DB: Ayn Rand: The GOP’s Favorite Bonkers Demagogue

[JMS]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-06-06/ayn-rand-the-gops-favorite-bonkers-demagogue/?cid=hp:mainpromo9

Ayn Rand: The GOP’s Favorite Bonkers Demagogue

Democrats often limit their criticism of Republicans to public policy. But as Michael Tomasky points out, a new ad makes a more philosophical—and devastating—critique.

It was a bit rich last week to hear Paul Ryan, as he emerged from the House Republicans’ White House meeting, whining about being the victim of “demagoguery.” Obama replied that he understood a thing or two about the subject since he was “the job killing, death panel, probably-wasn't-born-here president.” In fact the Democrats have not yet even attacked the ]Ryan plan in quite the right way, which is on the basis of its immorality. I was glad to see over the weekend that one liberal group has finally done it.

Left: J. Scott Applewhite / AP Photo

There’s a reason Republicans are better at attacks than Democrats are. Well, there are actually two. The first is that the Republicans are more willing to lie. But the second and more subtle reason is that Republican attacks against Democrats are typically philosophical in basis, while Democratic attacks are usually policy-specific. Democratic attack ads say: X million seniors will go without care under the Republican plan. Republican attacks say: This is just more of the [insert relevant negative adjective] philosophy that laid America so low until Ronald Reagan came along and fixed everything. The difference exists for a simple reason: Republican programs are unpopular, but their bumper-sticker philosophy is popular (less government, stronger defense), while Democratic philosophy is viewed negatively but people strongly support specific government programs. This dichotomy makes for Republican attacks that are in general far more emotionally compelling. They tell a story and provide a context.

This is why I was pleased to see this

from a progressive religious outfit called the American Values Network, which attacks the Ryan budget as immoral. Wait, doesn’t immoral in politics mean you kill babies or sleep with someone of your own sex? It doesn’t have to. It can mean what it meant for millennia in public life: atrocious treatment of the less fortunate in society. Imagine that. And the best thing about the ad is the way it links Ryan—speaking of demagoguery—to the most unjustifiably self-important, crashingly tedious, and plainly bonkers demagogue in American history: Ayn Rand.

The ad uses a clip from a 1959 television interview Rand gave to Mike Wallace (surprise moment: he is the only one of the two who fires up a cigarette) in which she affirmed that she views religion as “evil” and states that she, of all the thinkers in history, is unique in developing “a new code of morality not based on faith.” This got me curious enough to sit down and watch, finally, the entire Wallace interview, which lasts about 25 minutes and can be seen in three parts on YouTube (

, and will lead you to the next two).

As the ad is produced by a religious group, it tends to stick to questions of God. But the sections of the Rand interview that deal with politics and society were more interesting to me and more germane to today’s debates. What a delusional madwoman. I could go on at length, but the moment that most crystallizes her estrangement from historical fact comes when Wallace says to her in effect: OK, your supposed laissez-faire Valhalla, with no taxes or regulations—this is not just some theory of yours. This world existed long ago, he put it to her; the problem was that people with power cheated and stole and exploited other people, so society made rules to try to prevent those things from happening. In response, Rand simply denies that this was the case and blames all corruption on the state, which would be news to, among many others, the men—and women, and children—who worked twelve hours a day, six days a week until the government constricted the capitalists’ freedom by stopping it.

It’s astonishing that a scenario that in 1959 seemed a bad joke is now a driving force in our national dialogue.

All this is germane today because of Rand’s influence on the contemporary GOP. Ryan is quoted in the ad saying, “Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most.” Doesn’t get much more direct than that. When Democrats say that Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it, well, there’s a reason they say so. One can’t believe what Ryan apparently believes and not want to end Medicare as we know it. If he didn’t, he’d be a coward and a hypocrite. There is a version of Medicare that can be squared with Randian Objectivism, but it sure isn’t the Medicare we have. It’s pretty much the Medicare Ryan has proposed, in which seniors largely look after themselves, with decreased “utilization” of health-care services, and spend a lot more money doing it.

