Reactions to Paul Ryan's Devotion to Ayn Rand
------------------------------------------------
by Readers of Slate.Com
Mark Russo:
I made the point below, and someone replied, but before I could reply it got buried in other comments. The article says, "Who denies all of a writer's works because some of those works are girded by atheism." Which suggests that the only problem with Rand's philosophy for a Catholic is that it's atheistic. But I would say that Rand's philosophy is antagonistic to Christianity to its core, and it's completely unbelievable that Ryan could quote different speeches from the book as advice for life and still think it was compatible with his Catholicism.
I challenge people like Ryan to name a single sentence that Jesus said that Rand would agree with...
"Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours."
Nope.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land."
Nope.
"Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant."
Nope.
"But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow."
This is the antithesis of "Atlas Shrugged."
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."
(I guess Rand would agree with that if she could take it out of context and interpret that to mean, "Give to Tiberius Caesar his own personal property, and give nothing to non-existent beings." But in context, Jesus was saying, "You use Roman money, so pay Roman taxes, but in all things, you must have complete devotion to God." Rand would have spat on him.)
I guess she would say she agrees with "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you," but she would add the caveat "Unless they're passengers on your train. Then you can murder them with impunity."
How about the apostles, who St. Luke says, "had all things in common. They would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need." Rand would say they were just giving in to moochers.
Is there a single Catholic saint Rand would not have thought of with contempt? St. Francis of Assisi-giving away his possessions, mooching off of others. St. Joan of Arc, dying for a statist regime. St. Thomas More, who died "the king's good servant but God's first."
Maybe Ryan thinks her political and economic conclusions were right while all of her philosophical and moral premises were wrong?
(Your run of the mill Christian libertarian, who thinks that we have a duty to private charity but doesn't think that caring for the poor and weak is the proper role of government, is a different story. I'm talking just Ayn Rand's philosophy.)
------------------------------
aubergine:
Then there's Aquinas, who Ryan now claims to prefer over Rand: "Man should not consider his material possession his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need."
Put that in your pipe, Comrade Paul, and smoke it.
-------------------------------
zztop:
The notion of the rugged individual is very seductive, especially to weak people.
-----------------------------------
James:
Eat the poor. They'll make more.
--------------------------------
Jerome Graber:
The problem with Rand is the problem with most all zealots. She has discovered one small truth that applies to one small aspect of life - in her case, economics - and blows it all out of proportion to try to make it apply to all of life.
· Reply
zztop: Well, Rand's objectivism is concerned with orthodoxy and so are fundamental Christians. I think that's the glue that binds them. The details don't matter as much as the complete devotion to ideology and desire to avoid or discount or oppress any complicating critique by virtue of its unorthodoxy.
· Reply
Jerome Graber: Nah, it's simpler than that, I think. Rand saw the oppression of communism, rightly recognized that private property and free markets are a better way to organize economic life, and then mistook this insight for a universal truth.
But most of life, and the most important parts of life, are not governed by economic principles. My family comes immediately to mind.
__________________________________________
inkblot:
[....] The people who gravitate to Ayn Rand are bitter, resentful human beings who are often young and in search of an identity. If you are a guy in his twenties and you feel disaffected and frustrated, and you want more than anything to be patted on the head for looking down on your fellow man, then Ayn Rand is for you.
Now, we have this guy Paul Ryan whose policies embody this mentality. He really, truly wants to turn our society into one in which the rich bear absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for providing the means for the poor to become educated and gainfully employed. This follows naturally from what Mr. Ryan got from Ayn Rand--that the rich are good, productive people, and that the poor are bad, worthless people who deserve no assistance whatsoever. And far from belonging to a fringe element, Paul Ryan is the ideological standard-bearer for the Republican Party and its candidate for vice president.
I don't think we could ever have gotten to this point if we didn't have a black president. The ascension of a guy like Paul Ryan can only happen if poor white people are able to be manipulated into voting for things that are really, truly, diametrically contrary to their interests, as opposed to just somewhat or mildly so. And the way you manipulate poor white people is by telling them that the government is going to take their money and give it to poor black people.
