Obama on Ayn Rand in Rolling Stone

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

Google it.

There are studies out that liberal-leaning people are actually cheapskates when it comes to charity as compared to conservatives.

They are free-spending with other people's money, but pretty tight-fisted with their own.

I can dig up the studies if you like, but they're all over the place and pretty easy to find.

Politically, this results in things like the constant jokes from conservatives about Biden's meager contributions to charity (just to name one prominent progressive politician) and so on.

Michael

[Reidy]

The strangest thought occurred to me during the Brook clip: Rand has gotten more play in this election than global warming.

[caroljane]

The strangest thought occurred to me during the Brook clip: Rand has gotten more play in this election than global warming.

Yup - she's hotter than Fukushima and cooler than the ozone layer!

[Brant Gaede]

The strangest thought occurred to me during the Brook clip: Rand has gotten more play in this election than global warming.

GW is getting no play at all.

--Brant

[Mark]

Have you read Lenny on the election yet?

How conveniently short is the memory of Leonard Peikoff! Where was he when Bush Jr set up the police state apparatus that Obama maintains and extends? Bush Jr. didn't amble towards a dictatorship, he made a flying leap. Expect further leaps from Romney and his neoconservative friends. Compared with Bush Jr Obama is a piker, and Romney will be Bush Jr. part II.

Mr. Peikoff writes:

A man such as our current president is far more dangerous to the survival of the United States than any terrorists from the Mideast.

It's long past time an official Objectivist noticed that. Trouble is, Mr. Peikoff insinuates that the danger started with Obama, and that Romney would be less dangerous than Obama when there's good reason to think he would be more.

[syrakusos]

Blackhorse: "It's obvious Obama didn't understand Ayn Rand in college and STILL doesn't understand her now. I would bet that his exposure to her in college was as an enemy-philosopher of the collectivist movements he so eagerly embraced."

Sure he did. He just rejected it. You may find that difficult to believe, but why have you rejected the ideas that influenced him? Why are you not a Muslim? Why do you not believe what millions of other people do? People make choices based on their values. He understood Ayn Rand, as PDS noted.

PDS: "His one-paragraph "critique" of Rand is far more vanilla and far less of a caricature than one would usually find by the average National Review writer... "

Studiodekadent: "Liberals, leftists and progressives habitually distort the living hell out of Rand all the freaking time without even …"

Robert Campbell: " … it could have been produced by anyone on the Left in present-day American politics. As Andrew notes, it's perfectly acceptable, on the Left, to indict Rand without ever reading anything she wrote. "

Jonathan: "…contrary to what Obama claims, liberals/socialists/commies are not really "thinking about more than themselves" or wanting "everybody else to have an opportunity," but, rather, they are actually the ones who are focused on how much money or power they can get for themselves…"

You guys all know that conservatives are just as clueless about objective reality and how we know it and what we do about it. Your anti-liberal bias betrays your conservative roots. Are you really radicals for capitalism? Remember that Ayn Rand had more respect for the Left than she did for the Right. I know that times change and 40 years after The New Left, progressivism in America is not what Adlai Stevenson would recognize. Still, it is important to keep to first principles. President Obama is every bit as supportive of individual enterprise as is Mitt Romney. They just disagree about the tax rate.

Dglgmut: " Waking up the people who are being taken advantage of, like Rearden experienced, is the only option.... they have to realize how it can benefit themselves."

Agreed … but that would be us. I mean, Bill Gates probably read Ayn Rand, too. I think that he is smart enough to understand it. He just evaluated the ideas differently than you and I did.

MSK: "Carol, Google it. There are studies out that liberal-leaning people are actually cheapskates when it comes to charity as compared to conservatives. They are free-spending with other people's money, but pretty tight-fisted with their own."

Amen, brother! Daunce may be generous, but her comrades are not. Liberals have their virtues, but noblesse oblige is not one of them; that is a conservative virtue.

[Brant Gaede]

President Obama is every bit as supportive of individual enterprise as is Mitt Romney. They just disagree about the tax rate.

"You didn't build that."

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

Studiodekadent: "Liberals, leftists and progressives habitually distort the living hell out of Rand all the freaking time without even …"

Robert Campbell: " … it could have been produced by anyone on the Left in present-day American politics. As Andrew notes, it's perfectly acceptable, on the Left, to indict Rand without ever reading anything she wrote. "

Jonathan: "…contrary to what Obama claims, liberals/socialists/commies are not really "thinking about more than themselves" or wanting "everybody else to have an opportunity," but, rather, they are actually the ones who are focused on how much money or power they can get for themselves…"

You guys all know that conservatives are just as clueless about objective reality and how we know it and what we do about it. Your anti-liberal bias betrays your conservative roots. Are you really radicals for capitalism? Remember that Ayn Rand had more respect for the Left than she did for the Right. I know that times change and 40 years after The New Left, progressivism in America is not what Adlai Stevenson would recognize. Still, it is important to keep to first principles. President Obama is every bit as supportive of individual enterprise as is Mitt Romney. They just disagree about the tax rate.

