More food for thought…
…this time from Tim Wise. Below is an excerpt; I’d recommend reading the entire article here. I find it fascinating that so many continue to believe that a true pro-life worldview is compatible with this contemptible intellectual and moral slop.
Among the most interesting phenomena of the past year–and especially since the inauguration of Barack Obama–has been the explosion of interest in (and sales of) books by the late author, Ayn Rand: most prominently her classic novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Indeed, the latter had an all-time record year in 2008, and 2009 sales are on a pace to shatter even last year’s numbers.
Far from a simple believer in limited government and a free market economy, Rand’s philosophy–now being endorsed by tea party protesters and anti-Obama minions across the nation (indeed the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights was among the sponsors of the 9/12 march on Washington)–was predicated on one overarching notion: that a commitment to selfishness and a rejection of altruistic behavior were the height of morality. That’s not to say that she merely rejected compulsory altruism via taxation, but altruism even privately chosen. To do for others, out of a charitable impulse or out of some faith-based commitment, for example, is morally and ethically suspect, for neither feelings nor faith are rational bases for human actions, according to her philosophy known as Objectivism. Unless one’s assistance to another were rooted in some self-interested motivation, it was to be condemned.
It is especially fascinating to see the so-called “average, everyday folks” at the tea party rallies embracing Rand’s thinking and literature. After all, Rand’s view of the common man and woman–presumably the very Joe Six Packs and Hockey Moms recently enthralled by her–was decidedly grotesque. So, for instance, in her original version of her work,We the Living, Rand had her chief protagonist proclaim: “What are your masses…but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?”
And:
This is what the right is coming to. This is what they really mean when they call themselves “values voters.” The values of which they speak, far from being “Christian,” and far from being rooted in concern for the country, are–at least for many–firmly grounded in selfishness, applied narcissism and operationalized, organizational sociopathy. That they would seek to make a hero of Rand, and forge a movement based even in part on her thinking is all the evidence one should need that the patients are running the asylum known as the American right.
Ah, Objectivism. Utterly incompatible with Christianity, even though Rand admired (but misunderstood) the philosophical realism of Thomism.
Too many people think of Objectivism as libertarian, and Rand thought libertarians were the hippies of the Right – adolescent, lacking in truly principled philosophy (epistemology and philosophy of reality).
But it’s telling that Objectivists – founded on a philosophy that confuses axioms with tautologies – are pretty conventionally and perpetually angry/frustrated ideologues. They are uncomfortable people as they are more than Calvinists. And in some respects, Objectivism has a whiff of a Calvinist naturalism.
Can Tim Wise wield that broad a brush with one hand, or does it require two? Values voter = selfish. It would be pathetic if it weren’t…well, never mind, it is pathetic.
I think Wise is right to criticize Rand – honestly, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. But the suggestion that social conservatives don’t realize that the Randian idealization of selfishness is in tension with their philosophical premises on social issues is bafflingly ignorant. Hasn’t he noticed the bitter conservative infighting between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives – much less the libertarians – over the last two years?
He might was well write an article informing Pope Benedict that Hans Kung has taken some questionable theological positions. Really? No kidding?
Perhaps a better example would be if I wrote an article like Wise’s informing the Vox Nova contributors that many Democrats are pro-choice, and that this position was in tension with Catholic Social Teaching. After all, most Randians are ardent pro-choicers. I could then conclude, as Wise does,
That they would…forge a movement based even in part on her thinking is all the evidence one should need that the patients are running the asylum known as the American left.
I don’t know how many V-Ners would self identify as Democrats.
Mark – Who didn’t vote for Obama here? Maybe Kyle…
Voting for Obama does not make one a Democrat.
But I know Henry did not vote for Obama, for one.
I am not a democrat. Pretty sure I’ve made that clear on… ohhh… 567,987,253 occasions. At least.
Yeah, I vaguely recall Henry saying something about that. Did he not vote at all? I can’t remember. Of those who voted, you’re well above 80% Obama voters. Whether you self-identify as Democrat or not, there’s not much point in disputing 1) that you voted for a pro-choice candidate, and 2) that you were well aware that you were doing so; 3) an article like Wise’s addressed to Obama voters would not be particularly illuminating.
