About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 5:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I emphatically agree with this piece, Ed.

A week before getting selected by Romney, Paul Ryan was on the Sean Hannity show and the interview lifted my spirits. Ryan, like Marco Rubio, is passionate and inspiring. Hannity was expressing dismay that our country may have already passed some kind of a tipping point wherein we will inevitably fall into statism and ultimate destruction -- citing that 47% of the public does not pay any federal income tax and nearly 1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps. Ryan's response was thrilling. He acknowledged to Hannity that the numbers look bad, but then asked that another issue be integrated within one's comprehensive outlook regarding the future of the country -- he said that, spiritually, we are still individualistic. Now, he didn't use those exact words, what he said was something very close (if not exact) to this:
But I think that we are still a "70/30" country, where 70% of Americans still believe in The American Dream.
That was inspiring and it lifted my spirits.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/11, 5:35pm)


Post 1

Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 6:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good article, Ed. I think Ryan will prove to be a good choice for VP, for the reasons you mentioned. Choosing Ryan is a good signal from Romney - to the conservative base and for the rest of the country. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Romney, once elected, made better use of his VP than most presidents do... and Ryan is the kind of person who should lend himself to that well.

It also occurs to me that Ryan is more likely to diminish the small leakage to Gary Johnson, and the loss of Ron Paul fans who decide to stay home... at least more so than any of the other VP candidates. Even if that only amounted to 1%, it might be significant.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/11, 7:34pm)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, August 13, 2012 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is a fun video comparison of Paul Ryan with Obama :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jr9pAsH-1Ao

Post 3

Monday, August 13, 2012 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great find, Steve!

Ed


Post 4

Monday, August 13, 2012 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I liked the comment that we're adding nothing to the debt (i.e. just a whole lot of zeros.)   :-)

Post 5

Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Paul Ryan says that he read her books as a youth but was not influenced by her. In April, he gave an interview to National Review in which he repudiated Rand entirely. In the interview, he called reports of his adherence to Rand's views an "urban legend" and said that he was more deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.

But that's not the way he was talking in 2005, when he gave a speech to the Atlas Society, a group dedicated to promoting Rand's beliefs.
 Is Paul Ryan for or against Ayn Rand?By Gary Weiss, Special to CNN
updated 11:43 AM EDT, Tue August 14, 2012


 
 

His father’s death also provoked the kind of existential soul-searching that most kids don’t undertake until college. “I was, like, ‘What is the meaning?’ ” he said. “I just did lots of reading, lots of introspection. I read everything I could get my hands on.” Like many conservatives, he claims to have been profoundly affected by Ayn Rand. After reading “Atlas Shrugged,” he told me, “I said, ‘Wow, I’ve got to check out this economics thing.’ What I liked about her novels was their devastating indictment of the fatal conceit of socialism, of too much government.” He dived into Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman.

In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” To me he was careful to point out that he rejects Rand’s atheism.

 
When I pointed out to Ryan that government spending programs were at the heart of his home town’s recovery, he didn’t disagree. But he insisted that he has been misunderstood. “Obama is trying to paint us as a caricature,” he said. “As if we’re some bizarre individualists who are hardcore libertarians. It’s a false dichotomy and intellectually lazy.” He added, “Of course we believe in government. We think government should do what it does really well, but that it has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports.” But independent assessments make clear that Ryan’s budget plan, in order to achieve its goals, would drastically reduce the parts of the budget that fund exactly the kinds of projects and research now helping Janesville.

