When we think about high-profile members of Congress who seem to enjoy Ayn Rand and Objectivism a little too much, we tend to focus on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). It is, after all, the failed vice presidential candidate who credits Rand for inspiring his political career and who required his interns to read "Atlas Shrugged."
But while Ryan has begun distancing himself from his Objectivist allies, and his boosters have characterized his time as a Rand acolyte as "an embarrassing past flirtation," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) isn't embarrassed at all (thanks to reader R.B. for the tip).
Johnson sat down with the Atlas Society, a Randian group, just last week to share all sorts of nonsensical thoughts. The right-wing senator told the organization, for example, that the Affordable Care Act, is the "greatest assault on freedom in our lifetime," though he didn't exactly explain why. He added, "I think Americans are a little bit like a bunch of frogs in that pot of water, and the water is being brought up to a boil. I think we're losing freedoms across the board."
Johnson also, naturally, sees parallels between reality and Rand novels: "We really have developed this culture of entitlement and dependency. That is not what America is all about. I mean, America -- and that's of course what 'Atlas Shrugged' is all about -- it is about individuals aspiring to build things to make their life -- and, as a result, the world -- a better place. If we shift to a culture where people are saying, 'I'm happy to sit back and let the government provide me with things,' that becomes a dangerous point and time for this country."
The novel, the senator explained, is his "foundational book."
In fact, Johnson boasted about sponsoring an Atlas statute in Oshkosh: "There was a big old statue on the side of the road for sale, and it was Atlas. It had the world, it was obviously the Atlas Shrugged symbol, and he was thinking about buying it and I said, 'Absolutely, I'll pay for half of it.'"
As Tim Murphy joked, the Republican's affinity for Rand "has literally been set in stone."
A few months ago, Rolling Stone broached the subject with President Obama, who said, "Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity -- that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America."
Some clearly haven't gotten the message just yet.
Leave a Comment:
Johnson longs for the good ole days when seniors ate cat food...
On January 6, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered to Congress his famous Four Freedoms speech. He said:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions -- without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
What has bothered me, especially in the last four years, has been the abuse of the meaning of our American values and terms. Johnson is a true disciple of the Kochs-Rove-Hannity strategy of defining terms like "freedom" and "rights" to mean the opposite of what they traditionally mean. "Freedom of religion" means freedom for certain clergy and businesses to deny coverage for contraception. Freedom for them but no freedom for everyone else. That is not what FDR was saying in 1941. Constitutional rights is another misused term. People like Johnson argue that gun rights are paramount even over the right to life. The Right is governed by the Americans for Prosperity (Kochs) agenda.
What makes the Johnson positions even more dangerous is that 80% of ALL media is owned by a few .1%ers and they suppress free speech even as they contend they are "fair and balanced." The only way Obama got his message out was through the social media and in-person campaigning.
To make a difference, each of us has to engage in person to person dialogue with those who only get slanted, untrue news through FoxNews, Limbaugh, etc. I have noticed that more of us are doing that and reporting the results on blogs like this.
THE ONLY WAY FOR EVIL TO WIN IS IF THE GOOD PERSON DOES NOTHING.
@Jimes: EXCELLENT POST! Loved your points about the changed definition of freedom of religion and the stranglehold of the corporate-owned press. I hope everyone takes the time to read and think about what you've said here.
Traditionally for whom? In the South, "freedom" has always meant "the Government won't interfere with me owning slaves." You can have as much freedom as you have the power to take.
That's a very warped view of the South. Granted, there are crazy people here, but the there are crazy people everywhere. I currently live in AL, and I grew up in MS, and I can honestly say that there is not any more people here wanting to 'lord it over' others than anywhere else in the country, it's just that the few who want to be 'lords' are the loud ones.
As far as slavery, the whole Civil War was not actually about slavery. If it was, then why exactly did the Emancipation Proclomation free only slaves in the rebelling south, and then only after the war had been going for a couple years? There were slaves in the North, too, yet they weren't freed until after the war was almost over. "Slavery" has nothing to do with the Noth/South divide, or with the 'reasons' behind which Southerners do anything. Oddly enough, the only people who seem to think that are those who've never lived in the 'deep south' themselves.
Khrysavek--
I hope not to derail the issue too far, but I have to take exception to the same old hogwash about the Civil War not being about slavery. The secession of the Southern states was a preemptive strike by Southern politicians who felt their grip on national political power faltering. They lost control of the House long before the Civil War due to the explosion of Northern population, but they generally held slight advantages in the Senate. This set up was maintained by compromises such as the Missouri compromise, where newly admitted states were brought in balanced between Northern and Southern supported areas to balance out the new Senate arrangement (the only noticeable difference between these newly admitted states were slave holding and free).