I made the point below, and someone replied, but before I could reply it got buried in other comments. The article says, "Who denies all of a writer's works because some of those works are girded by atheism." Which suggests that the only problem with Rand's philosophy for a Catholic is that it's atheistic. But I would say that Rand's philosophy is antagonistic to Christianity to its core, and it's completely unbelievable that Ryan could quote different speeches from the book as advice for life and still think it was compatible with his Catholicism.
I challenge people like Ryan to name a single sentence that Jesus said that Rand would agree with...
"Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours."
Nope.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land."
Nope.
"Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant."
Nope.
"But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow."
This is the antithesis of "Atlas Shrugged."
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."
(I guess Rand would agree with that if she could take it out of context and interpret that to mean, "Give to Tiberius Caesar his own personal property, and give nothing to non-existent beings." But in context, Jesus was saying, "You use Roman money, so pay Roman taxes, but in all things, you must have complete devotion to God." Rand would have spat on him.)
I guess she would say she agrees with "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you," but she would add the caveat "Unless they're passengers on your train. Then you can murder them with impunity."
How about the apostles, who St. Luke says, "had all things in common. They would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need." Rand would say they were just giving in to moochers.
Is there a single Catholic saint Rand would not have thought of with contempt? St. Francis of Assisi-giving away his possessions, mooching off of others. St. Joan of Arc, dying for a statist regime. St. Thomas More, who died "the king's good servant but God's first."
Maybe Ryan thinks her political and economic conclusions were right while all of her philosophical and moral premises were wrong?
(Your run of the mill Christian libertarian, who thinks that we have a duty to private charity but doesn't think that caring for the poor and weak is the proper role of government, is a different story. I'm talking just Ayn Rand's philosophy.)
------------------------------
aubergine:
Then there's Aquinas, who Ryan now claims to prefer over Rand: "Man should not consider his material possession his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need."
Put that in your pipe, Comrade Paul, and smoke it.
-------------------------------
zztop:
The notion of the rugged individual is very seductive, especially to weak people.
-----------------------------------
James:
Eat the poor. They'll make more.
--------------------------------
Jerome Graber:
The problem with Rand is the problem with most all zealots. She has discovered one small truth that applies to one small aspect of life - in her case, economics - and blows it all out of proportion to try to make it apply to all of life.
· Reply
zztop: Well, Rand's objectivism is concerned with orthodoxy and so are fundamental Christians. I think that's the glue that binds them. The details don't matter as much as the complete devotion to ideology and desire to avoid or discount or oppress any complicating critique by virtue of its unorthodoxy.
· Reply
Jerome Graber: Nah, it's simpler than that, I think. Rand saw the oppression of communism, rightly recognized that private property and free markets are a better way to organize economic life, and then mistook this insight for a universal truth.
But most of life, and the most important parts of life, are not governed by economic principles. My family comes immediately to mind.
__________________________________________
inkblot:
[....] The people who gravitate to Ayn Rand are bitter, resentful human beings who are often young and in search of an identity. If you are a guy in his twenties and you feel disaffected and frustrated, and you want more than anything to be patted on the head for looking down on your fellow man, then Ayn Rand is for you.
Now, we have this guy Paul Ryan whose policies embody this mentality. He really, truly wants to turn our society into one in which the rich bear absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for providing the means for the poor to become educated and gainfully employed. This follows naturally from what Mr. Ryan got from Ayn Rand--that the rich are good, productive people, and that the poor are bad, worthless people who deserve no assistance whatsoever. And far from belonging to a fringe element, Paul Ryan is the ideological standard-bearer for the Republican Party and its candidate for vice president.
I don't think we could ever have gotten to this point if we didn't have a black president. The ascension of a guy like Paul Ryan can only happen if poor white people are able to be manipulated into voting for things that are really, truly, diametrically contrary to their interests, as opposed to just somewhat or mildly so. And the way you manipulate poor white people is by telling them that the government is going to take their money and give it to poor black people.
No comments:
Post a Comment