THE NEW YORKER
The Political Scene
Fussbudget: How Paul Ryan captured the G.O.P.by Ryan Lizza August 6, 2012


 
But Ryan has distanced himself from Rand in recent years, for obvious reasons. While she provides a sweeping justification for capitalism and the free market, many of her positions give Republicans pause. Rand supported abortion, opposed religion and was for the most part anti-war. She hated the idea of “duty.” She did not like Ronald Reagan.
What Ayn Rand says about Paul Ryan
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 03:29 PM ET, 08/13/2012 The Washington Post

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.
Ryan enjoys bantering about dusty novels, but it’s not really his bailiwick. Philosophy, he tells me, is critical, but politics is about more than armchair musing. “This gets to the Jack Kemp in me, for the lack of a better phrase,” he says — crafting public policy from broad ideas. “How do you produce prosperity and upward mobility?” he asks. “How do you attack the root causes of poverty instead of simply treating its symptoms? And how do you avoid a crisis that is going to hurt the vulnerable the most — a debt crisis — from ever happening?”
Ryan cites Light of the World, a book-length interview of Pope Benedict XVI, as an example of how the Catholic Church takes the global debt problem seriously. “We are living at the expense of future generations,” the pope says. “In this respect, it is plain that we are living in untruth.” Ryan takes those words seriously. “The pope was really clear,” he says.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
Ryan Shrugged: Representative Paul Ryan debunks an “urban legend.”
By Robert Costa April 26, 2012 4:00 A.M

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/14, 11:29am)


Post 6

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 3:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Over on MSK's OL, "Jerry Biggers" posted a link to Kira Peikoff's "Don't Let It Go Unheard" blogradio interview with Yaron Brook on the subject of Paul Ryan.

I summarize Brook's major point as being "Paul Ryan is not half bad." I also take Yaron Brook's point that many people - millions - who are not Objectivists nonetheless say that they were "influenced" by Ayn Rand, especially by Atlas Shrugged. It is a measure of the deep and growing impact of her ideas.

I noted there that Ayn Rand said that Thomas Aquinas rescued Western Civilization by reintroducing Aristotle. While that is not factually correct, the "sense of life" meaning certainly could be an opening to accepting Paul Ryan as a Thomist.

I also said there that I am surprised that Yaron Brook and Kira Peikoff both missed that. No one else seems to have mentioned it either.

If Ted Keer were still here, he would remind us that Ayn Rand had a "rational priest" in an early draft of Atlas Shrugged, the Taggarts apparently having kept their Irish Catholicism at least by tradition, though we accept that Dagny was an atheist. At Ted's urging, I got from my university library Cardinal Desire-Joseph Mercier's textbook of Scholasticism. (Bio on Wikipedia here.) It was a perfect example of what could be expected from a Catholic committed to reason. Yes, of course, God was in the metaphysics, but all the rest from reason and volition to natural rights were there, as well.

I believe that if William F. Buckley had not rejected Ayn Rand first, they might have found more common ground, in the same way that she tolerated the Kantian errors of Ludwig von Mises. But that is my own conjecture -- and it is counterfactual as their mutual animosity apparently was irreparable.



Post 7

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 6:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since the Aug 11th announcement that Paul Ryan will be Mitt Romney's running mate, the storm continues to hit the fan as pundits, talking heads, commentators, and analysts online, on TV, and in print focus on Paul Ryan's disavowal of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

Enter Paul Ryan Ayn Rand into your search engines and pick the hits after August 11.

US News and World Report for Aug. 12 (... not an Ayn Rand prodigy.)

Jennifer Burns in the NY Times Op Ed ("Ayn Rand wouldn't approve...")

L A Times "Philosophy" column by Paul Rainey ("... loved Ayn Rand before he said he didn't..." - widely syndicated)

NY Daily News "Books" blog Aug. 14("...his current position is in fierce contradiction with fairly recent statements of praise...")

Rachel Maddow, however is not fooled. (She knows that Paul Ryan really is a follower of Ayn Rand.)



(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/16, 7:14am)


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
TAS is keeping score on these notices.

(I think USNWR meant protégé, not prodigy.)


Post 9

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 7:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSNBC pundit Lawrence O'Donnell has a nightly show called "The Last Word." He ran a three-part segment on the contradictions. His presentations of Ayn Rand's ideas was fair and objective, even as he clearly disagreed with (most?) of them. He did allow that he, too, read Ayn Rand in high school because it was assigned by his Catholic teachers who were not afraid of exposing their students to ideas. (I wondered which of Rand's ideas he still held to ... considering his career, integrity, perhaps. Just my speculation.)