Wallace introduced Rand by saying of her then-utterly-marginal philosophy that “if it ever did take hold, it would revolutionize our lives.” He did not mean it as a compliment. It’s astonishing that a scenario that in 1959 seemed a bad joke is now a driving force in our national dialogue. Thank God (pardon the expression) someone is pointing this out.

Newsweek/Daily Beast Special Correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.

[Larry]

Disagree with the headline.

The GOP has lots of bonkers demagogues.

It's part of their charm.

[TimmySmith]

What a load of crap. If we loaded up this site with partisan mud slinging it would be neck deep instead of ankle deep.

[Destino]

“Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most.” right... and head hunters are really just "high protein diet enthusiasts"

Also, more willing to lie is an understatement.

[PleaseBlitz]

I thought this title was currently held by Sarah Palin?

[JMS]

“Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most.” right... and head hunters are really just "high protein diet enthusiasts"

Also, more willing to lie is an understatement.

The most interesting point in the article I found was...

It’s astonishing that a scenario that in 1959 seemed a bad joke is now a driving force in our national dialogue.

I also thought it was interesting that Mike Wallace was the interviewer who characterized Ayan Rand in 59, and his son Chris Wallace on Fox news is so involved in the mainstreaming of this philosophy today.

---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 11:21 AM ----------

I thought this title was currently held by Sarah Palin?

Ayan Rand grew up in Czarist Russia. She saw the communist party strip her father and family of their possessions and destroy the wealthy class of achievers in that country. She was an intellectual who saw the philosophical arguments made by the communists and set about in creating a counter argument on the right. This she did making some very influential fans of her beliefs... Alan Greenspan for instance wrote the preface to Atlas Shrugged. Today congressmen, senators, even prime time newscasters source her as their philosophical light.

I don't think many folks even her supporters would call Sarah Palin an intellectual.

[Henry]

It’s astonishing that a scenario that in 1959 seemed a bad joke is now a driving force in our national dialogue.

I don't agree with everything in that article but I do agree with this.

[PleaseBlitz]

Ayan Rand grew up in Czarist Russia. She saw the communist party strip her father and family of their possessions and destroy the wealthy class of achievers in that country. She was an intellectual who saw the philosophical arguments made by the communists and set about in creating a counter argument on the right. This she did making some very influential fans of her beliefs... Alan Greenspan for instance wrote the preface to Atlas Shrugged. Today congressmen, senators, even prime time newscasters source her as their philosophical light.

I don't think many folks even her supporters would call Sarah Palin an intellectual.

Nobody called anyone an intellectual. The title is "The GOP's Favorite Bonkers Demagogue." A title that certainly fits Palin. Anyways it was a joke.

And I know who Ayn Rand is. Unlike most of the rightwing crackpots that love to site her work, I've actually read Atlas Shrugged. This was as a college economics student and long before the book became the current misunderstood yet heavily referenced piece it is today.

[Predicto]

To be fair, many great philosophers were rotten people. I suspect that truly thinking outside the box requires a mind that is a bit twisted.

ps - no, Rand was not a great philosopher, or even a good one. I was just making a philosophical point here.

[greenspandan]

to paraphrase roger ebert ... Ayn Rand's philosophy boils down to "i'm on board -- reel up the lifeline."

ironically, it errs in the exact same manner as communism -- both fail to account for the realities of human nature: those who achieve power will inevitably consolodate and solidify that power at the expense of all the rest -- that's a force that the "free market" alone cannot combat.

Alan Greenspan is indeed a huge fan of Ayn Rand. in fact, in the 90's during the stock market boom, his common sense (and economic intelligence) was telling him that we were engaging in "irrational exhuberance" -- that we were in the middle of a big bubble, and headed for a crash. but economic conservatives did not want to hear that, and lashed him publicly. Greenspan then decided to trust his Randian leanings and assume the market was "smarter" than he was. the result, of course, was the great dot-com collapse of 2000. the NASDAQ lost 80% of its value.