Btw, perhaps I should emphasize my goal is to make a point about the article, rather than about the contributors per se. I think it makes a banal observation that’s been obvious to anyone who knows anything about politics (there are tensions in factions of the Republican party) in a manner that suggests this is some sort of trenchant, original analysis. Moreover, it doesn’t even remark on the basic civil war that the Republicans have had over the last several years on precisely the issues it identifies.
Btw, perhaps I should emphasize my goal is to make a point about the article, rather than about the contributors per se.
Good, because on the latter you have been inaccurate.
Perhaps you could point out the inaccuracy. I never claimed you were a Democrat, rather than an anarchist who votes for Democrats, so I don’t think I’ve been inaccurate on that score.
Objectivism is a philosophical joke not worth the sweat between Ayn Rand’s overheated Russian thighs. It is disappointing that any Catholic would make common cause with the acolytes of such a venal cult.
Of course, it’s also vexing why any Catholic would make common cause with Planned Parenthood or NARAL, which are both death cults in their own right.
John, you’re now wrong on two counts. First, you implied that we are all democrats. Second, I’m not an anarchist who votes for democrats, but one who has voted for republicans, democrats, greens, an independents.
Michael, is it true or false that, of the VN contributors who voted, over 80% voted for Obama?
Of the current contributors? I have no idea.
My point is that in response to Mark’s statement about us not all being democrats, you replied asking who didn’t vote for Obama, as if the two have anything to do with one another. They don’t. But in implying that they do, you are implying that we are all democrats.
It’s worse than there being “tensions and factions” in the republican party, or in the broader conservative movement. The problem is that these factions are based on fundamentally different values.
So you have many conservatives (many, MANY conservatives) who feel free to denounce liberals as “godless”, and who claim that respect for religion is a crucial aspect of conservatism (Russell Kirk, for instance.) Then you have the Randians, for whom religion is a perversion of human reason not to be tolerated.
And both sides claim that principle is all important, not to be sacrificed for temporary gain.
The result is, among other things, a “pro-life” movement that is unnervingly comfortable with war and torture. There isn’t a single policy, no matter how perverse or death-worshipping that can’t be defended according to some basic “conservative” principle.
And if you criticize, you are denounced by people who pride themselves on their “values”.
This is not mere factionalism. It is a kind of insanity.
“The result is, among other things, a ‘pro-life’ movement that is unnervingly comfortable with war and torture.”
phosphorious, the moral dissonance is observable on both sides. The Catholic Left exists in tension with noisy atheists like Bill Maher and most of the commentariat at Huffington Post. (Did you ever read the comments over there after a Franky Schaeffer or Jim Wallis post? Or after any story on the Catholic Church?) Fact is, religiosity on the Left (nominal, at any rate) is lower than it is on the Right, and yet the Catholic Left finds a way to live with the dissonance. So well, in fact, that one is treated to the spectacle of “pro-life” Catholics who are unnervingly comfortable with abortion providers, euthanasia enthusiasts, and embryonic stem cell research.
Pick your poison. Maybe you already have. But don’t tell yourself it’s not poison.
Of the current contributors? I have no idea.
Well that’s just not true, Michael. You have a very good idea. Even I have a good idea and I’m not even a contributor. Mark – Obama. Michael I. – Obama. Kari – Obama. Gerald – Obama. MM – endorsed Obama. MZ – endorsed Obama. RCM – endorsed Obama. Matt – endorsed Obama. I’m only not sure about mickey (likely Obama), Kyle (don’t know), Sam (don’t know), and Brett (don’t know).
you replied asking who didn’t vote for Obama, as if the two have anything to do with one another.
They do, actually, have something to do with each other. Democrats were far more likely than other people to vote for Obama. If you want to insist you’re not a Demcrat, that’s fine. Either way, the blog leans strongly to the left, and most of the contributors voted for Obama, which is all that was necessary for my argument.
And Obama was by far the better choice. It was a relative decision, not an absolute one, that’s what so many fail to understand. And yes, I remain convinced we are in far better shape today than had the other guy won. And that the majority of the blog shared that opinion does not make us Democrats, or “liberals”, it just shows we have common sense.
I can’t stand Bill Maher.