Michael,

Thank you for being so quick to accuse me... an atheist anti-religious intellectual cosmopolitan gothic drunken gambler that wears more makeup than his mother and listens to a genre of music with Marxist ideological roots... of a conservative bias!

I do not have conservative biases. I F**KING HATE CONSERVATIVES. I hate their ideology. I hate their culture (rural-romantic-agricultural-small-town-intolerant-bigoted-anticosmopolitan-backwater-baptist-tripe). I hate their entire narrow-minded worldview and stupid idiotic nature. I would gladly commit acts of desecration against their churches if it weren't for my respect for their property rights. I am pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-militaristic (NOT anti-people-in-the-military), and anti-interventionist.

The intellectual project of my life is the destruction of the Weber-Bell hypothesis and to prove that counterculture and libertarianism are natural allies. Observe how Silicon Valley is in the Bay Area rather than Texas, and observe how many "ex-hippies" became our greatest entrepreneurs. Normal mainstream society produces the middle-management of the future. Great for 50's era "What's Good For GM Is Good For America" corporatism, but not good for an era of Silicon Valley Entrepreneurial Capitalism.

To accuse me of a "conservative bias" when I absolutely adore antiauthoritarian renegade rebellious individualism, would love to see some psycho suicide-bomb the Vatican (NOTE: I AM NOT ENDORSING ANYONE ACTUALLY PERFORMING AN ACT OF VIOLENCE, I'M JUST SAYING THAT SUCH AN ACTION WOULD, ON A STRICTLY SYMBOLIC LEVEL, GIVE ME PLEASURE), have endless love for Schumpeterian creative destruction, practically fetishize the (symbolic) destruction of gods/kings/fathers, want "society" and its stupid idiotic irrational prejudiced judgments to go die in a fire (again, METAPHOR!), and who's mottos in life are "Thought Does Not Bow To Authority" (Rand), "A Man Chooses, A Slave Obeys" (Andrew Ryan in Bioshock) and "I Chose To Think For Myself Instead Of Play The Good Soldier Boy" (my favorite line from my favorite episode of the early 90's X-Men cartoon), just demonstrates you have really, really judged me hastily.

I am the absolute opposite of a Conservative on every single important meta-political issue.

Yes, you're right that Romney is no principled libertarian - on all relevant matters of principle he's hardly distinguishable from Obama. We agree there. That's why I hope Gary Johnson wins the election. And yes, I agree the left generally produce critiques of Objectivism with more intellectual substance than the right.

But I strenuously reject your implications that I have conservative roots or any conservative bias. I hate conservatives. I hate conservatism. I am not a conservative in any way, shape or form.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I [...] would love to see some psycho suicide-bomb the Vatican

Jesus H! Do you have any idea how many art treasures are in the Vatican? You sent a chill of horror through me of the same type as my fear of Vienna being destroyed. (I get weebie-jeebies thinking of all the Muslims I saw the two times I was in Vienna, and of how fragile the structures of that city, as of any city, are against a bomb's explosion.) Would you like Stephansplatz with its cathedral and other churches to go too?

Ellen

[studiodekadent]

I [...] would love to see some psycho suicide-bomb the Vatican

Jesus H! Do you have any idea how many art treasures are in the Vatican? You sent a chill of horror through me of the same type as my fear of Vienna being destroyed.

Ellen

Ellen,

Please note my disclaimer (the capitalized text). I was speaking from an exclusively symbolic angle. Sure, an actual real-life suicide bombing of the Vatican would be an horriffic, inexcuseable crime that would destroy many art treasures and murder innocent people. I agree!

Again, I was speaking symbolically and emotionally. You know... Angry Atheist Revenge Fantasies. That kind of thing. Because let's be honest, all of us engage in that kind of thing from time to time for stress relief purposes.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Again, I was speaking symbolically and emotionally. You know... Angry Atheist Revenge Fantasies. That kind of thing. Because let's be honest, all of us engage in that kind of thing from time to time for stress relief purposes.

