For years, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the right-wing chairman of the House Budget Committee, has been widely described as an Ayn Rand acolyte, best known for assigning "Atlas Shrugged" to members of his staff. Now, however, the Republican lawmaker finds humor in his reputation.
"You know you've arrived in politics when you have an urban legend about you, and this one is mine," Ryan chuckled in an interview with National Review. He added, "I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy." Ryan said he prefers Thomas Aquinas, concluding, "Don't give me Ayn Rand."
I'll gladly assume the man is familiar with his own philosophy, but it's curious to see him distance himself from Rand in this way, especially in light of his apparent preoccupation with her vision. As Alex Pareene noted, Ryan is, after all, the same guy who made these comments:
"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand." [...]
"I give out 'Atlas Shrugged' as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well ... I try to make my interns read it."
National Review knocked Ryan's detractors for making "Rand-related slams," but is it a "slam" to take Ryan's own words about the author at face value? For that matter, is it really unreasonable to note that Ryan's radical budget plan, which redistributes wealth from the bottom up, seems to have been inspired, at least in part, by a Rand-like philosophy?
Incidentally, Ryan also spoke at some length at Georgetown yesterday about his governing philosophy, which featured a defense of sorts against the criticisms he'd received from leaders of his own Roman Catholic church. As Ed Kilgore reported, the Wisconsinite "mainly relied on the argument that the 'fiscal crisis' facing the country trumped any concern over his budget's impact on the poor and vulnerable."
It seems like the kind of attitude Ayn Rand would approve of.
Regardless, in case anyone's forgotten, there is no debt crisis. The United States can easily borrow as much as it needs at low interest rates, suggesting there's nothing even close to a debt crisis. This is a fig leaf Ryan and the right is using to rationalize draconian cuts to domestic priorities, which they've long wanted to make anyway.
Second, if Ryan and his allies were seriously panicked about reducing the deficit and getting our fiscal house in order, they'd consider modest tax increases on the wealthy. Indeed, we know exactly what's driving the national debt, and much of it has to do with tax cuts the rich didn't need and the country couldn't afford. When Ryan acknowledges this, he'll start to have some credibility on the issue.
And third, for all of Ryan's alleged fear about the debt, his last budget plan ignored deficit reduction altogether, and instead prioritized more tax breaks for those at the very top. Asked yesterday about tax loopholes he'd be willing to close to help pay for his plans, Ryan refused to go into any detail.
Update: Our pal James Carter passes along this remarkable clip of Rand gushing about Rand in 2009 -- not exactly ancient history -- and how relevant he considers her work in his attacks on Democrats and the modern welfare state.
Leave a Comment:
Did Ron Paul name his son after Ayn Rand?
No. Rand is short for Randall. It wouldn't have surprised me, though.
This one actually is an Urban Legend, according to Paul, at least. The elder Paul did, however, let the Urban Legend (as he now calls it) fester because he thought it was funny. A happy coincidence, if you will.
Keeping Track I think you may be confused. Paul Ryan is the Republican Representative of Wisconsin. Rand Paul is the Republican Senator for Kentucky who's father is Ron Paul a Republican Congressman from Texas currently still running for Republican Presidential nomination. Paul Ryan and Rand Paul have no familial connection outside of being both Republican's. Rand is short for Randal.
He claimed not... but that he was happy the coincidence occurred.
IOKIYAR!!
"If Christ had lived in the world in wealth and power and with a high position,
it might have been thought that the purpose of his teaching and miracles was to
curry human favor and power. Therefore, to make it clear that he was performing
a work of divine power, Christ chose all that was low and weak in the world: a
lowly mother, a life without riches, and uncultured disciples and messengers.
Christ himself was to be rejected and condemned to death by the great ones of
the world, to make it perfectly clear that the undertaking of his miracles and
his teaching was not of human but of divine power. All this was necessary for human redemption that we might learn not to rely proudly on ourselves, but rather on God."
-- Saint Thomas Aquinas.(De rationibus fidei, Ed. Leonina, t. 40,
Romae 1969, pp. 56ss.).
Doesn't sound much like Rand or Ryan, does it?
Hmmmmm. Seems to me (of course it's only my opinion) that that is about as far as Mr. Ryan can get from what he claims to believe in. I guess he not only hasn't read Pope Benedict, he hasn't read St. Thomas Aquinas either. Could he telleth a lie????????
A Wisconsin Republican? LIE?
NAH! Couldn't be!
When I read that bit about Thomas Aquinas all I could is "Thomas Aquinas???!!! Thomas Aquinas my a@@!" I read Thomas Aquinas in High School. Paul Ryan has never read Thomas Aquinas nor does his philosophy bear any resemblance to what Thomas Aquinas taught.