But I must challenge the point on religiosity. Yes, the left is moire secular. But because the claims to be religious does not make it more virtuous. In fact, the demented theology of modern American evangelicalism is arguably more dangerous. Catholics who align themselves with this rubbish deserve at least as much scorn as those who embrace the anti-religious secularists. Who would I fear most in a position of power, a secular atheist or Sarah Palin? Hmmmm…
MM – for 100th time, I’m not trying to make a point about whether you were wrong or right. Merely that it would be ridiculous for someone to come along, as Mr. Wise does above, and address you as if you’d never realized that Obama’s position on abortion was inconsistent with CST. In a similar vein, it’s not exactly news that Randian worship of the selfishness as a virtue is inconsistent with the premises of social conservatives – that’s why there’s so much infighting in the Republican party. Would that there more in the Democratic party on the pro-life front – then I could join.
And that the majority of the blog shared that opinion does not make us Democrats, or “liberals”, it just shows we have common sense.
lol.
Ayn Rand was drummed out of the mainstream conservative movement by William F. Buckley, Jr. when he published in National Review a very unflattering review of Atlas Shrugged penned by Whittaker Chambers. It’s depressing that she is being revived and it indicates a very embittered right wing(Objectivism reeks with bitterness and resentment).
However I wouldn’t call this bit from Tim Wise food for thought. More like food for the ideological grist mill as you can tell from the references to “minions” and “asylums.” Serious thinkers don’t write that way. Entertainers performing for political junkies of whatever stripe do. You have to use that kind of terminology to help your chosen audience achieve the high they get from flagellating the opposition. It’s pretty sick but quite lucrative I believe.
My favorite part is when he says that people who are “anti-Obama” (wonder how he defines that) have values that are “firmly grounded in selfishness, applied narcissism and operationalized, organizational sociopathy.”
Leaving aside that this is horrible writing (applied narcissism? As opposed to unapplied narcissism? Operationalized sociopathy? What the h*ll does that even mean, English teachers everywhere want to know) he ever so daintily qualifies his statement with the phrase “at least for many.” Isn’t that cute.
You can tell that he has thought long, hard and deeply (roughly as long as it takes to hit the Enter key) before coming to the conclusion that people who don’t think like him are disgusting, selfish pigs. Or excuse me, “many” of them are.
I honestly can not believe that people make a career out of this kind of thing and that people read it and forward it and repost it as though it were some kind of wothwhile argument. It was obviously not written to be a worthwhile argument or enlightening reading. This piece and numberless blogs and talk radio operate on the same plane as the Two Minutes of Hate, and have similar ritualistic elements. I imagine people enjoy it the same way a hound gets pleasure from going back to grind on the same bone over and over again.
I honestly can not believe that people make a career out of this kind of thing and that people read it and forward it and repost it as though it were some kind of wothwhile argument
Ah, take it easy on Mickey. I’m sure he won’t find this kind of fourth-rate rubbish “food for thought” when he’s 30. As he goes through college, he’ll be in a better position to recognize thoughtful engagement.
Have a good night all. Cheers.
I was too young to vote in 2008. As a matter of preference I’ll admit I leaned toward Obama (at least after McCain chose Palin). I thought he was sincere about abortion reduction. I’ll willingly accept the label of “naive,” because to a certain extent, I was. Today, I can say that unless Obama radically changes his approach to the life issues (meaning, at the least, truly seeking “common ground” as opposed to using it as a front for business-as-usual pro-abortion policies), I will not be voting for him in 2012. That is not to say, however, that I will be voting for whomever the Republicans manage to dredge up, unless they too make some radical changes.
John, with regard to your comment that most Randians are pro-choice, I’ll agree, to a point. I would guess that most “pure” Randians are. However, of all of her newly-minted acolytes in the modern conservative/Republican/tea party movement, how many do you think self-identify as pro-life? Judging by what we’ve been seeing at tea parties and town halls lately, I’d guess almost all of them. And that worries me very much, because I do want the pro-life movement to succeed at its ultimate goal (restoring legal protection to the unborn). Essentially, we’re allowing the movement’s moral integrity to be poisoned through this unholy marriage with the pro-choice mentality taken to its absolute logical extreme. How can that be good for anyone? But of course, if I or anyone else tries to point that out, we are accused of secretly wanting to undermine the pro-life movement, or of trying to dilute it with our liberal “peace and justice” causes.
