a political campaign and then gratuitously insist that others go along with it in the name of a common "alliance". You aren't going to accomplish anything politically without allies. If you want political alliances then drop the religious nonsense and the obnoxious proselytizing. There is no alliance between religion and Ayn Rand's philosophy and no political alliance possible that includes pushing a religious agenda. It does not belong here and it does not belong in politics.
And by the way, I've met many Jehovah's Witnesses and though I don't agree with their philosophy, I admire them for their courtesy and strength of conviction. None of them - or anyone for that matter - "deserves contempt". Contempt is exercised by people with an inferiority complex who feel the need to assuage their egos by reasoning to themselves that they are better than others. If you want to harbor such emotions and allow them to rule you, that's your choice. But don't pretend to argue a logical position so influenced. That's like someone walking out of a bar after drinking claiming that they are perfectly capable of driving home safely.
"No one said that a political candidate cannot be supported who doesn't agree '100% with Ayn Rand'. Ayn Rand didn't say that either. You made it up to try to intimidate your targets as 'extremist'."
I said no such thing and I reject your attempts to put words into my mouth. I simply said that it was foolish to intentionally make enemies of everyone around one's self - a sentiment which curiously enough you echo only a few sentences later. It's as if you are so busy focusing on how my arguments offend you that you can't see the points on which we agree.
"...pushing a religious agenda. It does not belong here and it does not belong in politics."
That's crap and you know it. Politics is all about legislating morality and it is always going to be about contests of philosophy. You don't seem to have any problems with abortion, yet the decision to legalize or criminalize it is absolutely a question of philosophy that gets played out in politics. The same holds true with everything in society and the laws we make: they are all philosophically-based and implemented through political channels. What are the discussion on this forum about? They are discussions about which ideological principles should be implemented through political channels so as to promote a sound economy and preserve human rights. If that isn't how philosophy directly becomes politics, I don't know what does.
You wrote "You don't have to agree 100% with someone philosophically to work with them politically" and "If the only way you can look at someone who isn't 100% Objectivist is with contempt, you're going to be a lousy missionary of Objectivism." That is a belligerent strawman irrelevant to the discussion. Faith is 100% the opposite of reason and Ayn Rand's philosophy. Rejecting it for the hopeless destruction that it is does not mean requiring 100% agreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy to work with someone politically. This is not about being a "missionary". The most effective conservatives engaged in valuable political action on legitimate issues, such as property rights, do not interject religion into their activities. Effective action requires focus and relevancy.
Every politics presupposes an ethics and epistemology. A proper political philosophy is based on a proper philosophy of reason and egoism identifying and justifying a limited government defending the rights of the individual left free to live his own life. That is not "legislating morality" in personal choices. Trying to turn government into a means of enforcement of religious injunctions and interference in personal freedom is statist theocracy.
Jehova's Witnesses are obnoxious and everyone knows it, even most who consider themselves as Christian. Their attempt to appear "polite" does not make their persistence any less of a nuisance and the same goes for the militant religious proselytizing here with the same evangelist mentality, except that it doesn't even qualify as polite.
Religion does not belong in politics in this country. The militant religious conservatives' attempt to change that based on their own false philosophy only illustrates the destructive nature of both their philosophy and its consequent actions in politics.
Interjecting evangelism into political issues is worse than irrelevant. If you expect political alliances with those who reject your religion then keep your religion out of it and stop demanding that we go along with it for the sake of an "alliance". There can be no alliance with theocrats politically trying to ban the right of abortion and scientific research with cells, and there can be no alliance with those who gratuitously and militantly promote and evangelize religion grafted onto political action.
"That is a belligerent strawman irrelevant to the discussion."
To say that if you treat everyone around with contempt is going to make you a lousy evangelist of any philosophy is a statement of fact. People don't care how much you think you know until they find out why you are trying to persuade them to think differently. It's one of the reasons the progressives are so successful in their arguments: they persuade people that they care. Logic comes after that - when they are willing to listen to what you have to say because they think you are operating in their own interest. You're welcome to try it the other way around, but that wall is going to be pretty persistent and tough on your forehead. And in this day and age of word-of-mouth through the Internet, you can alienate 10x as many people as before as they go on to tell their friends about their experience. Read "Seven Habits of Highly Influential People". You won't find antagonism or contempt as one of those habits. You can't force anyone into Objectivism. They have to join of their own free will. ;)
"That is not "legislating morality" in personal choices."
What is the morality of Objectivism? Is it not that coercion is evil? That is absolutely a moral stance. And when codified into law gets derived into such policy directives as "Don't steal." "I shall not live by any other nor allow any other to live by me" (paraphrased) is a statement of morality. And when one seeks to organize any society under a unifying code of conduct such as in the Gulch in "Atlas Shrugged", that is legislating the morality held in that code of conduct: it is declaring what is good and what is evil. It is the declaration of how society should act and the penalties for abrogation of such. I would note that even Dagny herself was told she could not stay in the Gulch if she was not willing to say the Oath (law -> punishment). The argument that one can not "legislate morality" is an argument of self-deception. It also tries to erroneously assert that laws dictate behavior, rather than dictating the penalties for misbehavior. The real question is which sets of principles one is going to rely on in the creation of societal law.
