My most recent post linked to an article by Tim Wise that strongly criticizes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and points out that her writings have recently become extremely popular among among right-wing Republicans seeking a philosophical backing for their opposition to President Obama’s economic policies.
I’ll freely admit that in making the post (and the previous one, which linked to a Rod Dreher article and was, it appears, less controversial), I broke two of my own personal blogging rules. First off, I try to refrain from posting in anger, but this time passion got the better of me after seeing yet more footage from the tea parties and town hall scream-fests that have become ubiquitous over the past few months. This led to my violation of my second rule, which is to not re-post anything written by someone else without adding my own thoughts. With this in mind, here are the points that I wanted to make when I posted Tim Wise’s article:
1. Far from being an obscure philosophy that is roundly rejected by the modern conservative movement, Rand’s way of thinking is, in fact, making a comeback. You see it not only in the “going John Galt” signs that are highly popular at tea parties these days, but also in a much more visceral sinister form in people whose idea of activism is shouting down cancer patients at town halls. You see it in an entire movement that is red-faced screaming insane over the prospect of “big government,” but not at all angry over the fact that thousands of people every year die in the richest country in the world because they cannot afford health care. And I’m sorry, but who do you think is buying all those copies of Atlas Shrugged on Amazon? It ain’t liberal Democrats.
2. Even though it should be obvious that this way of thinking is completely antithetical to a true pro-life mindset, the pro-life movement has, through its association with American conservatism, become infected with Randian thinking. Again, to use the example of the “tea party” rallies: I saw plenty of anti-abortion signs right next to signs saying, “I’m not responsible for your health care,” or the like. I’d be willing to bet that 95% of those who have newly discovered Rand as a philosophical justification for their opposition to liberal economic policies would self-identify as pro-life. This unholy marriage between (laudable) opposition to abortion and (heretical) idolatry of the individual is simply not OK, because it is ultimately self-contradictory and doomed to fail, spectacularly.
That’s all I wanted to say. In hindsight, I probably could have said it better without linking to an article that was, indeed, somewhat confrontational in tone (though far from “worthless,” as some commentators suggested). Posting as I was in anger, I actually liked the tone (and I still think that Wise’s bluntness has value), but I didn’t stop to remind myself that this is, after all, a Catholic blog, and civility should be the norm. So, if I offended anyone, I sincerely apologize, and I ask “you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
Oh, and as an aside, some commentators asked why I didn’t point out the fact that Objectivism is, in the end, the primary philosophical underpinning of the pro-choice movement. More generally, there seemed to be an insinuation that I was being overly harsh on pro-life Republicans while not calling out pro-choice Democrats. Honestly, I had hoped that the answer to this question would be obvious, but apparently it isn’t, so here goes: to put it as bluntly as I can, I don’t give a damn about the pro-choice movement. I have nothing invested in its success. I want it to fail. I am a pro-life Catholic, and I assume that the readers of this blog are the same. I don’t feel the need to spend my time making arguments as to why the pro-choice movement is evil, because I assume that everyone here already agrees with me on that point. I do, however, care about the pro-life movement. I do want it to succeed, but for various reasons, not the least of which are the evils with which it has allowed itself to be associated, I am more fearful now than ever that it will not. That is why I criticize the movement of which I consider myself to be a member. Now, more than ever, the world is in dire need of those who are unafraid and unashamed to articulate a consistent, principled, and intelligent stand for the protection of human life in all its forms. And such a stand is in no way compatible with the shades of Objectivism that have recently re-entered our nation’s political discourse.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In