Ayn Rand's View of Conservatives...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


For the purpose of clarification with respect to Ayn Rand's view of conservatives... and why I find it so utterly amusing that most conservatives fail to recognize that there is little relationship, if any between her views and theirs. In her on words...

“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.

What are the “conservatives”? What is it that they are seeking to “conserve”?

It is generally understood that those who support the “conservatives,” expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of “the American way of life.” The moral treason of the “conservative” leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined—and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.

If the “conservatives” do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the “conservatives” dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.

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?

These are the “conservatives”—or most of their intellectual spokesmen.

There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

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 only 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 . . . .

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word “conservative” into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a “conservative” means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old . . . .

The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.

This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists. {Reference - Ayn Rand Lexicon}

This is precisely why I have always consider myself a Independent Conservative. I, like millions of others simply refuse to think as a member of a collective. Which is precisely what political parties are.

Considering the present state of conservatism I am rapidly beginning to realize I am much closer to a classical liberal than any brand of conservatism.

Comments

  1. Hayek also famously wrote an essay on why he was not a conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is why I am a Conservative, and not a "Rand-ian". (No offense, Les. I simply do not think she is all that and a bag of Oreo's. She had some cool quotes, but...she fails to inspire me. Again, no offense intended. I know you quite like her.)

    My Conservatism has no fealty to anyone, and is the product of years of hammering and polishing. I detest the GOP as a failed party, I loathe the Democrat, I mean, Socialist Party, and I find the majority of fringe political groups to be nutjobs.

    The only modern-day "movement" that has garnered my interest is the TEA Party mindset.

    Anyhoos, thanks for allowing me to rant, Les. Like I said, no offense intended regarding my opinion of Ayn Rand and yours. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. For those who,like myself, have read most everything Rand wrote, as well as material written by others on her philosophy it is easy to understand why she is so controversial.

    She simply viewed reason as the only absolute, and she refused to conform to what she viewed as the irrationality of not only conservatives but liberals as well. {Perhaps this is why I admire her example}

    Rand was human, she certainly was not perfect having flaws just as all humans do. She nonetheless was in my opinion one of the 20th centuries brilliant philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One trouble with Rand's theories is that she seems to neglect the scientific fact that human beings are social animals that form groups and that that is actually good for them. Altruism - like collectivism, tribalism, and other such group arrangements - is not some silly philosophy, but rather a natural, evolutionary human condition: 'You scratch me back, I'll scratch your's.' Rand's philosophy always struck me as unrealistic and unscientific, ascribing natural human conditions to misguided philosophies, and insisting that people are far more individualistic than they plainly are not.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. So say you JMJ. I suspect you are not individualistic. On the other hand I am, and I suspect there are a lot more that are than you realize.

    more to come...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jersey proves once again that he doesn't understand Rand. I would be surprised if he has ever actually read Rand to any meaningful degree, but it's clear that, if he has, he didn't understand what he was reading. Apparently he also doesn't understand that there's a universe of difference between choosing to engage in social interaction, cooperation, etc., with others and being forced to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Les, everyone is more or less individualistic, just like everyone is more or less social. We're all a little different. But we are all also human beings, and that means we are social animals. Period.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bastiatarian - I guess we need say no more.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ecc said: "She had some cool quotes"

    How about this dandy quote from Rand?

    "I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages"

    And this:

    "you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights."

    Rand was for the liberties of people except those people she considered to be sub-human by dint of their race.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JMJ: Of course we are social animals. And of course we should organize together. The voluntary organizations typically called corporations (or businesses), in which all participate only of they perceive a benefit are a great example of this. Cooperation to the benefit of all involved. It's humanity at its best, and of course is the environment that gave us Jobs and Edison.

    Governments, especially socialist ones, are not good examples of good cooperation. They too often tend to by dictatorships and tyrannies in which there is individualism (the individualism of the leader at the expense of all others), and the participation is forced, often at gunpoint. Participate or we will shoot you. No consent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @dmarks,

    I am woefully unaware of the fullness of Ayn's quotes. I admit I find her to be much more cerebral than I, and I do not always "get" her thoughts.

    As to the quotes you offered, I can comment not on them to any extent, as I am unfamiliar with them. But on the first-reaction, I find the quotes you gave me to be ridiculous and moronic.

    I'm sure, however, that Ayn is more than those two quotes. (Not that I am defending her, no.) Perhaps Les could shed some light onto this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ecc 102 - dmarks for whatever reason has chose to use selective quotes that intentionally but Rand in the worst possible light. I am familiar with these quotes. To make a proper judgement they should be read within the full text of her writing.

    I cannot remember off the top of my head where she addressed this issue. I will check my study notes and provide you with a link to the full discussion.

    As Indians I suppose fall into a different racial group than Europeans one could make the argument Rand was racist. Following is what se said about racism...

    "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

    Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

    Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination."

    The quotes dmarks presented need to be rad in the full context of hr reasoning. I will as soon as I can provide you with that material.

    Frankly I need to revisit because this may be an area where Rand perhaps accepted a contradiction as reason. Something her own philosophy of Objectivism disallows.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can find even worse quotes from Karl Marx, though.

    The discussion of the Rand quotes came from here. I agree with Rob's condemnation of the quotes, but his criticism of libertarianism is rather sketchy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dmarks- I need only scan the source to realize Bob, while being partially correct makes some significant leaps and obviously has not read much of Rand's writings.

    He is writing with a typical liberal bias, although he does maintain a modicum of rationality. Something many don't.

    ReplyDelete
  15. dmarks,

    are you an anarchist? Do you honestly believe the corporation is a preferable mechanism for governance than the US Constitution? Are corporations even possible without government? Are corporations as you see them even possible without the US Constitution?

    And if you want to argue the constitutionality of our current government, have you considered all our American history, society, the wording of the Constitution itself? I've read a zillion bloggers complaints about a zillion functions of government, but only rarely a reasonable constitutional argument.

    If you are an anarchist, then okay, whatever. You sure sound like one.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, and though Rand sounds brilliant in her thoughts on race, and though we should heed her attitude and become one race in our minds (because we really are), she gets the science just a little wrong.

    The human brain flight/fight response to meeting other human beings that are somehow physically different, or even just a stranger with familiar looks, is hardwired into our brains. Early in our ancestry, there were quite a variety of "homos" running around out there, and a common result of an encounter between two different-looking "races" was distrust, abuse and violence. This evolutionary trait has played out throughout our history to today.

    Rand's assertion that it is foolish and misplaced is correct. That is because today, all people throughout the world are expected to be generally "civilized" with all of each other. It is a modern observation. She's right. We should try to look beyond race. I'm grateful I live in a country that at least tries to do that - with that oh so evil and oppressive gov't of ours! LOL!

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  17. A lot of myth surrounds Ayn Rand. Both liberal and conservative non reasoning collectivists are primarily responsible for this.

    The obvious reason WAS and REMAINS to destroy her and her philosophy.

    This link below is a source for factual responses {answers} to false myths the non reasoning conservatives and liberals have spread. Use it to debunk the lies.

    http://www.aynrandmyths.com/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

As the Obama Administration and a Compliant Lame Stream Media Continue the Benghazi Spin...

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

Another Republican Accused Of Sexual Misconduct...

The "Scandal" That Won't Go Away...

Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...

Democrats Bought By Special Interest Money, and They Say It's All Republicans...

The Public's Trust In Government on the Decline...

Explain This Liberals...