Ayn Rand on conservatives

D

Dude#1279435

Senior Audioholic
https://courses.aynrand.org/works/conservatism-an-obituary/

I don't agree with her like I use to but still find her stuff on the language used between conservatives (tax cuts etc ) vs progressives (tax increases etc) pretty well on. It's a$$-backwards, and frankly insulting in a way. Conservative sounds old; progressive is forward-thinking!!! I wish they'd chuck that word, but it's celebrated. Then they wonder why they're having difficulty selling the Republic. "Limited governmentalist", "pro-capitalist" etc I'll accept just about any definition but conservative. Also Rand's stuff about the defense of America on faith and tradition and The American Way. To the newcomer that'll really work. It's filled with such specifics.:confused:

I keep having this negative image of Bob Dole in '96 falling from the stage and thinking that the election is over. That's along the lines of what I think of the word conservative.
 
S

SkepticalGinger42

Audiophyte
You said "you'll accept just about any definition but conservative", but proceeded that by stating two of the core values of the political ideology of Conservatism. Ignoring what you've written, I'll assume you mean you support Conservative values but want to rebrand? They've tried repackaging it many times over the years, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that the party is out of touch with the modern world. As a result, the counterparty has gone equally as far in the opposite direction, where as the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle.
Everytime I hear or read the name Ayn Rand, I can't help but think about her life spent railing against welfare as theft in the context of individual rights vs the government. Then, drawing social security/welfare in her old age. Even her husband took benefits. It's funny how one's rationale often doesn't match reality.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Senior Audioholic
You said "you'll accept just about any definition but conservative", but proceeded that by stating two of the core values of the political ideology of Conservatism. Ignoring what you've written, I'll assume you mean you support Conservative values but want to rebrand? They've tried repackaging it many times over the years, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that the party is out of touch with the modern world. As a result, the counterparty has gone equally as far in the opposite direction, where as the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle.
Everytime I hear or read the name Ayn Rand, I can't help but think about her life spent railing against welfare as theft in the context of individual rights vs the government. Then, drawing social security/welfare in her old age. Even her husband took benefits. It's funny how one's rationale often doesn't match reality.
In some ways conservative (tax cuts); in others not so much (marriage). My point was describing conservatives, not by vague words like faith and tradition but capitalism and limited gov't. I rarely if ever hear it from Republicans.

It is certainly irrational to use the "new" as a standard of value, to believe an idea or policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the "old" as a standard of value, to claim than an idea or policy is good merely because it is ancient. The "liberals" are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are "new," "progressive," "forward-looking," etc -- and they denounce "conservatives" as an old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The "conservatives" concede it, and thus help the "liberals" to propagate one of today's most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress -- while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is offered to us in the name of stagnation.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Senior Audioholic
Everytime I hear or read the name Ayn Rand, I can't help but think about her life spent railing against welfare as theft in the context of individual rights vs the government. Then, drawing social security/welfare in her old age. Even her husband took benefits. It's funny how one's rationale often doesn't match reality.
Right, she contradicted herself.
 
T

TankTop5

Audioholic General
They've tried repackaging it many times over the years, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that the party is out of touch with the modern world.
And I as a conservative feel the modern world is out of touch with reality. Perhaps this is why none of the rebranding works. How badly I wish to drop the R, or perhaps I simply want to drop the post modern R and return to our roots.
 
T

TankTop5

Audioholic General
That's funny. I mean, the modern world IS reality.
I’m not too sure about that as many people have their own perceptions of what reality is and the ones screaming loudest about science are in stark denial of it at times.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Senior Audioholic
I always get a little bit giddy when I read Rand's stuff. I think she was an alarmist (or as she'd say "radical for capitalism") because she grew up as a child in Russia and experienced what communism does. I think it was her relentless and unapologetic tone that I remember most. My biggest takeaway is conservatives are apologists for capitalism.


.....Immoral as this might be, what is one to think of men who evade the issue for fear of discovering that their goal is good? What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

Then.....

The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called “conservatives,” who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account?

Based on tradition and patriotism. I imagine the draft is valid if there's WWIII, but otherwise not a very freedom-loving position based on choice. I think the idea behind neutering the draft is to regulate the amount of wars gov't can participate in.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Senior Audioholic

Worth a read if you're interested. Detailed and paints a complete outline. My influence of hers pretty much came from "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." For many others it was her fiction and objectivist stuff. I never caught onto that. I think many conservatives basically tossed her off because she was an atheist. Rand had conservative themes (like I do) but wasn't a staunch conservative. I think what it is is conservatives support an unregulated economy (capitalism) but want regulations on things like marriage (socialism) while Democrats support the opposite. Roughly anyway.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Field Marshall
 
D

Dude#1279435

Senior Audioholic
Rand supported capitalism but denounced libertarians.
She thought it would lead to chaos. She was more along the lines of I don't bother you; you don't bother me. I don't agree with everything of hers, but I wouldn't call her a psychopath either.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Senior Audioholic
Hyper-capitalist, moral absolutist, and her objectivist circle was a cult. But her best bits were the best IMO. A steadfast commitment to it. There was something refreshing for me about it. Though not exactly real world applicable, I think that she influenced so many says a lot. (She loathed becoming a politician.) The biography titled Goddess of the Market was a rather fine compliment.

Below reminds me of how prayer is often used to not confront life's obstacles.....

Intellectually, to rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies--that one has no rational arguments to offer. The "conservatives' " claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted on on faith--that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the "conservatives" concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering
this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists' irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits.

Observe the results. On the occasion of Khrushchev's first visit to America, he declared, at a televised luncheon, that he had threatened to
bury us because it has been "scientifically" proved that communism is the system of the future, destined to rule the world. What did our spokesman answer? Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge answered that our system is based on faith in God. Prior to Khrushchev's arrival, the "conservative" leaders--including senators and House members--were issuing indignant protests against his visit, but the only action the suggested to the American people, the only "practical" form of protest, was: prayer and the holding of religious services for Khrushchev's victims. To hear prayer offered as their only weapon by the representatives of the most powerful country on earth--a country allegedly dedicated to the fight for freedom--was enough to discredit America and capitalism in anyone's eyes, at home and abroad.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top