Is it Thomas Aquinas or Thomas of Aquinas ?? The kool thing about Thomas is his tying of religion to nature. The Jewish philosopher, Spinoza, continued this quest. His verbalizing of such thoughts also got him excommunicated from his religion. Spinoza’s real work was not published until twenty years after his passing. A little to hot to handle for most, if you know what I mean.
According to the Library of Congress Authority record it's Thomas Aquinas not of Aquinas. I too like the way Aquinas tied religion to nature.
Ryan's time spent reading Rand would have been better spent with Hobbes' Leviathan. Clearer and literately written classic.
The time spent also explains why he seems to be a bit behind on Papal encyclicals on social justice Catholic style.
Paul Ryan could have learned more about the real world and the meaning of human compassion had he read a "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon book.
Or had he read a Peanuts Comic. I think the Peanuts are a fantastic representation of how two opposing characters or factions deal with one another. Charlie Brown is the Democratic Presidency frequently believing they will be respected with human dignity and Lucy Van Pelt is the Republican Party obstructionistly pulling that football out at just the last moment refusing to allow anything to ever get done and then mocking poor Charlie Browns failures without ever admitting they were the ones to yank the ball out. I think if Paul Ryan read more Peanuts comics he would have a better philosophy on many things including how to recognize he is charging 5 cents to give people worthless advice and being a jerk for funsies just because he can.
That in these days, with the existence of recording equipment, a prominent person would so flat out deny what he clearly has said in the past and knows that it is part of the public record absolutely boggles the mind. Maybe Bachmann does it because she is intellectually and mentally challenged, but what's Ryan's excuse? Is he also mentally and intellectually challenged? Does he live in some sort of a fantasy universe where wishing things makes them come true?
I wish there were some way that he could be thoroughly evaluated by some competent psychologists and/or psychiatrists. It would be very interesting to find out what his problem is.
Easy one - he's a Republican with delusions of grandeur. Remember he's a Young Gun!!!!!!
You forget, that in politics there are no consequences.
Or, when challenged, you simply quote Nixon's press secretary, Ron Ziegler: "That statement is no longer operable."
Or, regretfully-- they follow the Joseph Goebbels method... if you repeat it long enough, it becomes true in the mind.
So, Ryan actually believes his own stories. He must have practiced them in the mirror long enough to lock the pathways in the brain ... poof! Truth.
That's one way to look at it. Or, as Karl Rove explained, Ryan and the others create reality:
Republicans live in an alternate universe where old white rich men rule the world, poor people are their slaves and woman are second class citizens have no rights and are merely breeding machines.
How do non-white and/or Republican women wake up and respect themselves every day?
so, paul ryan has abjured ayn rand. what a load off. now, if only he would abjure the stupidity, greed, cruelty, and smugness that made this 'thrice-dull ass' take her for a goddess.
Paul Ryan is a dangerous man. He's a sociopath who hides behind his boyish looks and gee shucks charm. Wisconsin needs to throw him out of office for the sake of the country. And now we know he's a blatant liar.
I would gladly sign a recall for that. The problem is that in many rural communities people do not vote even remotely on Policy or even current events they vote on the party line they followed the last time they bothered to pay attention to an election which is usually either the very first time they ever voted or the first time a parent or spouse nagged them into voting. Which means people are voting for a party not a candidate based on policy stances that are outdated in many cases by decades. The Republican Party of 2012 is not at all the Republican Party of 1982, 1992 or even 2002. Too bad many of the voters don't know this until it is too late. When Scott Walker was elected many people who voted for him were shocked and furious to realize what they voted for. Which is why Walker is being recalled. I really wish we could do the same for Paul Ryan and make it stick!
I see this in my district as well...represented by the court jester of the Tea Party caucus Steve King. It's embarassing. He continues to be re-elected simply by the "R" on the ballot. And folks opt to ignore any information negatively portraying his record using "liberal media bias", or "at least I know where he stands" to justify continued support.
And yes, as a Republican in 1982 I eventually learned by my lesson...though I do not see my position as going left...I have the same values but republicans have gone so far right that now I look left.
What a double-dipped irony that the very social programs Ayn Rand came to personally rely on (Social Security, Medicare) are now the very ones Ryan is seeking to privatize and dismantle.
Those Gol Dur Fernickity recording machines trip me up every time ....how am I expected to keep my lies straight.
"...Ryan said he prefers Thomas Aquinas,..."
Puhlease, not the rich guy that gave up his riches to administer to the poor and was elevated to Sainthood? The fact that he didn't burst into flames after that statement must mean that there's another Thomas Aquinas somewhere, out there.
Ryan is most vulnerable to attack on his concern about the debt. Logically, he cannot really be concerned about the debt if he is giving more tax cuts. That makes him another Bush Republican who wants to run up the debt with more tax cuts that are not paid for and just another big spender. This would be the best avenue to attack Ryan on his own ground and expose his hypocrisy. Dems can make him the "big spending" politician that he allegedly opposes.
