1950's book review of Paul Ryan's idol

[Dubya]

What Rands political orientations were are unimportant. What is important is that conservative politicians and economists today seem to be largely inspired by her writings. I disagree with your assertion that she wasn't a conservative, but I am just pointing at that is doesn't actually matter. You are committing a genetic fallacy of sorts in thinking it matters.

Ayn Rand is more like someone a libertarian, like Greenspan, would follow and not a conservative who knew about the woman. The woman's behavior in her life would disgust the average conservative and she certainly disgusts me. Since the majority of conservatives are Christian, they aren't going to approve of Ayn Rand. The ones that do more than likely have never examined her and just jumped on the bandwagon.

Ryan (R) apparently didn't get the memo until he caved to the catholic church after they called him on his Randian budget

I don't expect anything good coming out of Paul Ryan, though I believe the Republican Party does.

 

[Dot Com]

I think quite a few Righties @ here ARE Randians, they just won't admit to fashioning their ideology @ a work of fiction. Same goes for Repubs. They'll say things like "I'm not a Republican, I just vote that way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think quite a few Righties @ here ARE Randians, they just won't admit to fashioning their ideology @ a work of fiction. Same goes for Repubs. They'll say things like "I'm not a Republican, I just vote that way.

All ideologies are at first a work of fiction.

Even that of the founding fathers.

In fact everything man has ever done existed first only in the mind so if something being a work of fiction means it is worthless then almost everything was worthless at first.

Good thing our ancestors didn't think like you.

 

[Dot Com]

I think quite a few Righties @ here ARE Randians, they just won't admit to fashioning their ideology @ a work of fiction. Same goes for Repubs. They'll say things like "I'm not a Republican, I just vote that way.

All ideologies are at first a work of fiction.

Even that of the founding fathers.

In fact everything man has ever done existed first only in the mind so if something being a work of fiction means it is worthless then almost everything was worthless at first.

Good thing our ancestors didn't think like you.

Well that 1000+ page tome is STILL fiction 60 yrs later UNLESS you're a Randian, like Ryan (R), or a college Repub Last I heard college repubs are req'd to read it. It actually feeds right into their narrow black & white reading on the world. Like ideological porn for rw adolescents

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think quite a few Righties @ here ARE Randians, they just won't admit to fashioning their ideology @ a work of fiction. Same goes for Repubs. They'll say things like "I'm not a Republican, I just vote that way.

All ideologies are at first a work of fiction.

Even that of the founding fathers.

In fact everything man has ever done existed first only in the mind so if something being a work of fiction means it is worthless then almost everything was worthless at first.

Good thing our ancestors didn't think like you.

Well that 1000+ page tome is STILL fiction 60 yrs later UNLESS you're a Randian, like Ryan (R), or a college Repub Last I heard college repubs are req'd to read it. It actually feeds right into their narrow black & white reading on the world. Like ideological porn for rw adolescents

I am amused by those living in pigeonholes on the left side of the coup who throw stones at the pigeons living on the right side of the coup.

 

[tinydancer]

Not only was this author one whom Paul Ryan demanded all of his (tax-payer funded ) staff read but she was also Alan Greenspan's idol as well

Big Sister Is Watching You - Whittaker Chambers - National Review Online

Something of this implication is fixed in the book’s dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal.

Can we agree that her tomes should (rightfully) be relegated to the dustbin of history & people like greenspan & Ryan's devotion be openly mocked ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPLkiqnO8]William Buckley on Ayn Rand & Atlas Shrugged - YouTube[/ame]

discuss...

Once upon a time there were people called "liberals".

We used to believe in things called the right to read what we want, watch what we want an listen to what we wanted.

Then came along people who loved a gentleman called LBJ and left wing nutbars took over our movement and became mini nazis.

And here you are today. Little nazis.

 

[g5000]

Whittaker Chambers and Buckley were both religious zealots, so it's hardly surprising that they would pan Ayn Rand, who was an atheist.

What this shows is that the left-wing belief that capitalism is "conservative" is erroneous. Capitalism is a radical program. It always has been.

The conservative movement would not even exist were it not for Bill Buckley. Ronald Reagan would not have been President were it not for Buckley.

Which proves absolutely nothing about Ayn Rand. BTW, she isn't a conservative. She's a radical capitalist.

The review of Atlas Shrugged by Chambers was entirely accurate. It's a book for puerile minds that should have been no longer than a short story.

My review of your post is totally accurate, and it says your post is total bullshit. A puerile mind believes its prejudices are the equivalent of facts.

That someone like you defends her crap only confirms what I said.

 

[Dot Com]

Once upon a time there were people called "liberals".

We used to believe in things called the right to read what we want, watch what we want an listen to what we wanted.

Then came along people who loved a gentleman called LBJ and left wing nutbars took over our movement and became mini nazis.