And as far as tension between the social and economic conservatives in the Republican Party, you guys really could have fooled me. Pro-life Republicans (admitting individual exceptions, including many commentators here on VN) don’t seem too uncomfortable with their party’s idolatry of the free market, or its reliance on foreign policy by testosterone (torture, preemptive war, etc). Pro-life Democrats, at least, are actively working to change the positions of their party that are unacceptable. Do you see the American Life League condemning the GOP’s support of torture?
It is wise to be very, very cautious before wrapping oneself in the cloak of religiosity. It is not beneath religiosity to employ various forms of oppression to further it goals, including: racism, xenophobia, sexism, heterosexism, nativism, antisemitism, islamophobia, ableism, and the like. On top of all that, religiosity can lend support to theocratic tendencies which are anti-democratic and anti-pluralistic.
In short, there’s a lot of rubbish in religiosity. Already its presence has poisoned American politics to a considerable degree.
And seriously, guys, does everything here have to devolve into a fight over who voted for whom in 2008? The election is over.
John and Mag: I do, in fact, think it is a worthwhile argument, for reasons I explained above. Do I think that “people who don’t think like [me] are disgusting selfish pigs”? No. Do I think that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which is fundamentally incompatible with anything remotely Christian (and frankly, yes, disgusting and selfish, if you will), has made far too many inroads into modern political discourse? Yes. I will not apologize for that.
I’d appreciate it if you’d refrain from personal insults. I believe that in my comments and posts I have always striven to be respectful of you, even when we have disagreed. Thank you.
MIckey,
Your post was worthwhile. Don’t let others get under your skin. I recall distinctly when Buckley criticized Rand. But his criticism didn’t put to rest the ideas she was peddling. Remember, Alan Greenspan paid tribute to Ayn Rand in his latest book.
You might recall her words from The Anthem:
“For the coming of that day shall I fight, I and my sons and my chosen friends. For the freedom of Man. For his rights. For his life. For his honor.
“And here, over the portals of my fort, I shall cut in the stone the word which is to be my beacon and my banner. The word which will not die, shall we all perish in battle. The word which can never die on this earth, for it is the heart of it and the meaning and the glory.
“The sacred word: EGO.”
Doesn’t that sound familiar? Sure it does. Rand was prescient. The word will never die. But Catholic Social Teaching is designed to raze the fort of which she speaks. It is designed to bring the dawning of a new day predicated on Love, not spiritual alienation.
“It is not beneath religiosity to employ various forms of oppression to further it goals, including: racism, xenophobia, sexism, heterosexism, nativism, antisemitism, islamophobia, ableism, and the like.
Yes, and there are secular analogs for each of these (in case you haven’t noticed). A question: Does your invocation of Catholic Social Teaching in the comment immediately above amount to donning a cloak of religiosity? Is that acceptable? Are you instructing us that religiosity is only to be eschewed when the subject is, say, abortion, but that when it is employed to advance issues you care about?
And as far as tension between the social and economic conservatives in the Republican Party, you guys really could have fooled me. Pro-life Republicans (admitting individual exceptions, including many commentators here on VN) don’t seem too uncomfortable with their party’s idolatry of the free market, or its reliance on foreign policy by testosterone (torture, preemptive war, etc). Pro-life Democrats, at least, are actively working to change the positions of their party that are unacceptable. Do you see the American Life League condemning the GOP’s support of torture?
Well, I’d make a few points in response:
1) The two political parties in this country necessarily contain a lot of people with very different perspectives.
2) It is always possible to point at people in either movement and argue that they are making unprincipled compromises that demonstrate they aren’t really concerned about x, y, or z.
3) Your argument above basically assigns the worst motives to conservatives – they , but the best motives to Democrats – i.e. that Democrats for life (who don’t have a snow ball’s chance in Hades of changing the Democratic platform) are sincere, but pro-life Republicans are not. That’s always going to be true of some people in each party, and so you can always make the argument that one side’s sincere and the other isn’t if that’s the type of argument you’re into.
4) Both political parties are deeply, deeply flawed from a Catholic perspective. Any time you see someone claiming that on one side people are sincere, and on the other everyone’s compromised, then somebody’s selling something. Offensive signs at protest rallies are hardly a good barometer for anything – they are more of Rorschach test of your antecedent political commitments than anything else. Otherwise I could just dig up offensive Democrat signs, and suddenly you’d switch your perspective entirely.
5)I apologize for criticizing the article by using the VN contributor analogy; I was not trying to make a point about VN, as much as about the article, but that clearly got the thread off-topic.
Finishing the last comment: “… it is acceptable?”
Oh, btw, if you actually want to see what Catholic conservatives have to say about Rand, here are some good recent threads on her:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/08/25/objectivism/
http://crankycon.politicalbear.com/2009/08/24/a-brief-review-of-atlas-shrugged/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/08/25/on-the-naivety-of-ayn-rand/
Rand is basically universally reviled among Catholic social conservatives; that, among other reasons, is why I think Mr. Wise (and you) are attacking a straw man.
John Henry – I personally know Catholic conservative academics who promote the thought of Ayn Rand. A group of them at my alma mater started an institute on campus dedicated to the promotion of her work.
At Wheeling Jesuit? Really? What institute?
http://www.wju.edu/academics/bus/iscm/
Mark Gordon,
I don’t appeal to religiosity of any form. Religiosity in the practical order ends up being superficial and degenerates into a crude and destructive struggle for power. This is evident in American politics today.
Catholic Social Teaching is supported by an intellectual order — an order of intelligibility — with which I am comfortable. It involves an array of philosophical notions that flow out of metaphysics, anthropology, natural theology, ethics, and politics, and so forth. The entire edifice rests on the analogy of being. It is from here that I draw inspiration for what I say.
We live in a pluralistic society; I accept that without hesitation. We also have a system designed to separate Church and State. I embrace that as well. But accepting pluralism doesn’t mean that one is unable to challenge, and help reform, the existing order. It is through ideas and persuasion that this is best done and a grasp of philosophical notions gives one the tools that are more than sufficient to compete.
Reading through the web-site, and glancing at the articles, I’d be hard-pressed to describe it as dedicated to the promotion of Ayn Rand’s work. And, unfortunately, we differ so frequently and substantially in interpretation, that I am disinclined to accept your characterization at face value.
Mr. Campbell,
The entire edifice rests on both the analogy of being and divine revelation. And the proper role of Catholics in the public square is similarly two-fold: to bring public policy into accordance with natural law by means of rational argument, AND to give witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A man who emphasizes the latter role at the expense of the former is anxious about his faith. A man who emphasizes the former at the expense of the latter is embarrassed by it.
“A man who emphasizes the latter role at the expense of the former is anxious about his faith. A man who emphasizes the former at the expense of the latter is embarrassed by it.”
Yes. It’s always either/or, isn’t it?
“religiosity
n : exaggerated or affected piety and religious zeal [syn: religiousism,
pietism]”
Religiosity has no room in politics. Individuals radiate their witness without having to dramatize it.
As for philosophy, few Catholics today are trained to do justice to the intellectual order. The responsibility for the decline rests with changes made in Catholic universities in the last four decades.
Reading through the web-site, and glancing at the articles, I’d be hard-pressed to describe it as dedicated to the promotion of Ayn Rand’s work. And, unfortunately, we differ so frequently and substantially in interpretation, that I am disinclined to accept your characterization at face value.
John, I know the people involved and the scholarly work that they do. I know where the money came from to start the institute. I’ve seen the grant description (which is not on the website). I know the back story behind the institute and the inter-departmental debates that took place before, during, and after its founding. Each business major receives a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Look at the links on the site.
But yeah, you are probably in a better position to say whether or not they are interested in promoting Ayn Rand. Right.
http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/456.php
http://www.wju.edu/about/adm_news_story.asp?iNewsID=2989&strBack=/About/Default.asp
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200802270753
http://www.thetandd.com/articles/2008/03/04/business/12990428.txt
http://www.dailymail.com/Business/200812250070
In the WJU press release please note that it concerns a Catholic philosopher who is a member of the Ayn Rand Society.
Of course you are free to ignore all this, as it conflicts with your claim that “Rand is basically universally reviled among Catholic social conservatives.” But man, for a philosopher who is “universally reviled among Catholic conservatives,” this institute at WJU sure manages to dig up a lot of Catholic academics who just eat her up.
What was that you said about a strawman?
“Yes. It’s always either/or, isn’t it?”
You’re the one making it either/or, Mr. Campbell. My point was precisely that it should be both/and.
You cite a dictionary definition of “religiosity” but skip directly to the second definition, bypassing the first, which is merely, “the quality of being religious.” This is sleight of hand. So, are you really opposed to religious people being involved in politics. I guess so, considering …
“Religiosity has no room in politics. Individuals radiate their witness without having to dramatize it.”
Some do. Some don’t. Fr. Drinan famously attended sessions of Congress in his blacks. I’m sure you approved at the time. Why are you so opposed to other Catholics and Christians witnessing to their faith in a manner different than you? Talk about binary thinking.
Your remark about the decline in philosophical training over the past four decades is rich because that decline tracks exactly with the takeover of Catholic universities by those who pledge unqualified fealty to the amorphous “Spirit” of the Second Vatican Council (as opposed to the actual documents of the Council). It also tracks with the appearance of the “pro-choice” Catholic politician, a phenomenon you have celebrated elsewhere.
Atlas Shrugged” is a world-renowned philosophical novel, but Rand’s work has been largely frozen out of the academic community, the BB&T Charitable Foundation said in a written statement.
“We have tried to encourage that discussion by supporting professors who have an interest in Rand,” the foundation said in the statement. “All the professors involved in these programs believe this is an appropriate academic endeavor, completely independent of BB&T’s interest. This is ultimately an expression of academic freedom by these professors.”
Um, Michael, it appears to me you’ve supported rather than refuted my claim. Rand has been so neglected by academia, that a foundation has to pay professors just to include her books in their classes. Forgive me if I don’t see this as a sign that I was wrong.
John, once again your distance from the reality shows your ignorance. And you also obviously cannot read. BB&T was supporting professors who already had an interest in Rand. This was certainly the case at WJU as the philosophy and business departments used her texts for years before they received the grant.
Your claim that “Rand is basically universally reviled among Catholic social conservatives” has no basis in reality.
Well, you keep claiming that, but you haven’t provided any evidence other than a foundation paying people to use her books in class. This hardly shows 1) that the people using the books are social conservatives of the type I described; 2) that Rand is highly regarded by social conservatives.
You haven’t read any of the links I provided for you. Good. That’s certainly the easiest way to dismiss someone who has proven you wrong.
I don’t deny that Objectivists are out there; they just very rarely are social conservatives.
Um, I quoted from one of the links, so yeah, I read the links Michael.
Welp, you read at least part of one of the links. That’s a start. Wouldn’t want your illusions to collapse all at once. Start small.
Mark Gordon,
“You cite a dictionary definition of “religiosity” but skip directly to the second definition”
Precisely, because that is where the difficulty and dangers lies.
“Why are you so opposed to other Catholics and Christians witnessing to their faith in a manner different than you?”
I’m not. But the milieu in which I run is politics and I strongly support the separation of Church and State. Religion should not mix with politics.
As for Fr. Drinan, he wasn’t dramatizing anything. He was a priest and everyone was aware of that.
I never tried to explain why there has been a decline in philosophical training in Catholic universities. I merely made a statement. As for Vatican Ii, I agree with J. Maritain’s assessment. But the reason I brought it up in the first place is because philosophical arguments help reshape the culture in and through politics.
I am not sure why you feel the need to be so rude, Michael. I can easily provide quotes from most of the leading Catholic social conservatives criticizing Rand rather strongly (Buckley, Neuhaus, Douthat, Ponnuru, etc.). To say that my statement had no basis in reality is rather absurd; sure there may be exceptions, but they are exactly that.
Here is what you said: “Rand is basically universally reviled among Catholic social conservatives” and “[you] are attacking a straw man.”
There is an adequate number of “exceptions” to show that the image of “Randian Catholic social conservatives” is NOT a “straw man.”
Here’s Darwin making the same point on the other thread:
So according to the linked sales figues 0.067% of Americans bought a copy of Atlas Shrugged in 2008. Quite a tidal wave.
