ARI's Response to Bush's Nomination of Rep. Cox

As many of you probably know, President Bush recently nominated Rep. Christopher Cox, who is on the record as an avid fan of Ayn Rand's writings, to head the SEC.

Almost as ironic as having Alan Greenspan head up the Federal Reserve, yes?

With all this in mind, I found the following press release by the Ayn Rand Institute rather interesting: "Ayn Rand Admirer to Head the SEC?"

I would be very curious to hear what other SOLO members think of ARI's press release on this topic.

Do you agree with ARI's line of reasoning? Do you disagree? Why?

Post 1

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 1:15pm

I have commented at Daily Pundit (about the announcement, not ARI's particular take on it). SoloHQ member Jeff Perren was one of the participants in the thread.
(Edited by David M. Brown on 6/08, 1:16pm)

Post 2

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 2:51pm

Nothing surprising about the ARI response. Once again, you're either pure as the driven snow,
or evil beyond repair. (Granted they didn't say that in this case, but the view that was expressed grows out of this attitude.)

They simply refuse to engage the reality we all actually live with and try to move things in the proper direction. Just another useless pronouncement of moral turpitude. As it happens, I lived in So. Cal for quite some time in Cox's district. If one can't work with him to bring the US back or forward to greater liberty then the only 'practical' alternative is armed revolution.

Sometimes they remind of the anarchists.

See Jason Pappas blog for an interesting comment on this attitude.
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 6/08, 2:54pm)

Post 3

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 3:07pm

Jeff,

No they didn't say that. Nor did they say that no one should work with him, or that they thought he shouldn't be nominated or approved. What they said was that he shouldn't be taken as an avid fan of Ayn Rand on the very clear and logical grounds that he holds important positions that are not hers. And they pointed out what her position on the SEC was. Or do you think the NYT -- not to speak of the relevant congressional committees -- should be allowed to get away with the package deal? It does work both ways, you know.

Tom

I am continuously amazed and amused and outraged at the twists and turns not a few people on this site will go through to make ARI conform to its image as "devil" incarnate.

Post 4

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 3:35pm

Tom,
For what it's worth, I don't share the common disdain for ARI that is widespread on this forum, at least not to the degree so many do.
(Of course, my post would give one reason to believe I do.) Frankly, I don't think they are that important.

I don't think they are the devil incarnate, nor angels either. And the attitude to which I'm referring was around decades before ARI was founded.

As to being an 'avid fan', lots of people with mixed premises (and Cox's are better than most) are indeed 'avid fans'. Being
"marked by keen interest and enthusiasm" a "person who has a strong interest in or admiration for" is no guarantee that one will get it all right.

But, all in all, I'm willing to leave it at that. The whole subject just isn't very important to me. You may have the last word.

Post 5

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 4:53pm

Jeff,

Thanks for your clarification. My point was directed at the mischaracterization of the editorial, implying more from its contents than was actually said. The "DLB" (dogged literalist brigade) is at it again. //:-)

Regards,

Tom (member DLB)

Post 6

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 5:19pm