With the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, the South saw themselves lose the White House, along with the House, and they held onto the Senate by their nails. They left the Union because they saw that they had lost their national sway, and so decided to form their own republic where they wouldn't have to compromise with free states. The war was a battle between economic ideologies: one side supported slave labor, the other free labor. Racism abounded on both sides, however, no one is innocent on this charge. Most Northern politicians supported free labor because they wanted nothing to do with blacks.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political tool used by Lincoln to prevent European intervention in the war. Northern blockades of Southern ports allowed little cotton to reach Europe, whose textile economies largely depended on Southern cotton. By issuing the Emancipation, Lincoln turned the public focus of the war to freeing slaves, an issue European powers couldn't oppose because slavery was vastly unpopular in Europe.
The Emancipation didn't free any border state slaves due to Lincoln's desire to not alienate border allies. He did not need a revolt behind his army's lines. However, the message was clear: if the North won, slavery was done.
Sorry for the diversion, but I cannot abide this pernicious fallacy that the Civil War was disconnected from slavery. Slavery fed virtually every aspect of the war. It IS was divided North and South. It warped the political minds of the South, it informed virtually all major national political actions done by the Southern states in the antebellum period. It is what the war came to be about as Lincoln shifted the focus for political, as well as moral, gain.
Rant over.
@Khrysavek
All four of the "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States" that still exist make it clear that the north's opposition to slavery was a major reason for the southern states leaving the union.
Pay particular attention to Mississippi's
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
People get together and decide they will collectively pay into a fund that will put fires out on their houses, provide roads for their vehicles and healthcare for their elderly themselves and also those who are destitute etc...This is not government doing things for them...it is the people (we ARE the government) deciding to do things for all of us...a social democracy. If Johnson can't see that he is an idiot...a dregg on our 'society' and has no place in 'our' government.
None of Rand"s novels contain details because details provide the reality background, so none of her works survive in reality but only in fantasy. Where are the 'providers' for the services the wealthy depend on...the workers...the cooks...the builders etc the people.
Reality is a bitter Russian immigrant angry over the loss of her livelihood writing to obtain the good graces of the wealthy and then demonstrating her own hypocrisy by going on SS and Medicare when she became elderly and sick...dependent on the government and abandoned by her wealthy aristocrats. Her fantasies may be appealing to a 17 y/o but adults should know it won't play in reality. Tells the voter all he needs to know about Johnson huh.
Like a lot of you, I went through my Ayn Rand period. Couldn't get enough. Not just Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but Anthem, Philosophy: Who Needs It? and countless essays on Objectivism. But there comes a time when you realize it's like reading a romance novel. Fun to daydream about but not reality.
Wake up, Sen. Johnson. One of these days you may be reduced to eating cat food, and then what song will you sing?
Yep, it was a juvenile crush.
Yeah, I trudged through Atlas Shrugged in High School. Glad I did so I can honestly discuss Rand's philosophy in an informed manner. But I felt no need to continue on with anything else she's written.
A wise choice, I still believe.
This guy replaced Russ Feingold.
What. A. Shame.
All Rand ever did was to rewrite Nietzsche badly and pretend that her ideas of "Objectivism" were her own.
She was a philosophical con artist like L. Ron Hubbard. The sad part is that there are still any devotes of both of them in this day and age, but then these are the people who are still certain it's turtles all the way down
“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.”
― Raj Patel
Raj,
Very little that I read on these forums is either witty or informed, kudos for being both.
jkh
To be clear, I am not Raj. I simply passed along his quote. ;-)
What is wrong with Wisconsin?
Temporary insanity?
Too many holes in the swiss cheesehead?
Trusting people will tell the truth.
I have lived here (WI) all my life and I can't answer your question...We turned from a really caring state to one of hate at least the eastern side has.....
When did the constitution become second in line to Atlas Shrugged? The Founding fathers, men who could write the Federalist papers and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution must be embarrassed.
The money changers in the Temple were conservative.
The king who signed the Magna Carta was a conservative.
The church that inspired Luther to protest was conservative.
The Parliament that provoked the US war of independence was conservative.
The privileged few wanting to rule the many is not new. Our Constitution did not grant universal suffrage and did legitimize slavery. It is an outstanding document, among the finest ever written, but was and is a compromise - not sacred, not holy.
"If we shift to a culture where people are saying, 'I'm happy to sit back and let the government provide me with things,' that becomes a dangerous point and time for this country...." -- says the guy who draws a government salary, government pension, government healthcare benefits, government 'perks of the office,' etc., etc. Oh, the irony!
The hucksters are always there to sell a philosophy that makes it ok to be a selfish ( and/or racist) prick. "Greed is good". Objectivism, Scientology, NeoConservatism, Teapartyism, Confederacy-ism. Cover your horrible actions with a creed that absolves you or better yet glorifies your for your selfish actions. Sheesh. "Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?"
