Ryan Isn't a Randian

[Reidy]

This would be a natural for WSJ's Bottom Stories of the Day feature.

[PDS]

If I ever met him I might ask when he plans to stop beating his wife.

[Jerry Biggers]

Proposition: no one in the history of the United States has ever been elected to state or federal elective office, who -prior to the election - declared himself an atheist.

I believe this to be true, but I would be delighted if anyone here could show evidence to the contrary.

You can admit to philandering - and yet get elected. You can be a member of a non-christian religion (there is already a Moslem congressman). You can be accused and admit to all sorts of unethical and illegal financial behavior - and still get elected or re-elected to a high office...

but you cannot announce that you are an atheist, or even worse, say that you disagree with the ethical teachings of Jesus (such as a bona fide Objectivist might say).

If you did that, you are "dead in the water." Political career, at least as it relates to winning an elective office, is over.

Anyone disagree? I would be delighted if you can prove me wrong.

And, incidentally, that situation would have to be completely reversed, and Objectivism become a predominent cultural influence, and have overcome influence of Christian institutions. Sorry, it's not going to happen in any forseeable future.

Here's a case in point: During one of the earlier Republican debates, Newt Gingrich responded to a question from the audience, by announcing that religious belief was essential,to being an American, saying, "If you do not pray, how can I trust you!"

No, really! This was an astoundingly stupid, not to mention illogical, remark, and yet not one of the other six candidates objected to his statement, or tried to present an alernative point of view.

As for Paul Ryan, Objectivists criticizing him for not rejecting his Caholic upbringing, and proclaiming his complete agreement with Ayn Rand on religion, are asking him to commit political suicide..

[Jerry Biggers]

O.K., I was (slightly) wrong.

According to wikipedia, there is one (as in 1) elected congressman, Representative Pete Stark (D), California. Small comfort.

One. In the whole history of the U.S. And no, it doesn't count that Jefferson was accused of being an atheist. He wasn't. He was a deist.

http://en.wikipedia....gainst_atheists

[Selene]

The Atlas Society has made the "he is not a follower of Ayn Rand Greek choir" sound a lot flat because they have made the audio of his speech to them available below....scroll to the end of the article for the audio link...

Last Thursday and Friday a flurry of news storiesappeared

addressing—again—the link between Rep. Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand’s ideas. The new stories and blog posts were in response to a National Review article (“Ryan Shrugged”) which seemed to characterize as “urban legend” not only the idea that Paul Ryan is an Objectivist (he’s never indicated that he is), that he embraces an Objectivist epistemology (he’s never said that he does), but also that he is a devotee of Ayn Rand, and that he requires that his staff read Atlas Shrugged. (See National Review's "Ryan Isn't a Randian" for more along these lines.)

http://www.atlassoci...-hot-seat-again

[Guyau]

This Just In

I’ve learned that Jerry Biggers is not the man in his photo.

[Jerry Biggers]

I'm not???!!!

Well, I should be, but not everyone can look like Orson Welles...(er, you did realize that that's Orson,,,didn't you?).

Anyway, if Obama can impersonate fellow "Progressives" (and how did these liberals get away with using that value-laden appellation??) Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette, and Henry Wallace (of which he is much closer, ideologically, than the other two), then I should be allowed my fantasy of looking, acting, talking, like Orson (well, the earlier Orson, pre-1950).

[caroljane]

Stephen, your previous avatar, I presume was the young you ---I thought it looked so much like early photos of my father, that we must somehow be related.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What a non-article. Totally fabricated controversy.

Wanna see how?

Let's change the category Randian from "kind" (in a straight-jacket like in the article) and make it "degree" on a sliding scale.

Now let's ask, who is closer to the ideal Randian?

Paul Ryan or Barack Hussein Obama?

Michael

[Guyau]

Yes, Michael. The article linked by Peter in the first post continues the long tradition of hatred and belittlement of Ayn Rand at National Review.

Yes, Jerry, once upon a time, I had known that the photo you use was of Welles. But apparently there was an erosion of that knowledge over time. When the photo popped up at BBC, I was instantly excited that there was a story about you there. At least the article proved to be an interesting one.

Yes, Carol. I was about 19 years old in that photo.

[caroljane]

OStephen.

When my parents delivered me to my dorm room at university, the moment I had longed and wished for, afterwards I experoenced the most crushing and and awful homeskickness and lonelinessl, such as I had never felt before or since, I got through it by the first and maybe strongest efforts of will I ever exerted on myself.

My father was brought up by a stepmother much as you were/

Maybe there is something in the Jungian stuff .. where is Ellen when you need her?

[syrakusos]

The Atlas Society has made the "he is not a follower of Ayn Rand Greek choir" sound a lot flat because ...

I am not impressed. I read the Atlas Society transcriptions but did not listen to the speech. Like Ron Paul, he is a politician whose philosophy comes not from Aristotle or Plato but Dale Carnegie. I believe that he believes the things he says. Some of the key ideas of Ayn Rand resonated with him and he identified with them. I grant that. What I doubt is that he has integrated the philosophy of Objectivism into his personal life. Sure, everyone knows Atlas Shrugged ... and he got a chuckle from the audience about starting with The Fountainhead. But Roy Childes got a bon mot from Ayn Rand when he asked her to autograph Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology. Why do Ron Paul and Paul Ryan never mention that work? I suggest - using the words of Michigan's geek governor Rick Snyder - it is because"90% of politicians cannot understand it."

