Star Spangled Staggers

US politics from outside the beltway

Syndicate contentRSS

Paul Ryan and the obnoxious creed of Ayn Rand

It's easy to understand how Ayn Rand came to her dark judgement – but not why Paul Ryan thinks it will help him run the country.

Ayn Rand's terrible novel, the Fountainhead. Photograph: Getty Images
Ayn Rand's terrible novel, the Fountainhead. Photograph: Getty Images

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, has not received a fraction of the coverage which Sarah Palin had four years ago. However, he may well prove the more significant and dangerous politician. Whatever the result on 6 November, Congressman Ryan, aged only 42, is now a front runner to be a future Republican presidential candidate.

More than his Tea Party approved economics, it is Ryan’s support for the morality of Ayn Rand which should lead people to fear a Ryan presidency (or to fear having Ryan a heartbeat from the job).

Ayn Rand is not so well known in the UK but she is almost a household name in the USA. She can be described as an author, a philosopher or a cult leader. She came to the USA from the USSR in 1926, aged 21, and died in New York in 1982. Her ideas have been influential in the USA and more widely ever since. One of her closest disciples was Alan Greenspan who was at the heart of the world’s financial system as Chairman of the Federal Reserve between 1987 and 2006. Millions of copies of her books have been sold and, in a survey by the Library of Congress, her novel Atlas Shrugged was said to be the second most influential book in the USA, after the Bible. She is an icon of the Tea Party.

Rand advocated laissez-faire capitalism, low taxes, minimal regulation and a very small state, little more than armed forces, a police force and court system. These ideas on politics and economics, however, are not the ones that arouse the strongest opposition. It is Rand’s teachings on morality which are truly shocking.

Rand’s core belief, as set out in books like The Virtue of Selfishness, was the idea that selfishness is morally good and altruism is morally bad. The idea runs so counter to all that is taught by the world’s religions, humanist teachings and, indeed, in families and schools that it is difficult to comprehend. Gore Vidal wrote that Rand “must be read to be believed.” He also concluded that Rand’s “”philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality.”

It is easy to imagine how Rand came to her dark judgement on human nature. She was born in St Petersburg in Tsarist Russia in 1905 and when she was aged 12 she saw her family’s business confiscated and their lives destroyed by the Bolsheviks in the name of the collective. For Rand, money was the measure of success; relationships were not important. In a fitting piece of symbolism, at her funeral a six foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was given pride of place.

In Rand’s world-view, the CEOs of large corporations in particular and the rich in general are heroic and should be praised and the poor are lazy and feckless and should be despised. Over the last three decades, such ideas have become commonplace in the speeches of many on the right on both sides of the Atlantic, blind to such factors as personal circumstances, privilege, disadvantage, skulduggery and luck in creating wealth and poverty.

Margaret Thatcher’s notorious declaration that “there is no such thing as society” was of a piece with Rand’s philosophy. Although, to be fair to Thatcher, she at least thought the family was important; Rand thought it was the individual alone.

Unsurprisingly, Rand’s philosophy is popular among the very rich. It shows them as morally virtuous and even allows them to claim that it is they who are the victims – of overbearing government.

Paul Ryan has spoken publicly about his admiration for Rand. He has said her books taught him his value system and beliefs and that she inspired him to get involved in public service. He used to tell his congressional staff that they must read Rand and gave them copies of Atlas Shrugged as Christmas presents.

In 2012, Ryan has been trying to distance himself from too close an identification with Rand’s philosophy. After all, parts of that philosophy such as Rand’s militant atheism and her pro-choice views are toxic in today’s Republican Party.

Ryan, however, has not sought to disown Rand’s obnoxious creed that selfishness is moral and altruism is immoral. That fact alone makes Paul Ryan a dangerous politician.

19 comments

Hugo's picture

This'd be the same Gore Vidal who snuggles up to the anti-semites and conspiracy mongers, yes?

"In Rand’s world-view, the CEOs of large corporations in particular and the rich in general are heroic and should be praised and the poor are lazy and feckless and should be despised. "

To Mr. London, someday I may read a critique of Miss Rand that doesn't lie - just flat out lie - about what she wrote. Yours isn't it.

AMAI's picture

It is refreshing to see at least one commenter who really knows Ayn Rand's work, stand up and be counted. Thank you, "John Bales."

Rand advocated rational selfishness, individual rights, freedom, capitalism, productivity and trade, as well as integrity, independence, honesty, justice and self-esteem. Her views on the nature of virtue itself are important to understand why she rejects altruism as moral and rejects sacrifice completely. In her view, there is no justification for making sacrifices - for exchanging something one values more, for something one values less or not at all. The basic principle of "win/win transactions" is that both parties to a transaction view the result as of benefit. That is the meaning of "mutually beneficially." It does not mean that each party is identically enriched, but rather that each considers himself better off. The farmer with buckets of produce to sell is happier with the pocket of money to buy other things he needs; each purchaser is happier to have some fresh food instead of that money in his pocket. Both parties have come away from the transaction voluntarily entered into, happy with the outcome.

Man's basic means of knowledge is reason, not faith. Man's tool of survival is his mind, the rational faculty. We can no more think collectively than we can digest food collectively. That tool is one that does not function automatically. Each individual must choose to think, at every moment in every activity. Each of us must constantly be making decisions that may not seem like "life or death" alternatives, as in fact nowadays they rarely are. Thanks to centuries of trial and error, and learning from experience, much knowledge has been gained and passed down generation to generation, such that we don't have to keep discovering anew how to turn elements, plants and animals into food, shelter, clothing and all the things we now take for granted.

The choice to think and the need to act on one's thinking requires one thing: that we be free from coercion/threat or actual physical force used against us to prevent us from acting on our own judgment about what to do with our lives. Making those decisions is the essence of rational selfishness - thinking and planning and acting to achieve goals that support our lives and the lives of those we care about. Selfishness in this sense does not mean doing what the hell you want on a whim or for no reason; it means acting in one's own best interest. There is nothing to prevent each person from living selfishly by this meaning of selfishness. The more people who understand and live by the ideas of Ayn Rand, the happier, more productive and more wealthy they all become.

Ayn Rand did not view "the rich" as heroic and "the poor" as evil or rotten. Rather, she drew the line between "productive" and "non-productive." There are leaches and moochers in all strata of life. They are not only found in the poorest communities but also the middle class and the richest. Being productive, trading with others and not expecting or demanding the unearned: that is the sort of person who earns moral credit in her view, regardless of the extent to which they achieved monetary success.

charliechalk's picture

altruism does not mean feeding anothers kid before your own, it simply means feeding anothers kid, even if its not your kid and you have nothing to gain by feeding him/her and may even have to walk down the street to do it you still feed the kid. thats altruism, not doing it at the expense of your own kid.

MikeH's picture

You should try telling that to Auguste Comte, the man who coined the term 'altruism' and described exactly what he meant by it. The actual doctrine of altruism implies that, yes, you should absolutely feed someone else's child before your own because otherwise you're being selfish and putting your love for your own child above the needs of other people.

Wavy Davey in t' Gravy's picture

Rand's philosophy and certain elements of game theroy have caused huge problems over the past century. Those in positions of authority-Alan Greenspan being the clearest example- have been swayed by ideas that do not have actual human behaviours and emotions 'written in'. So you have the sociopathic babblings of Rand on one hand and the assumption within game theory that people will behave in consistently predictable ways (like robots) on the other. These in turn lead to actions (policy decisions and the like) that at best can be considered as misguided or, at worst, based on a legitimising narratives (Rand's philosophy/ elements of game theory) for those more concerned with feathering their own nests than progress for humanity.

The left have the evidence (in the form of valid-and valid is the keyword here-academic work and historical examples) to prove why we need to move away from this way of thinking. This evdience must be used by the left (or by moderate Conservatives who surely have the sense to see Rand's and other nonsense for what it is) to break the hold this drivel has over those in power and to prevent its normalisation in public discourse. The evidence must be used to form the basis of social policy.

Also, Mitt himself is fan of Rand- think how well Rand's idea that common people are scum tie in with Romney's 47% quote.

Colin Sloss's picture

I read some of Atlas S, terrible, she was no writer. It probably seems intelectual to Americans!

Ted Schrey     Montreal's picture

I agree with Benjamin Rae. Rand wrote rubbish, but dangerous rubbish. I always assumed she was Hitler's longlost wife--or at least soulmate. 'Nuff said.

John Cheese's picture

Down to last 2 weeks to election to crown the Grand Poobah of the World. Lefty/Dems are throwing everything they can to see what might stick.. No plan, no ideas, no success. This last debate may be classic, on foreign policy, in which Barry's global policy is burning up & he will be called on the carpet. Don't miss this one. All evidence points to R2's surging success. Wouldn't want to be street level in Syria or Libya for the next 14 days if wag-the-dog happens. UNBAMA!

Terry Chillean (miner)'s picture

Babble, babble
I think you might need to be under 24hr watch
when the Democrats get their man...
Leave you belt and shoe laces at reception...

No matter how much you believe a fantasy
thats all it is...fantasy.

Dude I wanted a light saber sooo bad when I was younger
Guess what...

John Cheese's picture

Terry Terry Fo Fairy: You would make a US Dem because you have nothing of substance to say. I credit this to you being across the pond, so it's understandable. It is amusing though. Hanging on to "the Dream" I see. Faithfully ignorant. Your canary is dead, you just don't know it yet...

Terry Chillean (miner)'s picture

I'll say it again...read carefully.
b a b b l e , b a b b l e . . .

Last word grade...F-

Eric Rinard's picture

Rand's "selfishness" is no different than a flight attendant's instruction to affix your own oxygen mask first, before helping others. Altruism teaches that helping yourself first is "immoral." But how does a dead man (or impoverished or unhappy man) help anyone, even as small a group as himself, much less his own family?

Beware of those who tell you not to read for yourself and seek to form your opinions for you - they seek to rule you.

jankaas's picture

"Rand's "selfishness" is no different than a flight attendant's instruction to affix your own oxygen mask first, before helping others."

ok, let's work with that analogy and apply it to Paul Ryan's position. he would be the one who denies that he himself had used an oxygen mask to survive, would deny oxygen masks to those who had merely bought a flight ticket and thought it part of the deal, and would allow access to the precious oxygen only to the 1% who could afford to pay for oxygen.

"Altruism teaches that helping yourself first is "immoral.""
that is simply not true. no wonder you come across as confused.

John Cheese's picture

Jankers: Ryan's father passed away early & he and his mother were granted aide for this. He spoke about it at the VP debate- weren't you listening? Saving a program, eliminating waste & excess is important and difficult. Austerity is the better way long-term, you just need an adult in charge, to do the hard work. I think you are a bit jealous & envious of the US because we still have a shot at having something you will never experience. Carry on sourpuss...
Romney has already said he is OK with one term. And that's fine, due to the Tea Parties & their candidates nationally. We are legion & will not give up. The Balanced Budget is coming to America!
I initially thought more highly of you, but now I realize you just fall into the hyped up emoticon bunch- hystronics & emotions... uhh, go take a douche!

jankaas's picture

.

John Bales's picture

This writer fails to note that Ayn Rand did not agree with the commonplace ideas of "selfishness" and "altruism." This is an important omission. And since her views on the subject are widely available, I doubt that it an innocent omission.

Rand belived in selfishness in an Aristotelian sense of "self-interest properly understood." To Rand, selfishness consisted in hewing to the virtues of rationality, productiveness, pride, independence, integrity, honesty and justice. She believed that men should pursue their values by production and trade, and that no one should seek to obtain values from others by initiating the use of force. She was a strong advocate of the rights of individuals. Rand defined altruism as did Compte as placing the interests of others above your own--feeding your neighbor's child before feeding your own child, for example. In common usage selfishness means pursuing ones values by hook or crook with no concern for the rights of others. Rand considered such behaviour immoral and not in ones self-interest. She believed that one is properly concerned with ones own values, including the well-being of friends and family. Her philosophy, Objectivism is a benevolent philosphy. If one does not get that message from this article, then one has been misled by it.

Lulz's picture

LOLZ!!!!!!

Lulz's picture

LOLZ!!!!!!

Benjamin Rae's picture

Ayn Rand's books and 'philosophy' are utter nonsense. Since 2008 it should be abundantly clear to even his ilk that it was as well. It's like creationism. It's doeasn't matter how much evidence there is to the contrary it doesn't shift their position.
It's crazy that someone who believed such rubbish could rise to such prominence in politics even after the experience of Greenspan and others.
After the Great Depression then recession it's madness these people continue to have influence

Latest tweets