Mike Paganucci is right, Ryan is a hypocrite to claim worry about the deficit while proposing to further lower taxes. However, his apparent schizophrenia is in line with that other "small government," Grover Norquist, strain of thought. If you starve the beast of revenue, eventually it has to contract. The anti-government folks do not believe that bureaucracy can ever proactively become efficient.
Here is an article about Rand taking government assistance.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/canuckistanian/blog/2011/01/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare
He must be worried about the religious baggers in his district, or maybe he thinks he's going to get the interview for VEEP
It's simple.
When the GOP was going whole-hog on the budget, Ayn Rand with her FY-got-mine philosophy was easy to trumpet as a paragon. Now that the GOP has inexplicably shifted to pure social issues, the fact that she was a narcissistic militant athiest is...less politically expedient, so like any feckless politician he's jettisoning her as a symbol for his policies.
Not that he's rejecting her actual FY-got-mine underlying principle, of course--just the figurehead.
Just because you agree with some views someone who happens to be an atheist holds doesn't make you an atheist, anymore than my being married to a Baptist made me a Baptist. Are we still on that "I'm holier than thou" kick we went on following the Bill Clinton "situation"? That's all that entire election was about: somehow, voting Republican meant you had higher morals or something. So everybody voted for a drunk instead. Oh, I forgot: not everybody voted for the drunk. Al Gore actually won the popular vote.
It's Ryan's base that has a problem with religious bigotry. As an atheist I like Jesus' economic philosophy it's his metaphysics I find questionable.
Video of Paul Ryan talking about Ayn Rand from his Facebook page circa 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3XYw9RtDbU8
Seems like the Lord of the Flies philosophy might be more apt for Ryan and the modern Republican Party. Of course they would probably misinterpret the book and see themselves as the more civil of the group of boys, instead of savage boys.
Ayn Rand was a sociopath who caused more damage to the American psyche than anyone else in history!!! imo
Isn't saying the writings of Ayn Rand inspired you to go into public service like having your OB/GYN say the writings of the Marquis de Sade inspired him to go into women's health? Back Away Slowly and RUN!
And that, my friends, is what my mother would've called lying. Today, apparently, we call it politics and, because our expectations are so low, mostly let it slide.
Here is the way that I look at the deficit. When a family gets in over their heads financially, they do not get out from under in a year or two; sometimes it takes several years to do so. In that the ultra-rich really helped us get into this much debt--since they were NOT paying their fair share, it only makes sense that they should be paying taxes at a fair rate---and especially not expecting the poor and middle class to pay it down! Come on! Let's see a little common sense from those who reaped while we sowed!
Ayn Rand railed against government benefits but collected on social security and medicare when she needed them under the name of Ann O'Connor. Sound familiar, just another hypocrite and greedy person always thinking that there is someone out there wanting a tiny bite out of their sandwich. Isn't gluttony a deadly sin by the way.
Wisconsinites, certainly smarting from Republican dirty tricks this year that made you all look bad, need to throw this axxh0le out of office, as we in Missouri need to do the same thing to Sen Blunt and rep Sam Graves.
ITs really a poor reflection on wanna be politicans to LIE about their positions. This Paul Ryan guy is borderline treasonous....he clearly doens't care about the middle class and how millions of us fare, he only cares about his political fortunes and reward from the monied contributing wealthy. I have a hard time with my anger management about people who sell my country down the river. Most of my life, I've expected honor, patriotism and fair play from elected leaders.
I've been wondering how long it would take before one of these neo-Randian conservative types ran screaming from her militant Atheism. She was also rather fond of science, as her writings demonstrate over and over. The right's well-documented cognitive dissonance kept these conflicts at bay for a long time, but sooner or later a high-profile neo-Randian was bound to speak up. Anyway, it won't change Ryan's status with the conservatives at all; he's a beloved tax-cutter/government-hater now. As long as he stands by his Norquist pledge he could become a card-carrying Satanist and the cognitively-dissonant conservatives would just look the other way.
Ayn Rand Libertarianism is as ridiculous as Karl Marx's Utopian Socialism.
Actually that's entirely it: both were creating philosophies about worlds that do not actually exist. Anyone who panders to either belief systems does not either a. understand those belief systems or b. is completely delusional about the state of the real world
Were are, in effect, seeing the right wing push their version of communism onto the world.
More than that, they were about worlds that could never actually exist. Rand's philosophy talks about a special class that would remove itself from the rest of the specialized society to form a new utopia. The problem is that specialization allowed for this special class to exist in the first place. By removing themselves from society, how exactly were they going to continue their great works and provide for their own basic needs?