Clarifications on my previous post
My most recent post linked to an article by Tim Wise that strongly criticizes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and points out that her writings have recently become extremely popular among among right-wing Republicans seeking a philosophical backing for their opposition to President Obama’s economic policies.
I’ll freely admit that in making the post (and the previous one, which linked to a Rod Dreher article and was, it appears, less controversial), I broke two of my own personal blogging rules. First off, I try to refrain from posting in anger, but this time passion got the better of me after seeing yet more footage from the tea parties and town hall scream-fests that have become ubiquitous over the past few months. This led to my violation of my second rule, which is to not re-post anything written by someone else without adding my own thoughts. With this in mind, here are the points that I wanted to make when I posted Tim Wise’s article:
1. Far from being an obscure philosophy that is roundly rejected by the modern conservative movement, Rand’s way of thinking is, in fact, making a comeback. You see it not only in the “going John Galt” signs that are highly popular at tea parties these days, but also in a much more visceral sinister form in people whose idea of activism is shouting down cancer patients at town halls. You see it in an entire movement that is red-faced screaming insane over the prospect of “big government,” but not at all angry over the fact that thousands of people every year die in the richest country in the world because they cannot afford health care. And I’m sorry, but who do you think is buying all those copies of Atlas Shrugged on Amazon? It ain’t liberal Democrats.
2. Even though it should be obvious that this way of thinking is completely antithetical to a true pro-life mindset, the pro-life movement has, through its association with American conservatism, become infected with Randian thinking. Again, to use the example of the “tea party” rallies: I saw plenty of anti-abortion signs right next to signs saying, “I’m not responsible for your health care,” or the like. I’d be willing to bet that 95% of those who have newly discovered Rand as a philosophical justification for their opposition to liberal economic policies would self-identify as pro-life. This unholy marriage between (laudable) opposition to abortion and (heretical) idolatry of the individual is simply not OK, because it is ultimately self-contradictory and doomed to fail, spectacularly.
That’s all I wanted to say. In hindsight, I probably could have said it better without linking to an article that was, indeed, somewhat confrontational in tone (though far from “worthless,” as some commentators suggested). Posting as I was in anger, I actually liked the tone (and I still think that Wise’s bluntness has value), but I didn’t stop to remind myself that this is, after all, a Catholic blog, and civility should be the norm. So, if I offended anyone, I sincerely apologize, and I ask “you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
Oh, and as an aside, some commentators asked why I didn’t point out the fact that Objectivism is, in the end, the primary philosophical underpinning of the pro-choice movement. More generally, there seemed to be an insinuation that I was being overly harsh on pro-life Republicans while not calling out pro-choice Democrats. Honestly, I had hoped that the answer to this question would be obvious, but apparently it isn’t, so here goes: to put it as bluntly as I can, I don’t give a damn about the pro-choice movement. I have nothing invested in its success. I want it to fail. I am a pro-life Catholic, and I assume that the readers of this blog are the same. I don’t feel the need to spend my time making arguments as to why the pro-choice movement is evil, because I assume that everyone here already agrees with me on that point. I do, however, care about the pro-life movement. I do want it to succeed, but for various reasons, not the least of which are the evils with which it has allowed itself to be associated, I am more fearful now than ever that it will not. That is why I criticize the movement of which I consider myself to be a member. Now, more than ever, the world is in dire need of those who are unafraid and unashamed to articulate a consistent, principled, and intelligent stand for the protection of human life in all its forms. And such a stand is in no way compatible with the shades of Objectivism that have recently re-entered our nation’s political discourse.
Comments are closed.
The antithesis of Catholic social teaching is libertarianism: a perverse pairing of public stinginess and private license, rugged individualism writ large. So why does it appeal to some pro-lifers, including Catholics?
It seems to me that many conservatives see the abortion-rights movement as just one reflection of a social order that has lost all sense of personal responsibility. To counter it, they promote an ethic which says, “You alone are responsible for what you do, and alone you must bear whatever consequences your actions bring you.” We can bewail it all we want, but we have clearly not succeeded in communicating an alternative vision: an ethic of personal responsibility grounded in solidarity.
I don’t give a damn about the pro-choice movement. I have nothing invested in its success. I want it to fail. I am a pro-life Catholic, and I assume that the readers of this blog are the same. I don’t feel the need to spend my time making arguments as to why the pro-choice movement is evil, because I assume that everyone here already agrees with me on that point. I do, however, care about the pro-life movement. I do want it to succeed, but for various reasons, not the least of which are the evils with which it has allowed itself to be associated, I am more fearful now than ever that it will not. That is why I criticize the movement of which I consider myself to be a member.
I should just link to this whenever I am accused of not being “hard enough” on the pro-choice side. I’ve tried to get this very point across many many times since we started this blog, but you have said it perfectly.
I posted this on the other thread, but here is what Catholic social conservatives have to say about Rand:
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/
I’d be willing to bet that 95% of those who have newly discovered Rand as a philosophical justification for their opposition to liberal economic policies would self-identify as pro-life. This unholy marriage between (laudable) opposition to abortion and (heretical) idolatry of the individual is simply not OK, because it is ultimately self-contradictory and doomed to fail, spectacularly.
Given that only about 60% of Republicans are pro-life, your claim above is highly unlikely. Moreover, it boggles the mind that you think pro-lifers aren’t aware that Rand’s philosophy is based on completely different premises. Please, please, find an example of an ardent pro-lifer praising Rand’s work (and no, signs from random people next to each other at rallies don’t count).
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. Objectivism is stupid, wrong, evil, etc. 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.