Well, actually, I don't, "engage in that kind of thing from time to time" for any purpose, and I don't have "angry atheist" feelings, maybe because I was never subjected to any emotional pressures because of being an atheist. I did notice your capitalized disclaimer, but I can't imagine even symbolic pleasure in contemplating such a thought. Glad you agree that in reality, it would be horrible.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Universal Attribute of Renegade Objectivists

You can dress them up, but you can't take them anywhere.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Well, actually, I don't "engage in that kind of thing from time to time" for any purpose, and I don't have "angry atheist" feelings, maybe because I was never subjected to any emotional pressures because of being an atheist. I did notice your capitalized disclaimer, but I can't imagine even symbolic pleasure in contemplating such a thought. Glad you agree that in reality, it would be horrible.

Ellen,

Thank you for your polite and sensitive disagreement. I appreciate that you acknowledged the reasonableness of different people having different emotional coping mechanisms due to different experiences. I strongly appreciate that you didn't accuse me of being a maniac.

My sincerest thanks. And I also understand why you'd find my symbolic revenge fantasies to be rather dark and unpleasant. They certainly aren't for everyone.

Again, my gratitude.

[syrakusos]

Studio, my apologies, I just read your words, I have not followed your life trajectory.

Brant - both President Obama, and Elizabeth Warren, and also their supposed mentor, Prof. George Lakoff of Berkeley, all grant that individuals create wealth. Warren's recorded version grants the creator of a factory the right to "a whole big chunk" of money for their success. But they, like conservatives point to a social contract. We pay taxes to provide community services from aircraft carriers to city parks. Privatizing the roads is a debate even on Objectivist forums. We also debate whether a flat tax or a national sales tax could replace the income tax.

It is just too easy to make Barack Obama the incarnation of evil and Mitt Romney into an alternative to that.

The proper response to Obama, Warren, and Lakoff, is that someone had to invent the shovel so that "we" could build roads. The message of Objectivism begins with and for you the individual. That message was repudiated by Paul Ryan and was never endorsed by Mitt Romney.

[studiodekadent]

Studio, my apologies, I just read your words, I have not followed your life trajectory.

Thank you for your retraction. Apology accepted. I agree with you that too many make Obama into a complete boogeyman and then implicitly seem to defend Romney/Ryan as a white knight... we both know that is hardly the case.

[Brant Gaede]

Studio, my apologies, I just read your words, I have not followed your life trajectory.

Brant - both President Obama, and Elizabeth Warren, and also their supposed mentor, Prof. George Lakoff of Berkeley, all grant that individuals create wealth. Warren's recorded version grants the creator of a factory the right to "a whole big chunk" of money for their success. But they, like conservatives point to a social contract. We pay taxes to provide community services from aircraft carriers to city parks. Privatizing the roads is a debate even on Objectivist forums. We also debate whether a flat tax or a national sales tax could replace the income tax.

It is just too easy to make Barack Obama the incarnation of evil and Mitt Romney into an alternative to that.

The proper response to Obama, Warren, and Lakoff, is that someone had to invent the shovel so that "we" could build roads. The message of Objectivism begins with and for you the individual. That message was repudiated by Paul Ryan and was never endorsed by Mitt Romney.

That quote was a basic and terrible assault on individual enterprise. This is psychological. It's against everything I as an American value to my core. I don't expect great things from Romney. I just want that bastard Obama to be taken out with a stick and dumped in the ocean. That also goes for all that progressive dominated Big Media who gave us that SOB in the first place.

--Brant

"You didn't build that," my ass

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re the title The Virtue of Selfishness -- see post #24: I'm one of those who think that Rand would have been less inviting of caricaturing and misunderstanding if she'd chosen a different title. For instance, The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have said what she meant without the inflammatory connotations. I've had people say in response that they were first attracted to Rand because the title The Virtue of Selfishness aroused their interest, but I think that if they wouldn't have become attracted anyway, maybe their reasons for interest weren't in keeping with Rand's message. Also, I think that that title encourages the sort of behavior in Rand followers which justifiably serves as a poor advertisement to well-mannered folk.

Re Obama's reading or not reading anything by Rand: I wish the interviewer had asked, "What by her have you read?" I figure that at least during his years at the University of Chicago, the likelihood is high that Obama heard talk about Rand -- though mainly derisive talk in most departments. He might have heard some favorable things from the economics department, but his economics education being woeful, he doesn't appear to have gone near there.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I strongly appreciate that you didn't accuse me of being a maniac.

Andrew,

I assure you that I think the likelihood is zero that I'd ever accuse you of being a maniac. My general tendency is to be in agreement with what you write!

