What Mark Sanford thinks of Ayn Rand. In Newsweek, no less.
Just thought I'd pass that along. Too delightful and enlightening to pass up.
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Classic that this came from Mark Sanford, though. What a loon. --- My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.
~Ryan.
Over the past year, we've seen Washington try to solve all our problems-chiefly by borrowing billions from future generations-to little effect. In that sense, this is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She's more relevant than ever.
Conclusions drawn once again without context - the context of deregulated mortgage markets, unregulated derivatives market - the kind of individual freedom and absence of Government intervention Ayn Rand championed and Greenspan, Summers and Geithner implemented despite the best efforts of people like Beardlsy's Bond. The context which led to the worst crisis of our financial system since the Great Depression.
Ayn Rand champions argue against the intervention necessary (TARP, Bailout) as a result of the policies Ayn Rand advocated (with no sense of irony.)
Freedom, lack of government intervention, permitted the excessive risk-taking that put capital (you and I earned and saved for retirement) at risk. Doesn't that cross the line Sanford has drawn in the article? Why doesn't he acknowledge it?
Beyond Sanford's inability to put this in context, would Sanford have advocated for allowing the largest US Banks to fail? Maybe he would but somehow I doubt it. Was he thinking about this when he was putting it to his lover last Fall in South America instead of putting his mouth where his money is?
There is one question that must be asked of all family values candidates during their campaigns for elected office: Having campaigned on family values and made the argument that these values make you a better candidate than your opponent, would you resign if you failed to live up to these pious values, the virtues by which you hold yourself above your opponent?
Sanford's analysis also ignores the lessons learned from the last great Depression, how to end the downward spiral and stimulate growth.
Sanford fails to mention his own history on Wall Street. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
"As Rand shows in her book, when the government is deprived of the free market's best minds, it staggers toward collapse."
That's a heck of an argument, and opens the door to limitless worlds of possibility. Such as:
"As Arthur C. Clarke shows in his book, mankind evolved from the apes through the intervention of large black monoliths - proof of intelligent design."
I think the two scenarios are equally well established by their respective works of fiction, don't you? -- If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat.
Ayn Rand as Whittaker Chambers put it is the proto-typical post-modernist. Her prose is utilitarian and lacking in grace. Her defiance and disbelief in a higher power is indicative of its nihilistic tendencies. And her beliefs that 'men of genius' will create a utopian society is surprisingly similar to the 'collectivist' ideologies of fascism and communism that she despised. Make no mistake about it, Rand's world would be a hell on Earth. There would be no moral constraints on any individual's actions and we would either revert to the Hobbesian anarchy or worse yet live in a dictatorship that mandated Randian principles. There is a quasi-eugenic pathos to her work, one that values the strong crushing the weak, that does not value helping the defenseless. And sadly it is one that has pervaded both parties and our current materialistic and status driven society. Kirk, Buckley, and Chambers were right. There is no room for God, tradition, or hope for the less fortunate in this terrible vision and left and right should agree that Objectivism was a distasteful fad that is past its time.
The idea that man is perfectible has been disproved by 10,000 years of history. Men and women are imperfect, or "fallen," which is why I believe there is a role for limited government in making sure that my rights end where yours begin.
Sanford's infidelities and public lying proved the need for limited government. QED.
Better add that to the Poly Sci 101 curriculum at Bob Jones University. BMG: Reality-based commentary.
is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the "freedom is slavery" sort. ... it is gratuitous to advise any human being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will. It is far more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build a dam or to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to the victims of a famine. But since we must live together, dependent upon one another for many things and services, altruism is necessary to survival. To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. ... Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality... - Gore Vidal
- Gore Vidal
When Ensign wrote his 'Dear John' letter to his girlfriend (who was his friend's and chief of staff's wife) he told her that he lost Jesus in his life and had the lurid sexual affair to pleasure himself.
Isn't it surprising how the party of personal responsibility so quickly vacates their responsibilities and just how immoral they perceive themselves to be in the absence of Jesus their savior? www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
This does not seem to be the case for Sanford. Jury's still out on Spitzer (though he was a heck of an AG). -- If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman
I'm just now reaching for my Saul Alinsky texts to plan a suitable response. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
Ah, but it's not against limited government. Let me guess what this means: Limited to my needs, police protection for my personal material possessions, wiping my ass, and filling my pockets with booty from the rape and pillaging of the working class. Did I get that about right?
The blatant transparency of these arguments should have nullified them long ago. "I'm lazy, greedy, and don't care about anyone else" is a non-starter, so wrapping exactly those sentiments in a phony mantle of high-minded political philosophy is a necessary means to an end.
And it's apparently not very malleable, given that whether times are good or bad, taxes must be lowered, an unfettered marketplace will solve all problems (as long as we define "all our problems" as erectile dysfunction and there never being enough individually-accumulated wealth) and even after the great economic meltdown we're trying to recover from has exposed the economic manifestations of this mindset, government "intervention" is still the problem. Eschewing obfuscation since 1955.
