The Republican Party has a greed guru. In fact the son of America’s most prominent tinfoil hat addict named his son after her. Her teaching has provided a philosophical rationale that allows Republicans to take from the poor and give to the rich. In a nutshell, her philosophy is that government exists to serve the rich, because they and they alone are worthy of government support. Her ideas are not new. If we examine them closely we can see that see that similar thinking is responsible for the some of the greatest atrocities in modern history. Will history repeat itself?
Long before Gordon Gekko declared “Greed is Good,” a Russian immigrant named Ayn Rand argued that selfishness was a virtue. She encouraged individuals to blindly pursue their own self-interests, without regard for the “common good.” 30 years after her death, her influence on conservative ideology is growing by the day as it becomes fashionable to slash unemployment benefits, cut heating assistance to the elderly, and gut Medicare.
Here’s an example. Rand once claimed, “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” Altruism, in her opinion, led to tolerance for the “incompetent” common man, coddling of the “less deserving”.
Dr. Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, explains to theLoop21, “Ayn Rand believed that the root of prosperity comes not from the labor of the many, but from the genius and creativity of a few unique and talented individuals.”
As Burns elaborates, Rand divided society into two types of people, the producers and the parasites. The producers, including the business class and entrepreneurs, created all the value in society. The parasites leeched off the producers’ efforts.
In Ayn Rand’s opinion, government programs unfairly robbed the wealth creators in order to give to the poor, unemployed and other leeches of society. Consequently, Rand openly objected to initiatives like Medicare, unemployment insurance, and welfare support, as they simply rewarded the “weak”.
“The wealthy deserved their riches,” Dr. Burns adds. “Rand felt to tax them was to punish them for being successful.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <theloop21.com>
As vile as her perspective seems, it is not unique. This is nothing more than social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest. Here is a brief description.
I. Introduction
Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a “law of the jungle.” But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.
The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <University of Colorado>
This is just the introduction. Click through for much more.
As if this were not sufficiently evil of it’s own accord, social Darwinism has a companion philosophy, Eugenics. If there are two types of people, as so many Republican leaders believe, producers and parasites, then a society should maximize the number of producers and minimize the number of parasites. Less inferior people means more resources for the best and the brightest.
The term eugenics comes from the Greek roots for “good” and “generation” or “origin” and was first used to refer to the “science” of heredity and good breeding in about 1883.
Within 20 years, the word was widely used by scientists who had rediscovered the work of Gregor Mendel. Mendel had meticulously recorded the results of cross-breeding pea plants, and found a very regular statistical pattern for features like height and color. This introduced the concept of genes, opening the field of genetics to a tumultuous century of research. One path of genetic research branched off into the shadows of social theory, and in the first quarter of the twentieth century became immensely popular as eugenics. It was presented as a mathematical science that could be used to predict the traits and behaviors of humans, and in a perfect world, to control human breeding so that people with the best genes would reproduce and thus improve the species. It was an optimistic school of thought with a profound faith in the powers of Science.
The trappings of science, anyway. Even in its day, many people saw that eugenics was a dubious discipline, riddled with inconsistencies. But it was championed by a very prominent and respected biologist, Charles Davenport, and its conclusions told many people what they wanted to hear: that certain “racial stock” was superior to others in such traits as intelligence, hard work, cleanliness, and so on… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <PBS>
This philosophy became popular in the US, especially among the super-rich, and in Germany in the early 20th century. Here it led to the .acceptance of the Ku Klux Klan as part of mainstream US society. In Germany, it led to the Holocaust.
The GOP Greed Guru, Ayn Rand, remains as one of the most dangerous influences in America today,. because the path from Rand’s beliefs to unspeakable barbarism is already well worn. They make the Republican Party a cancer on the American body politic, that must be excised.
To be clear, the overwhelming majority of rank and file Republicans do not even know that views exist within their party, let alone believe in them. If most understood the ramifications of social Darwinism and eugenics, they would be horrified, but they do not even know what they are. The people who do understand, believe and are trying to bring this to pass are the Republican leadership and their billionaire financiers. The rest are just what the leadership calls “useful fools”.
24 Responses to “Danger: GOP Greed Guru”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Though born into Russian aristocracy Tolstoy explained this theory very well in War and Peace. Pierre a favorite illegitimate son of a wealthy prince inherited all of his wealth and during a crisis of conscience he wanted to free all his serfs, build them schools and hospitals has a conversation with Prince Andrew who though chagrined at the thought says in effect to Pierre ‘look at that serf, if you educate and raise him up beyond what he now knows he will only want more, then you not only lose a laborer but gain an enemy who will only take from you more than what you have already given him.’
