The Philosophy of Me (First and Only)

by: Mike Lux

Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 15:19


Conservative philosophy has been on full-throated display in recent days. Between the Republican talking points at the Health Care Summit (which essentially boiled down to "we don't care about the uninsured or less healthy people, especially if it might cost any rich people a penny in taxes"), the Senate floor where Republicans held hostage a bill to help unemployed people because they wanted a chance to let mega-millionaires off the hook on inheritance taxes, and the speeches at the CPAC conference, the last few days have allowed us all to see the modern conservative philosophy in all its undisguised glory. My reaction to all this is that I owe Ayn Rand an apology. Given that she's been dead for a while, she's not likely to care, but even so Ayn: I'm sorry. I underestimated your influence. Where I wrote my book about the history of the American political debate, The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be, I neglected to mention Rand. I did this for a couple reasons. One was because her extreme form of libertarianism seemed to me only one modest strand compared to the intellectual and/or political giants of historical American conservatism such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John C. Calhoun, the Social Darwinists, or even the modern day conservative movement builders like Buckley, Helms, Goldwater, or Reagan.

The other reason that I discounted her was, well - how do I put this diplomatically? She was such a freak. Her twisted novels extolling selfishness and cruelty - apparently based in part on her admiration of a kidnapper and murderer who dismembered his twelve year old victim and threw her head and torso at the girl's father as he sped away in a car - are so twisted and nasty that I had trouble believing she really merited note in a discussion of influential conservatives. But the victory of libertarian Ayn Rand disciple Ron Paul at the CPAC straw poll, the strong influences of her thinking on such CPAC heroes as Michelle Bachman and Glenn Beck, and the increasingly strident me-first-and-only-me rhetoric of a Republican party utterly captured by Tea Partiers have made me realize just how big Rand's influence is. Rand's philosophical magnum opus was a book she entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness." In it she argues not only that selfishness is moral and good, but that altruism, charity, and even kindness are evils - a "moral cannibalism" is what she called it. Like Glenn Beck, who glorified (to the laughter and cheers of the CPAC audience) the "lion eating the weak," people who are poor or weakened or in trouble for any reason are just parasites, nothing more.

Rand went even further, writing that people who place even their families and friends above their own work and desires are immoral. Rand and Beck's philosophy that selfishness is the ultimate virtue, and that any kindness or generosity or compassion toward others - even your own family and friends - is so the opposite of what all the world's great religions and moral traditions teach us that you would think Bible toting conservatives would run from these beliefs. You'd think that the contradictions would be too great, and there are certainly rifts at times between the true libertarians and the Christian conservatives. But for political reasons conservatives try hard to keep a combination of these two philosophical strains in place at the same time, a sort of hybrid conservative that scours the Bible for quotes that can be somehow interpreted as pro-free market and against taxing the rich. My personal favorites in this genre include a Christian Coalition issues guide which argues against labor unions by quoting a verse about how slaves should obey their masters, and a guy named David Barton who argues that the Parable of the Talents (which some Bible readers might have thought was an analogy about spiritual matters) means that there should be no Capital Gains tax.  

Mike Lux :: The Philosophy of Me (First and Only)
The great irony is that the length these conservatives go to in order to find and squeeze every last verse they can find to justify selfish libertarianism is overwhelmed by the literally hundreds and hundreds of verses about helping the poor, loving thy neighbor, showing mercy and kindness, lifting up the oppressed, etc., etc. The fact that the parable of the talents verse that Barton uses to justify not taxing the wealthy is immediately followed by the famous passage in which Jesus we could all be judged by how we treated "the least of these" is completely ignored by him and all the Rand-Beck libertarian conservatives.

It seems so strange to have to actually point out to the modern Rand-Beck conservatives' movement that most Americans do not value selfishness as the ultimate good and giving to others as immoral. We don't believe that cruelty is ever justified, or that letting a dying man die alone on the side of the road because he is "weak" and a "parasite" is a good thing. We don't laugh when thinking about the "lions eating the weak." We don't attack the idea of community and altruism and giving each other a helping hand; we embrace it.

The Ayn Rand/Glenn Beck - the glorifiers of selfishness, cruelty, and the lions eating the weak - have become the dominant players of modern day conservatism. Let's hope they never take control of our country.  


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Morality and government (0.00 / 1)
I think there's a distinction between the two. Personal morality does not imply that you must love government and vice versa, contrapositive, etc. You can very much be a very giving caring person, without supporting big government. You cry about taxes, but look at where your tax money goes:

1) War
2) Bank Bailouts
3) Auto Bailouts
4) Subsidies to friends

Social security/medicare are things that are suppose to come back to you anyways, why hassle with government? So they can raid it and fund more of the above?

I think your characterization of conservatives is equally as misleading as conservatives characterization of progressives as socialists or nazis.


Government in perspective (4.00 / 2)
Your statements reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what government does & the philosophically differences between American conservatism & progressivism. You may want to start by getting hold of the Federal budget yearbook. Yes, defense expenditures are very large but the bailouts are neither a regular feature of Federal expenditures nor top policy elements (neither is help to friends). Regarding SS & Medicare, both are based on need & ability to pay, including the disability part of SS. So, no its not like a personal trust where you put in money & then take out the amount you put in.