O'Donnell called Ryan a liar. Ryan told National Review that he discovered that Ayn Rand's philosophy was atheistic "late in life." How late? O'Donnell asked, because in 2005... in 2009... right up until April 2012... it was pretty clear to millions who never read Atlas Shrugged and to millions who did, exactly what Rand's philosophy is.

O'Donnell showed clips of Rand on Johnny Carson saying that she advocated reason as the primary means of knowledge, and with Mike Wallace saying that she is an atheist. O'Donnell cited Rand's dislike of Ronald Reagan and her disapproval of the war in Vietnam. Of course, her advocacy for a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy also was documented.

O'Donnell said that Ayn Rand is who conservatives cite when they want to sound like intellectuals. .. but clearly Rand's views and theirs are not mutually compatible.


(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/16, 7:40am)


Post 10

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reminds me of Nixon or Clinton or, to cite some contemporary examples, Holder saying he knew nothing of Fast and Furious until he read about it in the papers or Chu saying he had no idea of Solyndra until it made the news.

How people that ill-informed manage to get through the day is a mystery.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that it is very possible for a person to be heavily influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy without actually becoming a card-carrying Objectivist. A person can be inspired toward smaller government and increased capitalism by Ayn Rand without "going all the way" and advocating for the type of minarchist government she proposes. I know that I went through a stage similar to this as I was assimilating all of the ideas I learned just from Atlas Shrugged. In fact, I'm still going through it in some minor ways. Yes, this leads to contradictions. No, it isn't the perfect philosophy we would like to see in a candidate. However, expecting perfection from politicians is nowhere near realistic.

Anyhow, it makes perfect sense to me that a conservative politician could be "inspired by" Ayn Rand without totally adhering to her philosophy. There is a lot of common ground there. Of course, I would never expect the elite media to let on that they understand this. They have a chance to discredit the GOP VP candidate as a "flip-flopper." Even better, they have a chance to paint him as an atheistic "Randian" to the religious branch of his party while painting him as someone who rejects Rand's philosophy to the fiscal conservatives and libertarians. It's too good to pass up.

In general I think we Objectivists should be happy, for now, with candidates who are kind of "Rand Lite" like Paul Ryan. It has taken the left 100 years to transform our country to the point where socialism is widely accepted. One hundred years ago a candidate with the values of President Obama would have been seen as a fringe lunatic by a huge percentage of the nation. A candidate with pure Objectivist values would be seen the same way now. Any change will have to be slow and incremental.

Post 12

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

Do you have a link to the 3-part series of O'Donnell on Ayn Rand? It's not normal for a critic of Objectivism to be fair and objective, so I would like to know what O'Donnell had to say in all 3 parts. It would be noteworthy to discover a critic who was fair and objective. Yet the only video I found was this YouTube video -- where he was not fair and objective in presenting Ayn Rand's ideas. Instead of making a personal presentation of Ayn Rand's ideas, he quoted Catholic statements without qualification -- as if those statements captured the truth about Ayn Rand's ideas.

It's possible that this is one of the 3 videos, and that you accidentally evaluated it as fair and objective for some reason (watched it while distracted, were very tired when you watched it, etc.). Here is what was said and why it isn't fair and objective:

What was said
Rand, whose doctrine states self-sacrifice for one's friends--a core tenet of Christianity--is akin to slavery, teaches the value of the self over all others. In her worldview, self-interest and greed take the place of a higher power.
Why it isn't fair and objective
This quote isn't fair and objective because it evades the scope of values for individuals. It assumes the narrow, reptilian scope of values for individuals, and that is what allows it to falsely appear as a "dog-eat-dog" philosophy. The key phrase is "value of the self over all others." This sets up an impenetrable antagonism (between self and all others). But you only have to watch the last Phil Donahue interview with Rand to know that that is not part of her philosophy. In that video, she explains to Donahue that she would willingly die in order to come to the aid of a "friend" (her dead husband) at the interview with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

By leaving the Catholics United quote up without rebuttal, O'Donnell is complicit in the intellectual dishonesty required to proclaim the quote and refrain from integrating it with other views held by Rand (e.g., harmony of interests, love isn't a sacrifice, etc.). This point is augmented by the next slide that O'Donnell presents:

What was said
Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.
 