I was surprised at hearing that fantasy coming from you, since my immediate first thought was, gasp, the Sistine Chapel, and I do think of you as someone art-appreciative. So I figured that you were just thinking "Catholicism" and forgetting real-world details, like the stuff that's IN the Vatican.

I gather that you've had some rough times over your atheism, and other divergences from folks you know. I was lucky in not being given flak and just being let peacefully to go my own way.

Ellen

[Guyau]

Ellen,

Thanks for the note (#42). I like the title The Virtue of Self-Valuing. But not for characterizing the ethical theory of Rand. Hers is a theory of ethical egoism. That means that every value and virtue amenable to choice and shaping must be justified in terms of self-interest alone. That is the challenge for ethical egoism from Socrates to philosophy today. That one should love oneself, that it is morally significant and right to be self-caring, or as you suggest, self-valuing, was a message fresh to me as a young man (18) reading Rand. It was something new and valuable for me to adopt from Rand. But it does not fill the bill of egoism. It leaves open the possibility that other-valuation is as rudimentary among right values as self-valuation, and this is a possibility she aimed to nip. Concern for others, where open to choice, must be justifiable by the root rightness, concern for oneself. Otherwise it is not ethical egoism old or new, and not Rand.

Stephen

[Xray]

Re the title The Virtue of Selfishness -- see post #24: I'm one of those who think that Rand would have been less inviting of caricaturing and misunderstanding if she'd chosen a different title. For instance, The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have said what she meant without the inflammatory connotations.

Imo Rand was fully aware of the inflammatory connotation of "selfishness". She wanted the title of the book to be provocative.

The same goes for the book's content. She provoked to shake the readers awake, she wanted them to regard the issue from a new, revolutionary angle.

[Brant Gaede]

Re the title The Virtue of Selfishness -- see post #24: I'm one of those who think that Rand would have been less inviting of caricaturing and misunderstanding if she'd chosen a different title. For instance, The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have said what she meant without the inflammatory connotations.

Imo Rand was fully aware of the inflammatory connotation of "selfishness". She wanted the title of the book to be provocative.

The title was correct though rhetorical. She knew how to punch things up. I do think her explanation of selfishness inside was quite deficient. This is not surprising considering how deficient the Objectivist Ethics are also, rooted in fictional creations in turn rooted in animadversion on altruism and reaction to the Soviets.

--Brant

--Brant

[PDS]

Re the title The Virtue of Selfishness -- see post #24: I'm one of those who think that Rand would have been less inviting of caricaturing and misunderstanding if she'd chosen a different title. For instance, The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have said what she meant without the inflammatory connotations.

Imo Rand was fully aware of the inflammatory connotation of "selfishness". She wanted the title of the book to be provocative.

The title was correct though rhetorical. She knew how to punch things up. I do think her explanation of selfishness inside was quite deficient. This is not surprising considering how deficient the Objectivist Ethics are also, rooted in fictional creations in turn rooted in animadversion on altruism and reaction to the Soviets.

--Brant

--Brant

Brant: are the fictional creations you refer to the characters of Rand's novels? Or something less literal?

[Ellen Stuttle]

But [self-valuing] does not fill the bill of egoism. It leaves open the possibility that other-valuation is as rudimentary among right values as self-valuation, and this is a possibility she aimed to nip. Concern for others, where open to choice, must be justifiable by the root rightness, concern for oneself. Otherwise it is not ethical egoism old or new, and not Rand.

In that case, you're pointing to an unfixable flaw, yes?

I'm not suggesting, btw, that The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have been the "best" title. It's just a variant which seems to me better than what she used. A whole different title, something with a similar pattern to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, I think would have been best.

Also, I think that "selfishness," in its usual connotations, doesn't fit the bill of Rand's approach either, and that her trotting out a supposed dictionary definition from a dictionary which no one has ever found (as far as I've heard) just produced unproductive argument after argument over the meaning of "selfishness."

--

Imo Rand was fully aware of the inflammatory connotation of "selfishness". She wanted the title of the book to be provocative.

She as much as said so in the introduction -- "for the reason that it frightens you," if I'm remembering the quote correctly.

What I'm suggesting isn't that she wasn't trying to provoke but that she made a tactical error, one which has impeded wider interest in her ideas. I think there were times when she could be her own worst enemy, to state the point strongly.

And with that, "gentle reader"...

The hurricane entertainment is about to start here. The wind's picking up; the rain's pattering.

A year to the day from the 2011 Nor'easter. Whatever powers that be, please don't let this one be as bad as that one.