And here you are today. Little nazis.

you can buy 500 copies of it & wallpaper your teepee just don't use Rand as a source. Greenspan did & it brought us unregulated derivatives Paul Ryan got into Congress by praising her zaney writing & he helped Mitt lose the last election..

 

[g5000]

Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left.

Absolutely prescient. In recent years we have seen a rise of a vicious totalitarian streak from the Right which matches that of the Left.

Really? care to provide some examples?

Certainly. There is plenty of evidence right here on this forum, including from you. The blind guzzling of the piss poured for you rubes, which is rapidly and voluminously regurgitated without the slightest bit of fact-checking. The defense of waterboarding and other torture. Voter ID. Warrantless wiretaps. Millions of Americans' phone records searched without warrants. The absolute fear of trying terrorists as criminals and refusal to jail them in the US.


The gullibility of the sheer mass of all of you, so willing to accept whatever instruction you are given and to blindly follow it, completely ignorant of any contradiction your current position may have with those held by you as recently as yesterday.

It is staggering how closely you all resemble the proles in Orwell's 1984. I am often stunned at the actual doublethink you all display.


It was bad enough the Left had totalitarian tendencies for longer than I have been alive. But now that the Right has its own power hunger, the light of freedom is in danger such as it has not been in quite some time.

You are defined to a "T" by Hayek:

There are three main reasons why such a numerous group, with fairly similar views, is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. First, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their tastes and views are differentiated. If we wish to find a high degree of uniformity in outlook, we have to descend to the regions of your moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards.

Second, since this group is not large enough to give sufficient weight to the leader's endeavors, he will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed. He must gain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are ready to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.

Third, to weld together a closely coherent body of supporters, the leader must appeal to a common human weakness. It seems to be easier for people to agree on a negative program — on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off - than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they" is consequently always employed by those who seek the allegiance of huge masses. The enemy may be internal, like the "Jew" in Germany or the "kulak" in Russia, or he may be external. In any case, this technique has the great advantage of leaving the leader greater freedom of action than would almost any positive program.

Think about that long and hard. "A negative program". That's all you idiots are about.

Anyway. Everyone is free to pick up Rand's tome and decide for themselves. If they have even an average intelligence, they will quickly tire of its hammering repetitiveness and simplistic message blaring out of the pages like a low fidelity speaker in a re-education camp.

I strongly recommend borrowing a copy from someone or the library as you will regret having spent any money on it.

 

[Political Junky]

Are you saying people shouldn't avail themselves of ideas from all perspectives in order to understand the rational behind ideas, some of which they may agree or disagree? After all isn't that what education is all about? Or are you about suppressing ideas and opinions that are contrary to yours, come on fess up, what are your true motives for this post.

You might direct that advice to the GOP. They could use it.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't think either man looks to Rand's principles exclusively as both have a much broader education and experience. Free markets are capable of policing themselves with one major caveat, they have to function honestly. But to imply that Greenspan and Ryan rely solely on Rand for their philosophies is disingenuous at best. And no I was not a college Republican, in fact like most young people I had very little interest in politics back then.

And the free market regulates itself as regards to pollution also, according to Rand.

It does on private property. Have you ever noticed pollution on private property? Pollution is only a problem on property that isn't privately owned, like rivers and the air and public lands.

Ever the dumb ****. So the air over private property does not move off of that property? There is no runoff from rainwater from private property to other property? And when that private property changes hands, or no one will buy the superfund site, you believe that then the taxpayers should be tapped to pay for the sins of the previous owners of this "private property"?

Since all of us live for an all to brief span, we, in reality, cannot own property, merely use it for a time. And, if the way that we are using it is or will be deliterious to the community, then the community has the right to step in and alter the use of the property, or even stop it's use by that private party.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only was this author one whom Paul Ryan demanded all of his (tax-payer funded ) staff read but she was also Alan Greenspan's idol as well

Big Sister Is Watching You - Whittaker Chambers - National Review Online

Something of this implication is fixed in the book’s dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal.

Can we agree that her tomes should (rightfully) be relegated to the dustbin of history & people like greenspan & Ryan's devotion be openly mocked ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPLkiqnO8]William Buckley on Ayn Rand & Atlas Shrugged - YouTube[/ame]

discuss...

Once upon a time there were people called "liberals".

We used to believe in things called the right to read what we want, watch what we want an listen to what we wanted.

Then came along people who loved a gentleman called LBJ and left wing nutbars took over our movement and became mini nazis.

And here you are today. Little nazis.

Whee. Damn, I surely would have liked to be there if you had ever the oppertunity to call William Buckley a liberal. His intelligence and eloquence were a delight to all thinking people, liberal or conservative. But he was never faintly a liberal.

 

[Londoner]

Let's be very clear about what Buckley was trying to accomplish.

Some context.