Hey Ed
Who's life have you made better/easier today?
Ed,
I agree entirely and have been making the same argument for years. I believe that the election of Ronald Reagan and his Heritage Foundation economic transition team was a seminal moment in American thought and direction. Reagan told us not to despise poverty and unify in a fight to raise everyone to a better life but instead to despise the poor and to blame them for societies failings spiritually, economically and socially. It has permeated our national character so deeply that we now feel that our birthright is a justification for preemptive wars and the valuation of an individual solely on his or hers' ability to make money. Corporate personhood and the acceptance of radical extremists such as Johnson, Bachman, Ryan, Paul and Paul as somehow part of a constructive national evolution is truly frightening.
jkh
Why is it that those people who never had to look for a job, never had to worry about where their next meal was coming from, had plenty of family and friends to look after them, who earned their way in life due to "family connections" vs. hard work, are always the greatest fans of Ayn Rand's "individualist" who does it all "himself"?
Have a look at how many of her "individualists" inherited everything they own.
Ugh. Can't we just buy all of these idiots copies of Bioshock and be done with it? Half of them will understand the inevitable downfall of a Randian society, and the other half can live out their fantasies in a video game instead of ruining our shared reality with it.
Eh, buying several hundred copies of Bioshock may be a bit expensive.
A couple plane tickets to Somalia, however...
Not necessarily - I think we could get Ken Levine and/or Take-Two Interactive behind this plan. Maybe they'll donate the copies!
I truly doubt any of these people would know a Communist if they went up to them, shook their hand, and said "Hi, I'm a Communist. Here's what I believe and here's why you're a complete tool if you think President Obama is a Communist."
Repeat for Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, and Democrat.
Will someone kindly tell Sen Johnson, and the rest of these fools, Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction. It's make believe, and they should have gotten over it by now.
They all seem to be stuck in adolescence, or in some cases, pre-adolescence. Remember that Grover Norquist's ideas about taxes, and his "pledge", came to him when he was 12 years old.
Joan,
We would be better off if they had paid more attention to Grover on Sesame Street.
jkh
"I think Americans are a little bit like a bunch of frogs in that pot of water, and the water is being brought up to a boil. I think we're losing freedoms across the board."
He's right, as long as WE the PEOPLE of good conscious, logical thought, empathy for others and concerned about future generations allow these nonsensical, selfish, boorish ignoramuses to gain political office & a microphone with which to promote their authoritarian & selfish beliefs and WE say nothing, WE condemn ourselves to be like those frogs.
Thirty plus years of re-distribution upwards of wealth, failed policies for the rest of US, stagnating salaries, crumbling infrastructure, a broken "health-care" industry and an Oligarchy along with their political minions have grown selfish, more greedy and feel as though "their wealth" is a natural out-growth of and a reward for a job done well - negates the impact that POLICY has played in shaping both the wealth created (from off-shoring) and how that wealth accumulated (thru tax policy that rewarded the few, while leaving the many holding the bag)! That is the problem, that far too many Americans haven't got a clue about and why the tea-baggers (dumbed down though they are) fight like crazy for policies that are NOT designed for them - they don't know better!
I've always wondered how these people are able to simply ignore the fact that this Rand woman was a fraud who created a false identity so she could get SS and Medicare in her later years.
I guess the fascination with Rand is not about the philosophical argument she makes, rather, it enables them to justify and legitimize their own greed and selfishness.
What really bothers me is the "small government with less regulation" statements." I would have saved 70,000 if I didn't have to get a U.L. listing, that money could have gone to better salaries or 401K" !!! This is crap, he knows all too well that the listing was a write off and that money would have ended up in a bonus for himself, the days of working hard and when the company does well you will be rewarded are over, now adays you work hard, the company does good and the CEO gets a bonus while the worker takes a pay cut. That is why he is wrong, if he was for freedom and a strong America he would be trying to do away with trade agreememts to countries that are communists, oh wait, they have slave labor for him and his friends to rich off of, forget that, lets just cut all the safety nets and save on our tax dollars some more.
Most people get over Ayn Rand when they realize that the world is not black and white and everybody needs a helping hand once in a while. I realized it when I was a struggling college student who used government financial aid to help me pay for the things my young family needed while I attended school. People who don't out grow Ayn Rand, like Rand and Johnson, just don't seem to have really struggled much during their lives. They can still indulge their inner infants without the knowledge that comes from real life experiences.
So to truly know anything one has to have stuggled in life? Are you a priest?
every time i think the republican party has reached the outer limits of ass-holery, some flake like senator johnson comes along to prove i ain't seen nothing yet.
Anyone who betrays his fond thoughts of Ayn Rand should be seen for what he is:
An intellectual sophist, enamored with thoughts and ideas from a hypocrite (Rand railed against government, but accepted government assistance to fight her cancer.) and wrapped in juvenile titillation with an older woman (most of us have put down Ms. Rand by the time we were 16).