[Guyau]

Carol's #11 is responding to a sidebar I had included in #10, but which I had later removed. That was a recounting of first meeting my first college roommate, who later took the black and white photo that I used at OL for a long time as my avatar. A fun accidental coincidence happened in this particular assignment of dorm roommates by the university. My stepmother (since I was two) had dated the young man's father back during WWII, while working at a defense plant out in western Oklahoma. My roommate looked just like his father had looked when young, and he had the same name. Initially, Mother thought she had seen a ghost.

[Jerry Biggers]

The Atlas Society has made the "he is not a follower of Ayn Rand Greek choir" sound a lot flat because ...

I am not impressed. I read the Atlas Society transcriptions but did not listen to the speech. Like Ron Paul, he is a politician whose philosophy comes not from Aristotle or Plato but Dale Carnegie. I believe that he believes the things he says. Some of the key ideas of Ayn Rand resonated with him and he identified with them. I grant that. What I doubt is that he has integrated the philosophy of Objectivism into his personal life. Sure, everyone knows Atlas Shrugged ... and he got a chuckle from the audience about starting with The Fountainhead. But Roy Childes got a bon mot from Ayn Rand when he asked her to autograph Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology. Why do Ron Paul and Paul Ryan never mention that work? I suggest - using the words of Michigan's geek governor Rick Snyder - it is because"90% of politicians cannot understand it."

Michael,

Us simple folk don't know what "bon mot" means, but after a quick consultation with online dictionaries, I see it means, "a witticism or clver remark." So now I'm curious, what did Roy Childs report that Rand said when he asked her to sign his copy of ITOE?

"Why do Ron Paul and Paul Ryan never mention that work?" Probably because they havent read it? Maybe because its subject is quite different, and Atlas Shrugged is more germane to what is going on politically and culturaly right now? Maybe because most people, including the college educated, have no idea what epistemology even is, and have no clue what a theory of concept formation is, much less how to apply it to their own life?

Suppose Paul Ryan and/or Rand Paul had a photographic memory, listened to all of Leonard's tapes, and took copious notes from his blog, where he gives examples of (what he thinks) the correct Objectivist response to political events,, and have now become "clones" of Leonard (psychoepistemologically speaking). With Peikovian knowledge of Objectivism, and with ITOE as their weapon, what would they say that would lead to greater success as politicians?

I'm being a little flippant here, but I am trying to point out that "pure" applications of Objectivism would not gain enough support to get elected to any meaningful political post. Of course, this is just speculation. I don't think that anyone has ever tried to launch a career as a politican and as an Objectivist. Or maybe they have, and we just havent heard about it.due to the remarkably short life of their campaigns.

[syrakusos]

Jerry -- that sent me to the dictionaries (books). I see that I was too literal. I always accepted "bon mot" as "good word." The story is only that while everyone else was lined up to have Atlas or Fountainhead signed, Roy Childes offered ITOE. Rand simply said something nice about that, how unusual it was. (I think that George Smith has the story better; he roomed with Childes.)

You underscore my argument. Ayn Rand said that politics is the end of the road. Her own emphasis was on art and philosophy, though she did actively campaign in her younger years and did comment on politics in her newsletter and magazines later. Effectively communicating that the source of our problems is bad philosophy is easy enough. You are right, though, it would be political suicide. It is not that President Obama is a "socialist" but that he is a social metaphysician. So was Richard Nixon, whom Rand endorsed. Nixon froze prices, removed the last foundation of gold from the dollar, established diplomatic relations with Red China, empowered the EPA (and launched Kenneth Lay's career), and basically was everything a "socialist" would be. Like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Snyder, Paul Ryan is only a pragmatic supporter of free enterprise because it delivers the goods. Sir Anthony Giddens of New Labor who authored the most widely used textbook on sociology said that socialism cannot deliver the standard of living - only capitalism can - but that socialism has the criticism we need for a just society. In other words, capitalism allows us to pay for welfare. But the moral framework of their arguments - and the epistemological foundation of their agendas - is the same old mysticism.

Paul Ryan showed up at a dinner of rich Republicans and dropped the name Ayn Rand a few times, nothing more. That was a group he could have addressed on the metaphysical reality of capitalism or the epistemological validity of prices. I doubt that he understands politics at that level. He is a conservative. He speaks well for the free market. Don't get carried away with enthusiasm.

[Jerry Biggers]

Michael,

Exactly.

Incidentally, I am not familiar at all with the sociology textbook by Sir Anthony Giddens. It sounds like a reference to, or a restatement of, Schumpeter's similar thesisk in his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Anyway, conservatives just don't get what is going on here, why socialist schemes keep coming back vamipre-like from the dead. I don't remember the exact reference, but a few years ago, a writer in National Review expressed that she was "mystified" about the continual attraction of socialist ideas in her friends, saying something like, "I explain to them over and over why capitalism works and socialist economies fail. They seem to agree and yet sometime later they are back advocating for the same failed policies that I had convinced them earlier were wrong. I just don't understand it."

This, of course, is the genius of Ayn Rand. Her explanation of the role of altruist ethics and its creation of the "sanction of the victim" explains what is going on here. It is, to stretch the analogy, the stake in the altruist heart of the collectivist vampire. But most conservatives do not want to see. And also true for liberals, although I think that some do know, but advocate for socialism, anyway (similar to Ellsworth Toohey).