When it comes to guilt by association, there are far, far more ties between those advocating Obama’s approach to universal health care and those advocating gay marriage, euthenasia, abortion, etc. then there are between the pro-life movement and Objectivism.
I think you are going too far.
As someone who has made the “objectivist” mistake and is aware of the political climate of most objectivists, I don’t think this is possible. Anyone who is seriously interested in Objectivism is going to quickly discover that Rand and Objectivists are incredibly hostile to both religion and are vehement supporters of abortion rights. Furthermore, the official Objectivist association (the one that remained personally loyal to her when the infighting occurred) has often endorsed liberal democrats for president out of a fear of Christian politics on the right.
As much as she would like to deny it, Rand developed her philosophy while among the ranks of the conservative movement, which she later repudiated. So, yes, there will be features that conservatives find facially appealing. However, she appeals only to certain types of conservatives. If someone is a pro-life conservative as opposed to primarily an economic conservative or a psuedo-libertarian conservative, I don’t see that objectivism would appeal to them.
I don’t think we can entirely dismiss the objectivist influence in the modern neo-conservative movement, if nothing else, through Rush. I know many people are now treating him as a joke, but, before that happened, he has influenced people and the way they look at politics, and Rand is an influence on him. And if you look to people who call themselves pro-life, and look to their positions outside of the issue of abortion, some do go the Rand route (more than “conservatives” would like to believe, but less than “liberals” would like to believe).
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif) gives his departing interns copies of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/32415/congressman-were-living-in-atlas-shrugged
Ron, I agree that libertarianism combines private degeneracy with public degeneracy. But is it right to talk about an antithesis to CST? That employs the thesis/antithesis mode of thinking.
It seems to me that CST is more like a mean between two extremes, after the model of a virtue. The rightly-ordered world would have neither an excess nor a defect of any good thing. Just as we try to have neither too much nor too little sexual desire (for example) in our lives, so a society should strive for a balance.
I make this point because in matters such as health care, there may be too much or too little public funding, a defect or excess of thrift.
standmickey I get what you are trying to say and I share your concerns about Ayn Rand worming her sordid way into the pro-life movement. My comments on your earlier post were just pointing out Mr. Wise’s piece was not an argument, but a rant. Rants are not good for much, except as political pornography.
Being an Objectivist, I have a different take on the Tea Party movement.
First, I have no idea why people object to protest; that is what democracy is about. People are angry about the way this country is headed and want to speak out. What of it?
While political movements will seize on almost anything to gain advantage, the important take-away points are that A) conservatives really have no coherent philosophy, and b) Objectivism provides a foundation for some elements of the movement, primarily fiscal conservatism and constitutionally protected freedoms.
The religious elements of the GOP will never buy into Rand’s ideas because they are antithetical to their own, so the result is that this whole thing is serving to sort out the free-market people from the rest.
While I realize there is an inherent contradiction between Catholicism and Objectivism, it is still important to characterize the latter correctly, then if one still wants to reject it, fine.
Rational egoism is not a sordid philosophy of exploitation and callousness. Rather, it promotes Aristotelian flourishing, or eudemonia, over the entire duration of the human lifespan, and its three cardinal moral values are reason, purpose and self-esteem. It does not condone short-term gain at others’ expense. In fact, it is the only morality that can *prevent* the type of exploitation people often falsely ascribe to it.
On the other hand, philosophies advocating service to others always result in oppressive societies that use force to harness some for the alleged benefit of others, but simply drag us all down. Improvement, innovation, flourishing, happiness and other positive goals cannot be obtained by chaining people together. Only a society of peaceful cooperation, where individuals have inalienable rights, can accomplish that, and provide a foundation for positive relations and improved conditions. You cannot build a positive society on a foundation of force.
I’ve been a practicing Objectivist for many years now and fail to see what all the rantings/ravings from the left in this echo chamber are about. The the two primary causes of disharmony in this world are “faith” and/or “force”. Both can be sometimes subtle…while at others times brutal. There’s a veritable plethora of misinformation about what Objectivism is, but in the final analysis its detractors will be far outweighed by those who opt to utilize their intellects instead of emotional invective when searching for the truth.
Robert,
It seems the intellectual rigor of which you speak failed Alan Greenspan when he was FED Chairman. Perhaps concupiscence does hold sway over reason, especially among the plutocrats.
Rand is facing deeper problems not from religion but from empirical science. It turns out that the moral brain is founded on a highly developed sympathetic instinct (arising in the emotive areas of the brain) that is more developed in human beings than any other animal yet studied – not on reason in the prefrontal cortex of the brain; psychopathic behavior arises precisely due to voids in those emotional areas of the brain.
As Jonah Lehrer explains, “The sympathetic instinct is also one of the central motivations behind altruism. . . . people who showed more brain activity in their sympathetic regions were also much more likely to exhibit altruistic behavior. Because they intensely imagined the feelings of other people, they wanted to make other people feel better, even if it came at personal expense.”
On what basis do you or Mr. Lehrer assert that “sympathies” or in a broader aspect “emotions” are an instinct. Emotions are derivatives from thinking and choices (judgments) that one voluntarily makes from one’s thinking or lack thereof(which in itself is a choice itself). I fail to see where Rand had a problem dealing with religion or mysticism…she merely dismissed them as they lacked any empirical evidence. You might as well say humans have an “instinct” to pity invalids or blondes, etc. Measurable “activity” in one’s brain as a result of some kind of stimulus is not indicative of some so-called “instinct”.
Robert
Go read Lehrer for a well-craft popular introduction to the current state of neurological studies on decision-making. Do not bother if you will simply spend your time trying to square it with Rand’s thought; that would be an ideological approach, and thus a waste of time, since ideology simply is another form of confirmation bias.