Conservatism had been in the wilderness since the progressives took over with Teddy Roosevelt. It wasn't until the Goldwater campaign that Conservatism had gained any traction.

How did Conservatism gain traction? Specifically, how did they break the New Deal Coalition and flip the Solid South? It was accomplished partly by using the Southern Strategy (aka exploiting Civil Rights backlash).

But it was also Religion.

To be even more specific: the Right replaced the Left's anti-corporate populism with religion, that is, religion was politically exploited in order to seduce middle America into the voting booth, thus prefiguring the partnership between Reagan and Robertson.

And Buckley was the megaphone for this new religious populism.

(It should be noted that the Left - by moving away from religion in the sixties - opened the door for Buckley/Goldwater and the Conservative movement.)

Ayn Rand was a Libertarian, and an atheist (which put her in direct contradiction to the religious populism Buckley was using to get middle America into the voting booth). So of course Buckley and Rand could not form a partnership.

In summary: Buckley used two things to build Red State America:

1. Anti-communism (which morphed seamlessly into anti-terrorism)
2. Religion (which is a bedfellow of "Tradition")

(It should also be noted that Reagan was not nearly as willing to cast Rand, the Libertarian Queen, overboard. Reagan needed Buckley's conservatism as much as he needed Rand's Libertarianism. In fact, he used Conservatism to get the poor into the voting booth. However, once the election was won, Reagan used Libertarianism to create the low tax, anti-regulation infrastructure required by business.)

It was a brilliant partnership built out of God and Money. Jesus is turning over on his cross.

People might ask: but how did Reagan get away with this contradiction? Surely the voting public would see the blatant contradiction between Religion and Libertarianism. Turns out, the Reagan Revolution had an answer for this problem too. They built the most powerful ideological bubble ever created, and they filled it with wildly charismatic pundits who forbid Republican Voters from going to any outside media source. They did this by conditioning the GOP voter to fear non-Conservative media sources as evil. This gave them the ability to put their voters in a hermetically sealed bubble where the contradictions between Conservatism and Libertarianism were never exposed.

It was ******* genius. Say what you want about the Right, but do not underestimate how brilliant their strategy was. They just needed enough naive, under-educated voters to buy into it. It worked better than anyone could ever imagine. In fact, GOP voters still don't see the contradiction. They literally only think in the terms which they are given by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Savage, etc. This is what populism is meant to do: appeal to voters emotionally so they can be locked in.

Rand's problem was that she was an honest Libertarian. She refused to play ball with Conservatism and its dream of state sponsored Christianity.

 

[Dubya]

Let's be very clear about what Buckley was trying to accomplish.

Some context.

Conservatism had been in the wilderness since the progressives took over with Teddy Roosevelt. It wasn't until the Goldwater campaign that Conservatism had gained any traction.

How did Conservatism gain traction? Specifically, how did they break the New Deal Coalition and flipped the Solid South. It was accomplished partly by using the Southern Strategy (aka exploiting Civil Rights backlash).

But it was also Religion.

To be clear: the Right replaced the old anti-corporate populism with religion, that is, religion became the new populism for middle America, thus prefiguring the partnership between Reagan and Robertson.

And Buckley was the megaphone for this new religious populism.

(It should be noted that the Left - by moving away from religion in the sixties - opened the door for Buckley/Goldwater and the Conservative movement.)

Ayn Rand was a Libertarian, and an atheist (which put her in direct contradiction to the religious populism Buckley was using to get middle America into the voting booth). So of course Buckley and Rand could not form a partnership.

In summary: Buckley used two things to build Red State America:

1. Anti-communism (which morphed seamlessly into anti-terrorism)
2. Religion (which is a bedfellow of "Tradition")

(It should also be noted that Reagan was not nearly as willing to cast Rand, the Libertarian Queen, overboard. Reagan needed Buckley's conservatism as much as he needed Rand's Libertarianism. In fact, he used Conservatism to get the poor into the voting booth. However, once the election was won, Reagan used Libertarianism to create the low tax, anti-regulation infrastructure required by business.)

It was a brilliant partnership built out of God and Money. Jesus is turning over on his cross.

People might ask: but how did Reagan get away with this contradiction? Surely the voting public would see the blatant contradiction between Religion and Libertarianism. Turns out, the Reagan Revolution had an answer for this problem too. They built the most powerful ideological bubble ever created, and they filled it with wildly charismatic pundits who forbid Republican Voters from going to any outside media source. They did this by conditioning the GOP voter to fear non-Conservative media sources as evil. This gave them the ability to put their voters in a hermetically sealed bubble where the contradictions between Conservatism and Libertarianism were never exposed.

It was ******* genius. Say what you want about the Right, but do not underestimate how brilliant their strategy was. They just needed enough naive, under-educated voters to buy into it. It worked better than anyone could ever imagine. In fact, GOP voters still don't see the contradiction. They literally only think in the terms which they are given by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Savage, etc. This is what populism is meant to do: appeal to voters emotionally so they can be locked in.

