Ayn Rand's Absurd Death Grip

Ayn Rand keeps rising from the muck to infect the thinking of what otherwise might be rational, intelligent people. National Public Radio most recently stirred the vat with a piece it labeled on its website as "On Capitol Hill, Rand's 'Atlas' Can't Be Shrugged Off" http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142245517/on-capitol-hill-rands-atlas-cant-be-shrugged-off?ft=3&f=111787346&sc=nl&cc=es-20111120.

I've ranted in this and other spaces before about Rand, but the pieces of the chopped-up snake keep growing new heads. We've seen them affixed to politicians like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, for whom I think she was actually the namesake.

Here's the NPR promo blurb that bubbled up in my email inbox today touting its story that aired last week as one of its most emailed stories:

"In the 1950s, Rand felt that her ideal of unfettered capitalism was missing in politics. But today, her ideas are alive and well-represented in the U.S. Capitol. Her philosophy has sunk so deeply into our political thought, many people don't even recognize it as hers anymore."

First, anyone old enough to remember the 1950s, which I am, can recall that the 1950s was one of the most, if not the most, prosperous decades--at least for a vast swath of Amercans, not just a minute sliver of the richest--in the country's history. It is also nostalgically romanticized as the "good old days" and that time the TPers of today seem to want to take our country back to.

So if unfettered capitalism was missing, meaning that capitalism functioned, but with some semblance of responsibility that included controls, regulations, restrictions or whatever that enabled the nation to flourish economically, then that must have been a GOOD policy.

Beyond that, though, my view of Rand and her adherents/admirers is that they are nothing short of delusional. I won't go into all the flaws in Randism philosophy, politics and thinking, but here is my reaction to just one line in NPR's blurb:

"(Rand's) philosophy has sunk so deeply into our political thought..." That explains the greed, me-ism, hypocrisy and shallow, vapid thinking that has this nation in its destructive grip. Rand's path is a greased slide into the same fate that's bankrupted today's Greece, where Greeks refuse to pay taxes, and has led to the anarchy of Somalia, which has no central government. Randites are in complete denial of the very definition of "society" and the vital elements of a healthy, vibrant society. Take all the government services and benefits that Rand and her acolytes use and enjoy--including Social Security and Medicare, which Rand applied for under her married name to keep from being found out--and they wouldn't make it out of their front door. Heck, they probably wouldn't even have a front door or a house for a front door.

I posted a comment on this NPR story when it aired on Nov. 14, focusing on Rand's assertion that socialists and people on public assistance or who take money from the government are "moochers." Here's my comment:

"Ayn Rand and her ilk, whether called libertarians, anarchists or something else, are the real moochers. They want all the benefits of living in a society--public roads, breathable air, drinkable water, safe food and drug supplies, an energy grid, etc.--but don't think they should have to pay for it. The very regulations they eschew are as necessary for Americans' safety and well being as a strong military is for national security. The most frightening aspect of Randism these days is that so many are falling under its fatal spell. We can view the U.S. of the future by looking at Greece of today,where Greeks blow off paying taxes, and Somalia, which has no central government. Although Rand's hypocrisy is stunning (read her novella 'Anthem'), she was at least honest about being an atheist. Her politician acolytes of today, however, claim to be Christians, yet there is nothing in the philosophy Rand espoused that in any way resembles what Jesus taught."

It's gratifying to note that my comment got 65 "Recommendations", more than any of the other thousand-plus comments.

Decline of Great Civilizations

People wonder why great civilations like Greece decline. Greece, where even those who ARE assessed taxes don't pay them.

Which modern-day countries have robust economies and relatively properous populations? Those that assess and collect tax revenue to fund services for their people.

Think Germany, which is almost single-handledly, propping up the Euro, and Scandanavian countries, where education through college and health care is government funded and their people have the highest rated standard of living and are rated to be the most satisfied. Those countries have surged ahead of the U.S. -- or rather -- the U.S. has fallen behind them in almost every standard-of-living measure, such as longevity, infant mortality, education, health, and medical care.

And in this country, which touts a democracy in which the majority rules, a vicious, short-sighted, ego-centric minority has hijacked the government and held it hostage in the name of defunding so much of what contributes to a decent standard of living for so many.

One of Wisconsin's U.S. senators, Ron Johnson, apparently doesn't agree. He carps that "The federal government is spending 25% of our entire economy vs. 100 years ago when we spent only 2%." (More about Mr. Johnson in a future blog post.)

A hundred years ago when, according to a political fact-checking service, the government did little more than deliver the mail?

So we should turn back the clock to the day when the government did nothing to protect its people from disease, contaminated water/air/food, free-flowing sewage, ignorance and so much else that contributes to being a superpower? Isn't that unbelievably callous and hypocritical from a self-professed Christian multimillionaire (isn't that an oxymoron, according to what Jesus said?) who can easily pay for anything he wants/needs, thanks to government pay, benefits, subsidies and tax laws that favor the rich and corporations? (Mr. Johnson is CEO of a plastics company owned by a family he married into.)

Wouldn't someone who claims to be conservative want to conserve not only his country's high standard of living, but the health, safety and well-being of the majority of its people and, thus, the strength, power and first-rate standing of his/her country?