Look, you’ll get no disagreement from anyone here that Objectivism is a terrible philosophy — most of the conservative Catholic blogs I read have written about this at one time or another….Apply a negative adjective and you’ll probably get agreement.
But honestly, painting this as somet kind of mainstream thing in conservatism is like saying the Folsom Street Festival proves that all progressives are into bondage and public nudity. Not only will you not find conservative Catholic bloggers lauding Rand, but secular conservative magazines such as National Review have been rejecting Rand and Objectivism since back when she was writing.
So yeah, it’s possible you can see someone with a “Going Galt” sign standing near someone with a pro-life sign at a protest, but there are virtually no ties between Objectivists and pro-lifers. Among other things, because the Objectivists are very loudly and emphatically pro-choice — as much so as Obama, in fact.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/09/17/clarifications-on-my-previous-post/#comment-64050
There is an adequate number of “exceptions” to show that the image of “Randian Catholic social conservatives” is NOT a “straw man.”
One can take that perspective, I guess. But there really are very few Objectivist pro-life Catholics – I’ve never met one, in fact. To the extent the post suggests that Objecvtivism is widespread among pro-lifers, I think it’s addressing a straw man.
I do that that perspective because I have met three (at least) at a single institution which has been quite successful at inviting a good many others to come preach the Randian gospel on its campus.
Does the fact that you can count them on one hand suggest to you that maybe they are an exception? It certainly does to me. Also, it should be noted that there is a significant distinction between thinking free markets best serve the common good in many respects and being an Objectivist.
An old college friend of mine holds a BB&T-endowed chair in Objectivism at a major university. The outgoing chairman of BB&T is an apostle of Rand and has made it his mission to break into academic philosophy departments where Rand was considered something of an embarrassing enthusiasm, shall we say.
John, you still don’t get it, but that’s okay. Let it pass.
“Religion should not mix with politics.”
If religion shouldn’t mix with politics, why do you post on a site devoted to “Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics?” Why do you invoke Catholic Social Teaching by name and not just the philosophical underpinnings of that teaching?
It seems to me that your position has more to do with shutting the door on people who disagree with you (mostly about abortion) than with somehow ensuring the secular hygiene of the public square. It seems narrow-minded and intolerant, neither of which are “liberal” values.
Mark Gordon,
The Catholic tradition has an intellectual aspect that allows for a full participation in political life. The evangelical tradition rejects the intellectual order and the intrinsic capacity of the intellect to know truth. Thus it is ham-strung in how it can impact politics. It has to turn to religiosity. Its agenda usually amounts to imposing restrictions on behavior. The Catholic approach tends to address hearts and minds with a view to changing culture.
If interested, read Jacques Maritain. He offers a richly developed analysis of the intellectual principles that can be used in prudential judgment. He shows how the deepest truths of the Catholic Faith can be given full participate in political life and yet do so within the framework of a separation of Church and State. In short, he felt that Catholics should feel quite at home in a pluralistic society.
So do I.
For Rand to have been so ineffective as many of you yahoos claim at this, ah hum, site, you are sure scoring points in favor of those of us who claim just the opposite. I would wager that several of you here have never read “Atlas Shrugged” from cover to cover.
Echo chambers such as this one further convince me that Ms. Rand WAS effective in espousing her philosophy of Objectivism. She herself made it very clear she was not to be considered a conservative…she was a radical for laissez-faire capitalism, radical being indicative of a fundamentalist. She also made it very clear that if one opts for personal altruism, that that is their choice just don’t try to force that silly concept on the rest of us via government fiat.
She is and was one of the most inspiring novelist and philosophers that I’ve ever read. If she indeed was, in your opinion, a symbolic dead horse and has but a meager following….why (now think about it, I’m not just throwing “spitballs” here) do you continually feel the need to beat it? Does that in some way embolden your own philosophical niche?
Robert Taylor,
Are you writing to a site? Or do you have anyone’s comments in mind? Differing views were expressed, although there was a distinct effort made to dismiss her as you say.
But there are some, including myself, who think Ayn Rand has had an abiding influence on the last half century. I believe I said that above at September 17, 2009 at 12:15 am.
Robert Taylor,
What do you mean by effective(ness)?