Rand's problem was that she was an honest Libertarian. She refused to play ball with Conservatism and its dream of state sponsored Christianity.

The history I've read about and lived through is different than your account.

The modern conservative movement aka the New Right started in the mid-50s. That's when the fusion of conservatives and liberarians began and anti-communism was the dominant issue. That's also the time when they started relying heavily on think tanks. The New Right worked it's way into the Republican Party enough so Barry Goldwater ran for President in '64. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights act and even though he lost by a landslide, it showed that position on state's rights could break the Democrats lock on the South. Nixon and Goldwater planned a Southern Strategy and the New Right think tanks focused on religion. The Southern Strategy did quietly embrace racism to get followers from the schism in the Democrats that civil rights caused. It would cause them to lose the Black vote which had been solidly Republican since the Civil War, but it would give them the electoral votes in those southern states. It worked well enough to give the Presidency to the for 20 of the next 24 years starting with the '68 election. The sales pitch to Christians by the New Right after the Goldwater defeat also worked. Together they worked well enough for the conservative Reagan to gain the Presidency in '80.

I used to watch Buckley every chance I had back then. Buckley was definitely a heavy supporter for the New Right, but I don't recall him being much involved in religion or the Southern Strategy. I haven't seen evidence to give Buckley the credit you have and don't get me wrong, I really liked Buckley back then. As I became older I started to suspect that the famous Buckley pause was a stunt to make it look like he was thinking and he already had an answer prepared for such a question or position on an issue. Buckley was great at debate, but he was also great at showmanship. He certainly supported anything for the New Right cause, but those think tanks behind the scenes are what put the strategy in motion. They are what penetrated the Republican Party and switched it to New Right conservativism and they are still going at it, pulling the strings for all the puppets of the Republican Party.

The irony is it was the Republicans who made civil right happen and it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court who made Roe v Wade the law of the land. I guess it doesn't dawn on southerners or some Christians that they are being played for being suckers. Their racist and pro-life passions blinds them to the truth about the Beast they serve.

 

[JoeB131]

Unfeeling

Scorn for charity and altruism

Lack of goodness

Yep, sounds EXACTLY like the Republican Party. Doesn't it?

You might be on to something...

It seems to me that the GOP has become this bizarre mix of Randian Social Darwinism and Old Testament puritanism that really doesn't have a place in a compassionate society.

So the GOP has moved away from commitments to the common man that Ike and Nixon and Ford and even Reagan understood, to this kind of zaniness.

 

[Truthmatters]

Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left.

Absolutely prescient. In recent years we have seen a rise of a vicious totalitarian streak from the Right which matches that of the Left.

false equvalancy

 

[Truthmatters]

Unfeeling

Scorn for charity and altruism

Lack of goodness

Yep, sounds EXACTLY like the Republican Party. Doesn't it?

You might be on to something...

It seems to me that the GOP has become this bizarre mix of Randian Social Darwinism and Old Testament puritanism that really doesn't have a place in a compassionate society.

So the GOP has moved away from commitments to the common man that Ike and Nixon and Ford and even Reagan understood, to this kind of zaniness.

It is that so that the monied interests can get votes for their idea of drowning the country in the tub after they weaken it by cutting everything.

If it does nothing for people they will not fight The wealthy in dragging it to the tub

 

[Wry Catcher]

We get it... Obama won. Who cares what book Ryan read?

Randian Ryan is running for President. Who cares? American patriots care. Why don't you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We get it... Obama won. Who cares what book Ryan read?

Randian Ryan is running for President. Who cares? American patriots care. Why don't you?

So anyone who disagrees with your political philosophy or sheepthink is not a patriot?

 

[peach174]

Unfeeling

Scorn for charity and altruism

Lack of goodness

Yep, sounds EXACTLY like the Republican Party. Doesn't it?

Paul Ryan, just like Ayn Rand, didn't pass up the opportunity to "get free stuff" from the taxpayers. Social security was there for when they needed it. Paul Ryan has brought in very little money that didn't come from the taxpayers to this day, but it didn't stop these two hypocrites from trying to destroy entitlements and criticize people that are helped by them. No way to prove it but I believe a good percentage of tea baggers on this board are getting "free stuff".

You sound like you think you can op-out of Social Security.
You can't.
We are forced to pay payroll taxes and are forced to take the checks from Social Security.We are forced to accept the monthly amount that congress thinks we should get each month.
Wanting to privatize Social Security, so that retiree's would have the freedom in how to use their retirement money, is not trying to destroy entitlements.
Entitlements need to be reformed because they have become unsustainable. Why? Because the vast majority of free stuff are unfunded mandates.
The Dem's refuse to deal with this reality.