I'm turning off my computer. "See" y'all again when I can.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

But [self-valuing] does not fill the bill of egoism. It leaves open the possibility that other-valuation is as rudimentary among right values as self-valuation, and this is a possibility she aimed to nip. Concern for others, where open to choice, must be justifiable by the root rightness, concern for oneself. Otherwise it is not ethical egoism old or new, and not Rand.

In that case, you're pointing to an unfixable flaw, yes?

I'm not suggesting, btw, that The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have been the "best" title. It's just a variant which seems to me better than what she used. A whole different title, something with a similar pattern to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, I think would have been best.

Also, I think that "selfishness," in its usual connotations, doesn't fit the bill of Rand's approach either, and that her trotting out a supposed dictionary definition from a dictionary which no one has ever found (as far as I've heard) just produced unproductive argument after argument over the meaning of "selfishness."

--

Imo Rand was fully aware of the inflammatory connotation of "selfishness". She wanted the title of the book to be provocative.

She as much as said so in the introduction -- "for the reason that it frightens you," if I'm remembering the quote correctly.

What I'm suggesting isn't that she wasn't trying to provoke but that she made a tactical error, one which has impeded wider interest in her ideas. I think there were times when she could be her own worst enemy, to state the point strongly.

And with that, "gentle reader"...

The hurricane entertainment is about to start here. The wind's picking up; the rain's pattering.

A year to the day from the 2011 Nor'easter. Whatever powers that be, please don't let this one be as bad as that one.

I'm turning off my computer. "See" y'all again when I can.

Ellen

It is Monday morning and we still have power here in Central New Jersey around 9:30 a.m. We shall see what the evening an night shall bring. In any case, best of luck to you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Re the title The Virtue of Selfishness -- see post #24: I'm one of those who think that Rand would have been less inviting of caricaturing and misunderstanding if she'd chosen a different title. For instance, The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have said what she meant without the inflammatory connotations. I've had people say in response that they were first attracted to Rand because the title The Virtue of Selfishness aroused their interest, but I think that if they wouldn't have become attracted anyway, maybe their reasons for interest weren't in keeping with Rand's message. Also, I think that that title encourages the sort of behavior in Rand followers which justifiably serves as a poor advertisement to well-mannered folk.

Ellen

But [self-valuing] does not fill the bill of egoism. It leaves open the possibility that other-valuation is as rudimentary among right values as self-valuation, and this is a possibility she aimed to nip. Concern for others, where open to choice, must be justifiable by the root rightness, concern for oneself. Otherwise it is not ethical egoism old or new, and not Rand.

In that case, you're pointing to an unfixable flaw, yes?

I'm not suggesting, btw, that The Virtue of Self-Valuing would have been the "best" title. It's just a variant which seems to me better than what she used. A whole different title, something with a similar pattern to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, I think would have been best.

Also, I think that "selfishness," in its usual connotations, doesn't fit the bill of Rand's approach either, and that her trotting out a supposed dictionary definition from a dictionary which no one has ever found (as far as I've heard) just produced unproductive argument after argument over the meaning of "selfishness."

--

Imo Rand was fully aware of the inflammatory connotation of "selfishness". She wanted the title of the book to be provocative.

She as much as said so in the introduction -- "for the reason that it frightens you," if I'm remembering the quote correctly.

What I'm suggesting isn't that she wasn't trying to provoke but that she made a tactical error, one which has impeded wider interest in her ideas. I think there were times when she could be her own worst enemy, to state the point strongly.

And with that, "gentle reader"...

The hurricane entertainment is about to start here. The wind's picking up; the rain's pattering.

A year to the day from the 2011 Nor'easter. Whatever powers that be, please don't let this one be as bad as that one.

I'm turning off my computer. "See" y'all again when I can.

Ellen

Ellen, Interesting how unfavorably you perceive the title of VoS.

As with all her titles (except for the bland ITOE) for me it couldn't be better composed.

First, it's honest: the morality is indeed self-ish; second, it's my guess that rather than

scare readers away, many or most Objectivists were attracted precisely by the notion of

selfishness being virtuous - the people who recoil in disgust would never progress further

into Objectivism, anyhow.

I'm semi-sure I did note a definition for selfishness as the neutral "Concern for one's self", somewhere -

but that was way back then, when it was important to 'prove' to myself that Rand had it right.

Nowadays, I'm "WTH! Bring it on!" Whether or not any dictionary includes this definition, is immaterial, surely?

We know that the concept of selfishness - as Rand meant it - has always existed in the minds of certain

men and women. She didn't invent it.

It 'only' had to be identified, isolated and analysed.

(And recovered from its traditional, negative connotations.)

Hoping you and the other Easterners ride out the storm OK.