23

Ayn Rand versus conservatives

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
425 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Since so much of Galt's Gulch Online content has become conservative headline aggregation posting and commentary over the last several months, let's discuss what Ayn Rand thought of conservatives and conservativism. She put forth quite a bit of commentary on the subject, particularly after Atlas Shrugged came out.

To put it bluntly, she considered conservatives as big a danger to this country as she did liberals/progressives, considering both leading the country down a path towards statism, socialism, anti-capitalism, and most importantly-anti-freedom. Following is just one quote, there are a number:

“Conservatives”

Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . .

Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .

Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done.

The Objectivist Newsletter

“Choose Your Issues,”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1

So What Do You Think Conservatives


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 18.
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 5 months ago
    I'm a conservative. I never said anything other than that here and have explained why at least 5 times. She, and you, all of you, are entitled to your opinions just as I can pick and choose what I value from Rand and my association with her followers. I will still be conservative.

    Consider,
    While Spock could, no doubt, run/Captain the Enterprise that role was best served and executed by Kirk? Odd.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Many that have commented on the topic, other than herself--she preferred 'radical for capitalism, have described her as a 'classical liberal'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by editormichael 9 years, 5 months ago
    Thank you for this. I've been wondering about the presence of so many apparent Gulchers but who seemed to have missed the point: Rand was NOT a conservative. She was, though she denied it, a libertarian: She advocated liberty, a minimal state, and the basic premise non-aggression.
    By definition, therefore, she was not a conservative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 5 months ago
    I agree with all the quotes.

    To get votes, politicians need breadth of support, not depth. So we can candidates that feel like the lesser of two evils. We get an industry of commentators struggling for attention by saying, "OMG, President Bush/Obama will destroy the country." (Who am I kidding about them using the proper title, "President"? They're more likely to call them childish names.)

    If we cannot elect Rand Paul or someone like him, the rational thing to do is to lobby the politicians for policies that favor liberty and ignore the histrionics.

    I think you're right that politics "leads a path towards statism, socialism, anti-capitalism, and most importantly-anti-freedom." At first I thought that was a famous Ayn Rand quote, and then I realized you wrote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • 13
    Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 5 months ago
    "Unable to resolve a lethal contradiction, the conflict between individualism and altruism, the West is giving up. When men give up reason and freedom, the vacuum is filled by faith and force.

    No social system can stand for long without a moral base. Project a magnificent skyscraper being built on quicksands: while men are struggling upward to add the hundredth and two-hundredth stories, the tenth and twentieth are vanishing, sucked under by the muck. That is the history of capitalism, of its swaying, tottering attempt to stand erect on the foundation of the altruist morality."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the response Salty. I don't know enough, in depth, about Stoicism. But my limited understanding is that it rejects 'passions' or negative emotion, even wants, as a virtuous path to happiness; while AR rejected acting based on emotion without first subjecting the emotion to reason.

    I can understand some of the attraction of self described conservatives to Objectivism, but I think they miss the point of the philosophy and completely ignore the antipathy of Objectivist to them. They simply don't have any consistency in their philosophies and seriously mistake the principles of individual rights, freedom, and laissez faire capitalism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Irving Kristol is widely credited as the father of neoconservative thought. That school has the distinct flavor of the nation-building polemics of the Bush-era conquests. Indeed, the book goes through some of the neoconservative's common fallacies in favor of Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks broskjold; I've not yet read the book you reference. My knowledge of neo-conservatism is simply observational from the Clinton and Bush years as well as reading many of their essays and commentaries during those years. The one thing that has always stuck out to me is that within a matter of 2 or 3 weeks after 9/11, that the Patriot Act was there illustrating that it had been sitting in someone's desk drawer just waiting and that the NSA had so much of their infrastructure and systems (years of development) already in existence at the time.
    But all else aside, I do count the neo-cons as evil to liberty and the door openers to Obama and his cohorts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 5 months ago
    Thanks for posting. It can get tiring to read and re-read stances on abortion, gun ownership, etc. when it is more or less clear in the lexicon how and - more importantly - why Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and many others take the Objective side of the argument with the Conservatives. It is the entire reason this book was published: http://www.amazon.com/Neoconservatism...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.

  • Comment hidden. Undo