[JMS]

And I know who Ayn Rand is. Unlike most of the rightwing crackpots that love to site her work, I've actually read Atlas Shrugged. This was as a college economics student and long before the book became the current misunderstood yet heavily referenced piece it is today.

I've read Anthem, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Seems to me if you've read one of her books you've read them all. I think everybody should read at least one of her books. Gives you perspective.

---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 02:07 PM ----------

ps - no, Rand was not a great philosopher, or even a good one. I was just making a philosophical point here.

OK, but would you conceed she was an influential one?

---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 02:13 PM ----------

Alan Greenspan is indeed a huge fan of Ayn Rand. in fact, in the 90's during the stock market boom, his common sense (and economic intelligence) was telling him that we were engaging in "irrational exhuberance" -- that we were in the middle of a big bubble, and headed for a crash. but economic conservatives did not want to hear that, and lashed him publicly. Greenspan then decided to trust his Randian leanings and assume the market was "smarter" than he was. the result, of course, was the great dot-com collapse of 2000. the NASDAQ lost 80% of its value.

I think Ayan Rand's "philosophy" is the complete and total endorsement of the individual. Something which many find very attractive. It's what comes after that which is so troubling. The consistant thread in all of her works when the individuals labors are affected in any way, they should deny the fruits of their labor to the collective and enter into a self imposed moritorium or sabatical from society. Basically take your baseball and go home. This followed to it's ultimate conclusion is an endorsement of anarchy and break down of society... Something that Ayan Rand is perfectly ok with. The ultimate crime in her world is for people with abilities to have those capabilities curbed or slowed down in any way... Only minorly less criminal is for people with abilities to participate in a society which would try to regulate their actions.

[More Complete]

Also, more willing to lie is an understatement.

Yes because we all know political affiliation and honesty are directly linked... wait, what? Terrible. The author could stand to be a little more “objective” himself.

And I know who Ayn Rand is. Unlike most of the rightwing crackpots that love to site her work, I've actually read Atlas Shrugged. This was as a college economics student and long before the book became the current misunderstood yet heavily referenced piece it is today.

With all due respect, the book was heavily referenced long before you read it in college.

[PleaseBlitz]

to paraphrase roger ebert ... Ayn Rand's philosophy boils down to "i'm on board -- reel up the lifeline."

ironically, it errs in the exact same manner as communism -- both fail to account for the realities of human nature: those who achieve power will inevitably consolodate and solidify that power at the expense of all the rest -- that's a force that the "free market" alone cannot combat.

Alan Greenspan is indeed a huge fan of Ayn Rand. in fact, in the 90's during the stock market boom, his common sense (and economic intelligence) was telling him that we were engaging in "irrational exhuberance" -- that we were in the middle of a big bubble, and headed for a crash. but economic conservatives did not want to hear that, and lashed him publicly. Greenspan then decided to trust his Randian leanings and assume the market was "smarter" than he was. the result, of course, was the great dot-com collapse of 2000. the NASDAQ lost 80% of its value.

If anyone is bored, Frontline did a thing on Greenspan, his adherence to Rand's principles, and the market crash of 2000....and some lady at the CFTC that was shunned for speaking up.

---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 02:19 PM ----------

With all due respect, the book was heavily referenced long before you read it in college.

Yea, i know it was a big deal when it was released and i realize it's been a touchstone of capatalist theory for a long time. but not like today with the rise of the Tea Party movement whose adherents love to reference the book, but if you grill them a little bit it becomes clear they havent actually read the book. This has happened to me 3 or 4 times. My neighbor has a "Who is John Galt?" bumper sticker on his truck. I'm pretty sure he can't answer that question.

