I had the good fortune of attending one McKim Yates' birthday party this weekend, which afforded me the opportunity to drive 2 hours on a weekend, getting some of the best programming NPR has to offer. While I'm a big fan of Car Talk and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, I'm talking today about On the Media. There's something I love about On the Media, maybe it's the fact that their stories essentially examine themselves - it's like a paradox or standing in front of a mirror with a mirror or just a great opportunity to catch people being self-serving...whatever. I love it, but not enough to listen to the podcasts. No matter as I caught the whole show today!
There was a story examining how Paul Ryan's selection as the GOP vice presidential candidate has again brought Ayn Rand and objectivism in politics into the daily storyline. I am not a Rand scholar. I have tried and failed to read The Fountainhead several times. All the stuff that people point out in The Fountainhead as being really significant and indicative of Rand's philosophy went totally past me - I just didn't care enought to catch them or I suckered into thinking the damn book was about architecture. Whatever the reason, I found now humanist conspiracy in those pages, just a slow ass story. Enter On the Media to tell me all about it. What got me about the story wasn't the selfish, objectivist origins of Howard Roark, which again, I don't care about. It was a quote from Rand during an interview with Phil Donahue way back when Phil Donahue was the kind of guy people wanted to talk to. When asked about whether she feared death, Rand responded something very similar to "I won't die, the world will end." Because for Rand and everyone else who says that her writings have taught them what's really important - a relentless faith in one's own self and interests above all others - it does not matter what happens after you die because you will not be there to see it.
HOW IS THIS A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNANCE? When Paul Ryan says that Ayn Rand taught him all he needs to know to make the choices to govern well, how does this not make people run in the other direction? He is a saying that he doesn't care about your grandchildren or his grandchildren or anyone not directly impacting his existence, because if he can't see it, it is of no consequence to him. He is in it for himself, as Rand dispassionately taught him and a generation of already-wealthy's to be. It's really easy to espouse self -interest, especially under the banner of a free market, when you have already cornered that market thanks to the work of everyone who came before you.
I can't imagine living in such a short-society. I can't believe that there is a distinct possibility that Rand's vision of self above all - a by-product of her Russian upbringing and a reminder that every action has a an equal and opposite reaction - could be soon codified into US law.
Actually, that's not true, I can believe that. We've seen it before - our unimpeachable founding fathers saw fit to change the rules of COUNTING to serve their interests. Our Supreme Court found that it wasn't in our favor to recognize the innate humanity of what was already considered property. Service of self is found time and again throughout our history, but damn if I hope we haven't been progressing we haven't been evolving beyond the easy answer of "what benefits
me today".
And I disagree. I feel that I am part of a whole, not the whole of my concern. Which is why today I celebrated World Humanitarian Day, to recognize and honor the spirit of humanitarian work and the drive that lives within some of us to give of self, rather than serve one's self. Ayn Rand has called such humanitarianism crazy and illogical, Paul Ryan would call it wasteful and unproductive. I call it the long game and the right thing to do.
President Bartlett kindly reminded us that there is a lot of nuance in goverening, and there are very rarely days with an absolute right and an absolute wrong. When Paul Ryan simplistically reduces every argument to me vs. not me, you have to wonder how long until you're no longer on his side of that argument. And when you're not, what will he take from you?
No comments:
Post a Comment