Why it isn't fair and objective
This is a Huffington Post quote pulled from an interview with a Jesuit priest. It's not a fair quote because it claims that Rand's selfishness (and/or antagonism to religion) is antithetical to love. But Rand laid out a very careful case about selfishness, reason, and love. By selectively omitting the nuances found in Rand, this Jesuit priest failed to obtain both objectivity and fairness.

Like I said, it's not normal for a critic of Objectivism to be fair and objective. Even Jesuit priests -- known for their supremely careful and thoughtful analyses -- can't seem to avoid failing to accomplish something like that.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/16, 8:33pm)


Post 13

Friday, August 17, 2012 - 6:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lawrence O'Donnell's last of three presentations is here.

URL:
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/rewriting-ryan-and-the-gop-on-ayn-rand/6fmjwnr

The previous two can be found in the sidebar to this video.

P M H: Yes, In the interview with Kira Peikoff, Yaron Brook made the same point about millions of people having been positively influenced by Ayn Rand without becoming Objectivists.


Post 14

Friday, August 17, 2012 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

It looks like what I had found was the first of the 3 videos, so I will have to lodge a disagreement with your initial assessment that his presentation was fair and objective (for the reasons I cited in post 12).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/17, 6:16pm)


Post 15

Friday, August 17, 2012 - 6:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed by the time you actually watch all three, you might have enough information to understand my point of view.  The last of the three encompasses the previous two by reinforcing their main points while drawing in new material.  His second does that with the first.   Thus, each builds on the previous.  You watched the first, in which O'Donnell set up the play.  You need to understand this as championship (intellectual) tennis.  The presenter, O'Donnell, gets you to follow his ball... until he bashes it past you: It is not that Ryan is an "Objectivist" at all ; it is that Ayn Rand would not have approved of Paul Ryan because Ayn Rand advocated for reproductive rights, against the war in Viet Nam, against religion, and against Ronald Reagan, and for reason as the primary mode of knowledge.
 
O'Donnell explicitly describes himself as a "European socialist" with no patience for liberals.  He attended St. Sebastian School before going to Harvard. He said that he read Ayn Rand in high school because it was assigned by his teachers who were not afraid of atheist ideas. 

You do not have much experience with Catholic scholasticism, do you?

I am truly not very Catholic, but as we say, "Even the Devil can quote Scripture." And when it comes to Paul Ryan, Lawrence O'Donnell quotes the scripture of Ayn Rand accurately.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/17, 6:53pm)


Post 16

Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 5:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

Ed by the time you actually watch all three, you might have enough information to understand my point of view.
I watched all three and the issue is not whether I understand your point of view, it is whether I agree with it. The part I disagreed with was this:

His presentations of Ayn Rand's ideas was fair and objective, even as ...
To recap, the above states that O'Donnell's presentations of Ayn Rand's ideas were fair and objective. That's what I disagree with. In the first video, Ayn Rand's ideas are presented (so that viewers will have something to go on when O'Donnell makes links between Ryan, Rand, Catholicism, GOP, etc.).

It is not that Ryan is an "Objectivist" at all ; it is that Ayn Rand would not have approved of Paul Ryan because Ayn Rand advocated for reproductive rights, against the war in Viet Nam, against religion, and against Ronald Reagan, and for reason as the primary mode of knowledge.
I got all that, but it does not affect the falsity of your first quote above.