[Henry]

What exactly don't you agree with?

Serious question.

All the partisan hackery at the beginning of the article about how Republicans are better at attacking because they are better at lying because everyone hates their policies blah blah blah. When the writer got past the huffing and puffing, the stuff about Rand was much more interesting.

[JMS]

With all due respect, the book was heavily referenced long before you read it in college.

I definitely think Ayan Rand has moved from the fringes to more relivance since the 1980's. When the country moved to the right, moving a stationary Reagan to the center of american politcs it also propelled Ayan Rand into the center.

But I think you are correct, her books have long been influencial.

[More Complete]

My neighbor has a "Who is John Galt?" bumper sticker on his truck. I'm pretty sure he can't answer that question.

Lol. That's pretty funny.

[JMS]

All the partisan hackery at the beginning of the article about how Republicans are better at attacking because they are better at lying because everyone hates their policies blah blah blah. When the writer got past the huffing and puffing, the stuff about Rand was much more interesting.

Sorry I misread your previous post. I thought you were disagreeing that Ayan Rand was an influential writer. My bad.

[Destino]

Yes because we all know political affiliation and honesty are directly linked... wait, what? Terrible. The author could stand to be a little more “objective” himself.

I've said it before so why not again: I don't think that republicans have many issues on which they don't depend on wide spread misinformation to convince the public. Every issue has a spam email and an alternative media "source" working in conjunction with republican leaders to mislead voters on the issue. They lied their asses off about health care. They immediately declared that OBL was captured thanks to torture when even the for Sec of Defense disagreed publicly. The "ground zero mosque" wasn't at ground zero or a mosque. They claim to want to cut budgets while most of them actually only want to cut democratically popular portions of the budget. They claim that "cap and trade" is a socialist idea when the former President and the republicans in congress previously described it as a free market solution to environmental concerns. You can go right down the line and they can't win the day on seemingly any issue without having to overtly mislead the public.

[PleaseBlitz]

I've said it before so why not again: I don't think that republicans have many issues on which they don't depend on wide spread misinformation to convince the public. Every issue has a spam email and an alternative media "source" working in conjunction with republican leaders to mislead voters on the issue. They lied their asses off about health care. They immediately declared that OBL was captured thanks to torture when even the for Sec of Defense disagreed publicly. The "ground zero mosque" wasn't at ground zero or a mosque. They claim to want to cut budgets while most of them actually only want to cut democratically popular portions of the budget. They claim that "cap and trade" is a socialist idea when the former President and the republicans in congress previously described it as a free market solution to environmental concerns. You can go right down the line and they can't win the day on seemingly any issue without having to overtly mislead the public.

Misleading the public: Definitely exclusively Republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html?hpid=z3

Both parties lie their faces off at every opportunity. Neither is better than the other.

[Predicto]

OK, but would you conceed she was an influential one?

Oh absolutely. Influential and malignant are not necessarily exclusive.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I will never fully understand the Christian Conservatives who cite Rand as their philosophical hero.

[Baculus]

Ayn Rand despised religious fundamentalists, and she didn't have very high praise for libertarians, which is why I think it's odd she's so popular on the Right.

Here is an except from a 1971 interview with Rand. Take note of my bolded part of her quote. If she said that today, she would be castigated by conservatives:

"Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect.."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

[techboy]

To be fair, many great philosophers were rotten people. I suspect that truly thinking outside the box requires a mind that is a bit twisted.

ps - no, Rand was not a great philosopher, or even a good one. I was just making a philosophical point here.

And a great one, I'd say.

[Larry]

To be fair, many great philosophers were rotten people. I suspect that truly thinking outside the box requires a mind that is a bit twisted.

ps - no, Rand was not a great philosopher, or even a good one. I was just making a philosophical point here.

So, when you referred to "a mind that's a bit twisted", you were referring to yourself?

[JMS]

Removed due to new non controversy policy, I'm working on.