Her screed "The New Left" is a whiny masterpiece of convoluted nonsense! Her opus, Anthem, and her, The virtue of Selfishness, are tortuous exercises in conflation and naivety.
She should only be remembered as a woman who dared to think the impossible, and then write about it as if it were the attainable!
Smart people know better! -Kevo
"By definition and in practice, American capitalists idolize individual initiative as the holy grail. What they seem to miss is the vision of the founding fathers: the idea of individualism within the larger context of the commitment to a collective social identity, that we are all in this together. When individualism becomes extreme or indiscriminate, the net result is praise for leading citizens like Mr. Romney, the head capitalist. The face of capitalism is the hero among the hoarders of gold.
"An 'I built that without help' mentality. Even though very few build anything without a lot of help."
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-face-of-capitalism-part-two.html
LIAR, LIAR, THE CONSITUTION ON FIRE
Suddenly, the airwaves are filled with conciliatory Republican rhetoric. I listen to McDonnell, Jindal, Ryan, and the like-minded Tea Party driven people trying to sell the idea that Republicans know how to govern; they are for the middle class to have freedom to succeed; for fairness in government; for building infrastructure (the very thing they prevented) and then go on-and-on ad nausea with similar declarations. Beware! They are not telling the truth. They are for top down economics, the failed concept of Ronald Reagan.
If you are ever in a situation where you can, please challenge them with the question, “How do they reconcile their newly proclaimed position with basic Republican philosophy?” Their philosophy is based on Ayn Rand’s radical “takers and maker’ concepts. How do I know this? All you have to do is look at what they are doing in the 24 states where they have control of the legislatures. The most recent example is in North Carolina where the new Republican Governor McCrory with his radical republican legislature has increase the salaries of all of his high-level employees (the makers) and lowered and cut the benefits for the unemployed (the takers). These red-states are introducing sales tax to replace Federal Income Tax—sales tax is the most non-progressive form of taxation there is.
For example, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, in the cesspool of radical Republicanism, lied mightily to be elected, and then instituted a radical Ayn Rand program, a monarchist program he did not campaign on and a program the people do not want. Note that Wisconsin served as a model for all these newly “reformed” Tea party types to jump on the winning bandwagon.
Wake up Democrats; pull your heads out of the sand. The fact that many Democrats do not believe radical Tea Party people are winning is dangerous. They are! The victories they won in the 2012 elections have caused them to bury their collective heads in the sand. Look at it this way. Twenty-four states have Republican governors. Republicans control the United States House of Representatives. Eric Cantor is Majority leader and Paul Ryan is head of the budget committee in the House of Representatives. Republicans have reelected Reince Priebus to be the head of Republican National Committee, even after the so-called “reasonable conservatives” in the Party knew his radical philosophy. Sen. Harry Reid, a blue-dog therefore vulnerable democrat, sold out to Mitch McConnell on cloture in the United States Senate, in essence given the Republican minority control of the Senate. They sold out the Supreme Court nomination process to the whims of politics with the Citizens United decision as the result. Now, they are working to corrupt the Presidents cabinet nomination process the same way they corrupted the courts—Hagel is a case in point.
What is even more ominous is they sold out to the evangelical church groups to initiate faith based initiative meaning, tax money and political power goes to churches in matters of abortion, gay rights, and control of our children’s education—much to the shame of our country in an enlightened world, they breathed new life in to the creationist debacle. They claim to be the party that will follow the constitution; however, separation of church and state and usurping the right of all people to vote apparently is not in their copy of that document.
I want to call your attention to one fact; each one of the people named in this lexicon of political sins is based on a known policy position conceived in the shadow of Ayn Rand. Each one of these people denies what is obvious, is that they believed themselves to be the makers and that selfishness is a virtue. The only way the can win is to burn the constitution. The only way that can happen is if they lie, and you believe them, and that is their objective.
"Johnson also, naturally, sees parallels between reality and Rand novels: "We really have developed this culture of entitlement and dependency. That is not what America is all about."
Is he talking about all the corporate and farm subsidies that our government provides? Inquiring minds want to know. If he isn't talking about those dependencies then he is just another windbag.
I've always wondered how these people are able to simply ignore the fact that this Rand woman was a fraud who created a false identity so she could get SS and Medicare in her later years.
is there a reliable source for this? Don't get me wrong, I want to believe it. I just want a good objective (ahem) source that I can cite when I use this to beat the rhetorical snot out of my in-laws.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them
thanks!
EDanial
Read Godess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. It is a good read. I refer to it often on my Google blog spot: Firetree Blog
When people who you would normally expect to be rational take Ayn Rand seriously, you ask yourself, "Is he stupid because Rand made him stupid, or was he stupid first, and then read Rand?"