You do not have much experience with Catholic scholasticism, do you?
It depends on the standard ("compared to who?"). Because of being learned, I have more experience with Catholic scholasticism than most people on planet earth, but that's assuming that you are taking "everyone" as the standard. But you haven't stated the standard, so until then it can only be assumed. Besides that, what is your point? What is the point of asking whether I have much experience with Catholic scholasticism or not? If I did, would it alter any part of the argument that has occurred in this thread? Can you point to a part of the argument in this thread and say:

"Well, if you had much experience with Catholic scholasticism, then you'd know better and you wouldn't have made this statement right over here."

[???]
And when it comes to Paul Ryan, Lawrence O'Donnell quotes the scripture of Ayn Rand accurately.
Okay, taking the narrow scope of whether Rand would approve of Ryan, we may have some more common ground. I think O'Donnell took Ryan to task pretty legitimately. Rand really would have no truck with a true-blue conservative (likes war, likes religion, likes faith, hates abortion) -- and Ryan is recently making himself out to be such a true-blue conservative. But to reiterate, O'Donnell -- like virtually every critic of Objectivism who has ever existed -- was not fair and objective in presenting Ayn Rand's ideas. When Donahue asked Rand about her critics, she said she never met an honest critic of hers.

And only very little advancement in the potentially-honest critique of Objectivism has been made since she said that back in 1979. Most critics, almost all of them, aren't fair or objective about it.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/18, 5:27am)


Post 17

Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 6:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rachel Maddow, however is not fooled. (She knows that Paul Ryan really is a follower of Ayn Rand.)
The link doesn't go to Maddow's show about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand.
The first sentence has too many letters. It should be "Rachel Maddow is a fool."

MadCow says:
In Ayn Rand`s novel, she leads her readers to see the very wealthiest people as heroes, heroes who must be protected, from taxes, from the government, from regulation, from bureaucracy, from anything that rich people might find restrictive in any way toward them becoming more rich. The rich are heroes, and everybody else is a taker! And the more the rich have, the better, the better for everyone. That is not fiscal conservatism either. It is something else (link).  
Major misunderstanding!

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 8/18, 8:31am)


Post 18

Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin, the load takes time and a window opens within - "Shrug Life" - and other video links are along the side to the left. In any case, you found a salient quote. I take it that you understood that my comment, "She knows that Paul Ryan really is a follower of Ayn Rand," as sarcasm.

Ed, O'Donnell's teachers at his Catholic high school had no problem exposing their students to a full range of ideas, including Ayn Rand. Absolute truth still exists; and for Catholics faith is final. Thus, Rand could nod to Aquinas, but only that, just an acknowledgement of the value in bringing Aristotle to the university. (That is not entirely true. Earlier scholars had done that, also. Aristotle was not unknown, only that Platonism dominated, perhaps.) So, Lawrence O'Donnell demonstrated what Ayn Rand said by actually showing interview clips of Ayn Rand saying what he cited. Rachel Maddow, of course, did not do that.

It seems to me that you deny the possibility of an honest disagreement here. You apparently believe that unless O'Donnell, endorsed Ayn Rand, he could not deliver a fair and objective presentation.

Let me ask you, Ed: Can you find anything in the published writings of Ayn Rand with which to disagree? (I do not mean her marginalia, the Ford Hall Q&As, or other apocryphal works, but the canon of books published by her before her death.) Does anything in VoS, ItOE, CUI, RM, PWNI, the Newsletter, magazine, or Letter seem unproved or putative or false or just personally difficult to accept?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 11:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Laurence O'Donnell pieces are just partisan hit pieces where O'Donnel wants to make Rand's Atheism an albatross around Ryan's neck. What I found amusing was towards the very end of the August 14th clip he tries to amp up the intensity of his accusation that Ryan is a Rand fan. He says (and I'm paraphrasing), "Just imagine what the right would be saying if Barrack Obama had been strongly influenced by a Russian Atheist?" But, wait, Laurence, isn't it true that young Barrack was mentored by a Frank Marshall Davis - an active communist who promoted Soviet aims? That's not the same thing since clearly a Catholic might well think that an atheist is far worse than a communist, but the hypocrisy involved in the reporting and the commentating are rather obvious.



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.