That there exists a contest of moral opinions in this world is evident. That they all contend for the minds of men is evident. And political trends in a republican society are based on the predominant moral opinions. I agree with you many current opinions are driven by emotions and ignorance, but you're going to have little success combating the ignorance until those passions can be replaced by calm. Adding more antagonism to an antagonistic atmosphere isn't going to work. We can see that from the recent examples of Missouri University, Ferguson, Baltimore, and many more.
"Religion does not belong in politics in this country."
First, such a solution suggests two things: that you do not view atheism as a religion and second that you ignore history. I would point out several nations based on atheistic foundations who were responsible for the butchering of over 100 million of their own people such as the USSR, Vietnam, China, and others. The argument that atheism leads to personal freedom is directly contradicted by this recent history.
I would also point to the Founders of this nation. It seems pretty clear that this nation was the most free of any in history and it was founded by men who were unquestionably from religious backgrounds. What I find particularly remarkable about those men was that they did not try to impose religion on the entire nation but that their religions absolutely espoused the freedom of the individual to choose their path in life. This was of such import that they ensconced this not only in the First Amendment, but they specifically forbade a religious test for people running for office. I find those facts to exist in stark contrast to your assertion. That the philosophy of Objectivism could even rise at all was the result of there being a free society Ayn Rand could move to to escape from the oppression of the USSR. You take much for granted.
"If you expect political alliances with those who reject your religion then keep your religion out of it and stop demanding that we go along with it for the sake of an "alliance"."
Please cite any post with a link where I have evangelized in favor of my religion on this forum. I simply point out that if you wish to see a society based on freedom, it is going to be based on tolerance - not antagonism. So you have a choice to either work with people of faith to advance the common cause of freedom despite not agreeing with their precepts 100%, or you can go it alone. I'm not going to tell you which to pick, but given the numbers involved, the prudent choice seems fairly obvious.
The approach is to try and sway one to support one side rather than the other in the belief that only one side is correct and the 'middle' is automatically wrong.
A Secular progressive will recognize only liberal (correct) and conservative (false) and is unable to see any other viewpoint but tries to recruit the bi-conceptual to their side arguing they have the most merit.
They will not see nor notice an objectivist who views the world in different terns.
Conservatives the same but the opposite direction.
Both define liberal and conservative politically and forget the original definitions which gives those who understand the entire range an advantage.
they also do not use the correct definition of center preferring to define it as the center of their world view
Of the two the so called conservatives are much more aware of that range of choices than are the liberals. One is practical the other practical. One believes in jobs done the other in jobs talked about. Forgetting that without the doers the talkers will swallow their tongues and die in the midst of their own words. A menu is not a meal.
Short version.....
I don't send them there to grovel and kiss ass and give in and beg and make side deals.They are supposed to be delegates from my State and not yip yap lap dogs. So far I only see pointless charades. Boehner V.1 out and Boehner V.2 in Nothing changed. Both of them sucked up to the left or more properly continued to support the left.
I'd rather see a good Philippines style fist fight or better yet some decent back benchers British style than this kissy insincere powder puff hypocrisy.
But among other failings they have no scrotes. As congressionals or as Presidents.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
- Mark Twain
&
"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"
- Thomas Jefferson
Enjoy.
One thing I find particularly galling is all the nonsense about a government shutdown over budgeting issues. What most people don't know is that all through and up to the Reagan years it was an annual occurrence that the government shut down! And this was a GOOD thing because it forced the politicians back into negotiations where they were forced to be reasonable. That hasn't happened since Clinton and most people just don't know that. And why hasn't it happened since Clinton? Because that was the end of the Blue Dog Democrats - those economically-conservative yet socially liberal individuals who we would now call libertarians. Without them to bring the hard left-wingers back into reality, now the entire political machine has lurched to the left, resulting in expanding entitlements and a growing welfare state. Couple that with too many RINO's who agree to the social spending in exchange for some quid pro quo in military spending or pet projects and you get exactly what we've had for the past 20 years - a ballooning deficit and a pending economic crisis.
I refer you to an article that I today posted under both "Philosophy" and "Politics," titled, "LEADING" WITH GOD.
Dave
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
Is this the social order you are advocating?
Human reason makes happy and thriving human life possible. Your fantasies of arbitrary "revelations" into otherworldly mysticism on behalf of the supernatural do not. The overthrow of religious domination by the Enlightenment emphasis on reason resulted in only a few hundred years in a magnificent human advancement and prosperity undreamed of in the thousands of years dominated by religion.
In contrast, "Faith and force... are corollaries: every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny." -- “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World” in Philosophy: Who Needs It? https://estore.aynrand.org/p/218/phil...
Yes, the irrationality of a "desire" for otherworldly immortality is a "cardinal flaw".