Regarding political philosophies, the fundamental difference between conservatives & progressives is that progressives believe that one has a fundamental obligation to the larger community, ie. the nation, whereas conservatives believe that its every man for himself & its all about ME, ME, ME. A conservative may feel touched, on a personal level, & help someone poor but doesn't feel he has an inherent obligation to do so. The fact that there's 10s of millions of children living in poverty doesn't bother a conservative in the least. Progressives do believe that most of one's life centers around attaining personal gains - the ME part - but believe in a social requirement too.


[ Parent ]
He was obviously referring to Beck/Rand neo-conservatives (0.00 / 0)
As well as, while we're at it, Buchanan paleo-conservatives. Not the classical kind, nearly all of whom cared about people other than themselves. The real divide here is less about ideology and policy than about core human values and decency, which span such lines. And the fact that big government can be and has been exploited by crooks and tyrants doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be, or that big government can't do much good that can't otherwise be done.

But I'm open to be shown an example of a free and thriving society in which the government is small and weak and it's everyone for themselves.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Jim Wallis on his book tour in Pasadena spoke to this (4.00 / 2)
He was promoting a new book of his "Rediscovering Values on Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street"

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?...

He was speaking at a church I'm a member of - All Saints Episcopal Church - here in Pasadena.  While he didn't offer a strategy that could cause people to rise up and overturn the current values you write on above, he did crystalize that our country's problems are rooted in immoral, bad ideology/theology.

It's very interesting for me, a part time seminary student at Fuller, to have this confluence of Jim Wallis speaking, your post, and encounters with people who have studied William Jennings Bryan to come together in the past few days.  

My wife and I are activists in our community and had led DFA - Pasadena since 2004.  Disillusioned with Obama and the Democrats, I am seeing a new direction for activism that combines my faith and peace and social justice instincts.

Thank you for your post!


More power to you (4.00 / 2)
The Christian left may just be the only way to stop this stuff.  

[ Parent ]
Don't Forget "Christian" is Not What it Used to Be: "The Family" (4.00 / 2)
The confusion regarding Christian ideologues and politicians these days is that they subscribe to a rather twisted view of "Jesus", who they regard as having been misinterpreted all these millennia.

Jesus, according to Coe Christianity and to Abram Vereide, the Norwegian immigrant who had a revelation about this and founded the Family of C Street infamy, really meant not that the meek should inherit the earth, but that rather he was on the side of the rich and powerful: Ayn Rand mates with Jesus, i.e.

Those "Christians" are perverts. As was Ayn Rand, per the actual psychoanalytic definition of the pervert as a sadist (not as homosexual): who finds pleasure in pain. Go back and look at the so-called 'sex' in Rand. Brutal, ugly, stupid.


yes (0.00 / 0)
someone can't be a christian and a conservative unless he twists and twists in a major way

[ Parent ]
I hate Ayn Rand so much (4.00 / 3)
I wish it were justifiable homicide to shoot anyone who pronounces The Fountainhead as their favorite book.  I would definitely buy a gun if that were true.  I wish I could resurrect her for the sole purpose of hitting her in the face repeatedly with a shovel.

Yeah....I have issues.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


Wow (0.00 / 0)
You advocate murdering your fellow citizens simply because they read a book that you disapprove.

Apparently, conservatives like Glen Beck are not the only ones that get a bit excited, eh?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Good post, Mike. (0.00 / 0)
To think that Greenspan was an acolyte and knew her.   And people treated him with respect.  Amazing.

She was a freak.  


I can understand why they idolize Rand (0.00 / 0)
Rand offered a very simplistic, ahistoric, sociopathic (or at least very selfish) take on conservatism and libertarianism that's easily digested by the sorts of ill-informed, mentally lazy and emotionally stunted people who form the core of movement conservatism these days, as opposed to the far more nuanced and even progressive strains of conservatism and libertarianism that many of the founders and framers espoused (including Jefferson, arguably one of the founders of American libertarianism in addition to liberalism), most of whom would have rejected and despised these hateful nimrods.

It's sort of like fundamentalist Christians and Christ. Most of the former would likely reject the latter were he alive today. Most of today's "conservatives" would likely reject most of the founders and framers were they alive today.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


How to lower Ayn Rand in Conservatives' eyes (4.00 / 3)
I work with a lot of pseudo-conservative types who read/love Ayn Rand. I especially like to inform them that they CANNOT be both a Christian and a Randist at the same time....but rather than argue about scripture, I tell them about the Satanic Church, founded by Anton LaVey, which is explicitly based on Rand's "philosophy". Even if they can't break their Rand addiction, it's amusing watching them try to justify agreeing with actual, self-described Satanists. One of Galt's speeches became "The Nine Satanic Statements", their equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

A money quote from the bio of Anton LaVey on www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/LaVeyBiography.html:
"By the end of 1969, LaVey had taken monographs he had written to explain the philosophy and ritual practices of the Church of Satan and melded them with all of his philosophical influences from Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Mencken, and London along with the base wisdom of the carnival folk. He prefaced these essays and rites with reworked excerpts from Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right and concluded it with "Satanized" versions of John Dee's Enochian Keys to create The Satanic Bible. It has never gone out of print and remains the main source for the contemporary Satanic movement."


This is the kind of argument we need (0.00 / 0)
Thank you for posting this!

[ Parent ]
Conservatism (0.00 / 0)
is nothing less than institutionalized sociopathy. Period.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox