Paul Ryan’s Unseen Hand – The Ghost of Ayn Rand

Featured

Posted on by

Ayn Rand provided the intellectual fuel for the political ascendancy of Paul Ryan.  Her ideas are also echoed in Mitt Romney’s dystopian vision for America, where you’re either a producer or a parasite, firing people is celebrated as an exercise of individual rights, and a company is a person.

Those poor rich people — according to Rand, they’re being manipulated and unfairly “guilted” into helping others. In Rand’s world, altruism is at odds with individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. They are very sensitive, those Masters of the Universe and One-Percenters, whom Rand calls Prime Movers. In Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, when the producers are demonized and punished for their accomplishments, society slows to a near halt. (Think Romney/Ryan in their insistence that Obama is “punishing wealth creators.”)

Atlas Shrugged provides the conservatives’ answer to Hillary’s It Takes a Village. Asking individuals to sacrifice for the common good turns producers into victims, another interest group whose rights have been trampled on. Don’t you feel their pain? When Atlas shrugs, it means he has liberated himself from the burden of carrying the world–and caring about the world. Now he is free to doggedly pursue his self-interest, as he is naturally programmed to do. It is morally, according to Rand’s view, the right way to organize a society.

Talk about contrasting visions. Ayn Rand should be the Democrats’ Saul Alinsky. Let’s put Rand on trial the way Sean Hannity demonized little known Alinsky and tried to link him to Obama as if they were joined at the hip. Here’s quintessential Hannity:

 “…then-State Senator Barack Obama agreed to appear at a play called, “The Love Song of Saul Alinsky,” honoring the life and times of left-wing radical Saul Alinsky.  The post-game show included a real panel discussion featuring Senator Barack Obama as well as some of Alinsky’s closest friends and even yes, a handful of communist sympathizers.”

Ayn Rand coined the term Objectivism to describe her brand of “philosophy,” though political ideology may be more accurate.  Her ideas have long been absorbed and adopted by Libertarians, but now her credo that selfishness is a virtue and her elevation of individual rights above the common good are dogma in the Republican Party.

Ryan wasn’t merely exposed to Rand. He had what might be called an intellectual love affair with her over many years, and he still hasn’t gotten over her. Her words inspired him to run for office. He even handed out copies of Ayn Rand’s treatises to his staff and made sure they read every word. Therefore, as Sean Hannity would say, the American people have a right to know what Ayn Rand stood for, what her core beliefs were, and how they shaped Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.  Here’s just a taste:

  • She called Christianity “the best kindergarten of communism possible.” An avid atheist, she saw religions’ support for the common good a violation of individual rights.
  • Rand believed “the essence of femininity is hero worship – the desire to look up to man” and that “an ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind.”
  • She supported abortion rights.
  • She opposed the Vietnam War.
  • She believed in UNRESTRAINED capitalism.
  • She sided with Israel during the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, characterizing it as “civilized men fighting savages.”
  • Rand thought European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians.
  • She believed affirmative action is legal racism.
  • She not only supported the right of publishers to produce pornography, but she went farther, arguing for no age restrictions.
  • She deemed homosexuality immoral and disgusting.
  • She was a board member of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The group, comprised of Hollywood reactionary types like Ronald Reagan, was formed to provide testimony to Congress on suspected Communists in the film industry.
  • She believed a restaurant or any other business has the right to discriminate against gay people.
  • Rand had an “open marriage,” engaging in an affair with a younger man while she was married.

That’s quite a list, and it doesn’t make Rand seem like a nice person, does it? Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, on the other hand, seem very nice.

But their ideas are very mean.

Please LIKE us on Facebook!!

https://www.facebook.com/Improperganda?fref=ts

FISCAL CLIFF STANDOFF: TIME’s Michael Grunwald Says Republicans Negotiating “Terms of Their Surrender”

Posted on by
Reply

In an interview with WHYY’s Radio Times, Time magazine senior correspondent Michael Grunwald says Republicans are “negotiating the terms of their surrender,” characterizes the fiscal cliff as a “manufactured crisis,” and labels his colleagues in the media as “enablers” of Republican hypocrisy.

Listen to the 52-minute interview HERE or see highlights below:

The “fiscal cliff” is really a slope. “It’s not like on Jan. 1st there’s an immediate five-hundred billion dollar austerity hit. Taxes will go up…there are spending cuts that will be phased in [but] over ten years. It’s not like huge chunks of the government immediately disappear. It’s not like the deficit suddenly explodes—it’s quite the opposite. We start to go on this gradual slope towards a lower deficit.”

“The whole point of the fiscal cliff was that these tax increases and spending cuts were supposed to be so unpalatable that nobody would want them, and therefore the two sides would be forced to come to a deal for this grand bargain on long-term deficit reduction.”

“You can already see Republicans negotiating the terms of their surrender.  Everybody seems to want these middle-class tax cuts to be extended. The question is how to let the upper income tax cuts expire without Republican fingerprints, which shouldn’t be that difficult.”

On the role of the media

Grunwald is disturbed by “the media’s enabling not only of Republican hypocrisy, but Republican B.S. Reasonable people can disagree about some of these policy issues, but the facts are the facts.”

“What kind of irritates me is the way my colleagues in the mainstream media–we don’t know how to deal with this. We just sort of dutifully pass along their claims that they don’t want to cut Medicare, and then the next day we pass along their claims that Obama is insufficiently ambitious in cutting Medicare. It’s as if yesterday never happened and every day is a new day in Washington.”

Social Media Spotlight: Retweet Disclaimers — Top 10 List

Posted on by
Reply

Will opinion shift? Will newsrooms hear my cry to “Ditch the Disclaimer?” We can only hope. In the meantime, how are members of the media handling the RT edict? With wit, occasional annoyance, and sarcasm – at least according to the sample of writers and reporters I’m following on Twitter.

Top Ten Retweet Disclaimers

10. @josheidelson: “Usual disclaimers.” He doesn’t need to spell them out. You already know and so does he. That’s insider cool.

9. @AndrewBlotky covers all bases, even throwing a bone to the underappreciated MT: “RTs/MTs not endorsements.”

8. @poliblogdirect “We will RT, link, follow back and comment.” What, um, won’t you do?

7. Mr. Turnbull cautions that, “Retweet is not ipso facto an endorsement.” @TurnbullMalcolm That kind of language isn’t called for, sir.

6.  Tracie Winch: “All views are my own. No one else wants them.” @blardyblah

5. Jake Tapper: “Dissecting my tweets with Talmudic meticulousness will result in wrong conclusions.” @jaketapper Next time my fiancé, staring at me incredulously, says, “What exactly did you mean by that,” I have my reply at the ready: “Sweetie, dissecting my words with Talmudic meticulousness will result in wrong conclusions.” What could she possibly say after that?

4. Matt Pearce:  “All retweets heavily paid endorsements. Bread makes you fat.” @mattdpearce

3.  Jodi Rudoren  “Tweets mean hey, look at this, nothing more.” @rudoren

2. Patrick LaForge “Retweets are reportage.” @palafo

1. Hendrik Hertzberg ‏: “Tweets are usually endorsements, but sometimes they’re the equivalent of picking something up with a pair of tongs.” @RickHertzberg

Come across any equally inventive, insightful, or ironic disclaimers? Share them @improper_ganda

Why Retweet Disclaimers are Really, Really Lame – Top Ten List

Posted on by
Reply

RTs aren’t endorsements

Isn’t it time for newsroom chiefs to put a red line through this silly disclaimer? Breaking News – I was never seeking your endorsement to begin with. Don’t get me wrong, I like your work plenty, but don’t you think it’s a little presumptuous, Mr. Reporter, for you to assume I want your endorsement? Granted, I wouldn’t refuse it were you to give it to me–not closing any doors. The truth is, I was looking for…for…well, not your endorsement but your validation. That’s right, I said it. I wanted you to make me feel smart and liked, for a few blissful moments in time. Is that so much to ask?

“Top Ten Reasons Why RT Disclaimers are Really, Really Lame”:

10. They invite mockery more than they dispel bias. Media don’t need to fuel their foes.

9. When there’s a murder, do I assume that the reporter is endorsing the crime? When he quotes the police chief, do I assume he’s endorsing him? He’s implicitly endorsing the source’s authority and credibility, but the content? It’s a stretch.

8. If the perception of journalistic independence is a real problem, simply saying you’re not biased won’t make it go away. It won’t convince the Bubble’s inhabitants to stop their war on facts, nor lessen their loathing of the media.

7. Endorsement is not a very elegant or precise term. Your dad may or may not endorse your decision to major in creative writing, or endorse your “lifestyle.” A newspaper may endorse a candidate. The word is not a synonym for merely liking something or finding it noteworthy. Isn’t it usually reserved for meatier issues than retweets? Our nation’s best wordsmiths can do better.

6. If appearance of neutrality is such a big deal on Twitter, why doesn’t the same apply to print? Let’s insist on something like this on the business page: “All quotes, studies cited, and product/company mentions are not endorsements.” Didn’t think so.

5. If media companies are so concerned about maintaining the appearance of objectivity, why employ their reporters as brand ambassadors on Twitter in the first place?

4. They are arguably a form of self-censorship.

3. Like most disclaimers, over time they cease to mean anything and are regarded as CYA boilerplate.

2. They are an example of cowing to, conceding, and legitimizing the right’s bogus war on the media.

1. They’re not an exercise in good management. You hired said reporter partly because, as a journalist, she shows good judgment and discretion. Trust her. Micromanaging reporters’ tweets is insulting, intrusive and really, really lame.

Give an Inch, They’ll Take a Mile: Why Slippery Slopes Lead to Political Gridlock

Posted on by
2

We love to celebrate men and women of principle–even more, maybe, than men of action. We engage in rhetorical wars in defense of our principles and values, and we die for them too. Being principled means not caving in. It means being an absolutist. Any concession or even hint of compromise is to be resisted. Even the smallest limitation that Congress might impose is an infringement on our freedom. It will chip away, dilute, and eventually destroy our liberties. The world will basically come to an end.

Slippery slope arguments are being employed in the Fiscal Cliff standoff, and are commonly used as an intellectual basis for opposing gun-control laws, tax increases, and a host of other issues.

The problem with the slippery slope and other absolutist positions is that they are anything but intellectual. They shut down dialogue and make compromise nearly impossible. How can we ever gain consensus if neither party is willing to give an inch? Being an Ayn Rand absolutist may give you street cred with the think-tanks, but the world of politics is messier. It’s hard to be an absolutist and also be a doer.

I am not advocating that either side of the aisle surrender deeply held convictions and principles. But principles should be guidelines for behavior, not holy commandments. Sometimes, in the name of getting things done, you may have to veer off the beaten path; you may, that is, have to repackage, reinvent, and recast your principles for a changing world. If you want to be a conservative activist or align with a liberal advocacy group, then absolutism will serve you well. Just don’t run for congress. Because that’s an institution that requires people from different regions and walks of life to come together and, well, make shit happen. We need leaders who know when to put action ahead of principles, leaders who are guided by big ideas but not slave to them.

As the late William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote in 1974, “Intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism.”

****

Rethinking Journalistic Neutrality: Should Media Throw a Flag?

Posted on by
2

The idea of journalistic independence has always been something of a myth. In a similar vein, no one really believes that the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are independent and objective, not in a literal sense. In both cases, independence seems more like a vision statement than a mission statement, an ideal to strive for and against which journalists can measure themselves.

The problem is when a well intended principle becomes inflexible dogma, an end in itself. Fanatical adherence to neutrality is testing readers’ patience; increasingly, they have little use for a media that objectively and calmly narrates even the most outrageous claims and crap disseminated by campaigns in both parties. We’re starting to perceive media as that ref who sees an obvious foul but refuses to throw a flag. As NYU journalism guru Jay Rosen said in a Twitter message:  “Slowly, slowly, the idea is taking root: that explicitly calling out BS should be a routine part of reporting the news.”

Hardly the Grinch: Mitt Romney Gave the Gift of Pork

Posted on by
Reply

Romney wants us to believe that Obama won by playing Santa Claus.

And yet, Romney was among the most generous gift-givers as governor, meting out pork to his constituents and interest groups with zest and zeal. Indeed, Romney was the turnaround specialist he portrays. Initially, according to Mother Jones, his administration bemoaned “its low ranking in an annual ‘pork list’ detailing which states brought home the most federal bacon.” But Romney and his team were not deterred. We shall overcome! The administration devised a plan to increase its share of pork, a goal that it would ultimately achieve. “Between 2003, when Romney took office, and 2006, Massachusetts climbed as high as nine spots in the pork rankings.”

Brain Porn Gone Wild

Posted on by
Reply

Recommended reading: Alissa Quart’s opinion piece, “Neuroscience: Under Attack,” in today’s New York Times. It’s a well-written rant against a recent crew of neuroscience popularizers, including Malcolm Gladwell, Chris Mooney and Jonah Lehrer, who, she contends, are giving “vague, undisciplined thinking the look of seriousness and truth.”

Brain porn might provide short-term gratification, but it can be highly addictive. “As a journalist and cultural critic,” she writes, “I applaud the backlash against what is sometimes called brain porn, which raises important questions about this reductionist, sloppy thinking and our willingness to accept seemingly neuroscientific explanations for, well, nearly everything.”

Sounds like intellectual territorialism to me, or just old-fashioned snobbery—not unlike the way that many traditional journalists feel about bloggers. Most interesting is who she cites (and doesn’t cite) to buttress her case. We don’t hear from the Society for Neuroscience, or from voices representing the scientific establishment. Maybe one reason she doesn’t cite opinion leaders like the New York Times’ David Brooks is because he is part of her problem, a self-appointed popularizer of the social sciences, and has been widely criticized for his “reductionist” thinking. Nor does she quote the New York Times’ Paul Krugman – just a hunch, but could it be that he too is a popularizer – in this case, of economics? Or is it because Mr. Krugman was already on the record in support of Chris Mooney’s “The Republican Brain,” which he termed “a survey of the now-extensive research linking political views to personality types.” 

If not the scientific establishment, then who are the voices out front on this issue? Who are her go-to sources? Here’s the answer: the guys who, um, you know, sort of write stuff online, or as she put it: “A gaggle of energetic and amusing, mostly anonymous, neuroscience bloggers.” Yes, the dirty and much despised blogger class.

Hey, if you can’t beat them, join them.