Tolstoy though at least was a pacifist and worked to the betterment of all Russians of the 19th century, Rand on the other side of the coin wasn’t buying into the Marxist collective philosophy because she was a “serf” who wanted to take more than what the government wanted or could give her. Funny though how at the end of her life as the first article states she took that same Social Security and Medicare that she railed against because she did not want to wipe out her own wealth fighting the lung cancer her 2 pack a day habit promoted.
Ergo if Paul Ryan, Ron Paul and Rand Paul all adore her then they too must be just as sociopath as she herself was. Maybe Atlas should have shit on her instead of shrugged.
So now we are at the crossroads are we going to settle for what meager thing given us or our we going to stand and take what we have paid our entire lives into to ensure maybe not a comfortable retirement but at least one that keeps us from the cat food diet?
I certainly hope that Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul all don’t accept their government paychecks, government health insurance and most certainly not their government gold-plated pensions. That would be hypocritical. They certainly don’t want to be leaches off the tax payers.
Welcome Jimbo. 🙂
Their argument would be that they are producers, so they deserve support.
Mark, I could not agree more.
I think that we should have dropped Ayn Rand and all of her books on Nagaski during WWII. The world’s biggest hypocrite.
Lisa, I agree with your opinion about her, but I oppose destroying books, no matter how objectionable they may be, Allowing bad books to be destroyed virtually guarantees that good ones will too.
As TWM points out, Ayn Rand was a Hypocrite Extraordinaire. Not only did she take Social Security benefits (and at least applied for Medicare benefits) – but she did it surreptitiously. She had a Social Worker surrogate apply using her married name (O’Connor) – something she never, ever used except when legally mandated.
http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare
And since it’s Sunday, maybe some Rand v. Jesus Christ quotes are in order:
http://www.stjohnswv.org/pages/sermon-inthename.htm
I think it’s pretty much impossible to be both a Rand fan AND a Christian.
I think it’s pretty much impossible for one to be an informed Republican today, and an authentic Christian. Of course Rand was an atheist, but Republicans don’t like to talk about that.
Interesting that her disciples do not acknowledge that she accepted Social Security and applied for Medicare, although as SoINeed points out, whether she actually received it cannot be verified.
Also, as a life long, avid reader, I really have to question the truthfulness of many who claim that they have actually read her dull drivel. Can they spell “boring”?
Charles, after the evidence came out, many of her disciples acknowledge it and justify that it is not hypocritical for a deserving person to take advantage of it, since it’s there.
And how many of these GOP, and Jesus thumping “Christian” conservatives know that Ayn Rand was a devoted life long ATHEIST who specifically based her noxious anti-humanity pseudo “philosophy” on her principles of ATHEISM !
Search “Ayn Rand Atheism”.
How many of her “Christian” followers who swear by her know that her entire credo of viciousness considers religion the enemy ???
Welcome Jay. 🙂
Rand certainly was an atheist. As such, she is as good an advertisement for the atheist faith as Torquemada was for Catholicism.
However, I make room for the likelihood that she is not an authentic atheist, just as the hateful followers of Republican Supply-side Jesus (not the real Jesus) are pseudo-Christians, not authentic Christians. The teachings of any faith, including atheism, can be twisted and perverted to evil.
Atheism isn’t a faith. There is no dogma either. The only requirement to be an atheist is to NOT believe in a god. I do however hope you guys manage to get the GOP away from worshipping Rand because she IS an atheist and I hate that they like an atheist. I have read Rand. She is one of the few heroes I could claim as an atheist teenager. From her books I took away that a person should do their best no matter what job they’re doing flipping burgers or running a country.
I guess I should read her books again as a cynical adult to see if that is still the messsage. BTW I have read at least three of her books as a teen. It was decades ago. Think I’ll read them again. This time I’m going to skip the long speech.
Hope the GOP doesn’t discover Goodkind next.
Theism or Deism is the belief that there is a God. The basis is faith, because it cannot be proven. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. The basis is faith, because it cannot be proven. The only requirement to be a theist or deist is to believe in a god. Please don’t think I’m putting you down. As a Christian, I honor other faiths including yours. Most atheists I know honor mine, because I make no claim that my faith makes me better than others. But some condemn my faith. They are no different than religionists that condemn your atheism. Rand was one of those.
Most of you aren’t deists. Most of you believe in some sort of religion, bible , koran etc and follow a dogma. Many of our founding fathers were deists but you can’t claim deism if your believe in christ or the bible. Honestly, I think most true deists are the closest thing to an atheist without being an atheist. As they believe in a creator that made things then got the hell out of the way. If you consider that creator the laws of nature we’re not so different.
I need to reread Rand’s books. I understood them differently when I was fifteen. I don’t recall her bashing religion, but could be as I remember her being undeniably atheist.
Murky, that’s a pretty concrete way to look at it. I don’t see beliefs in absolutes, but rather as relative scale between extremes. I follow most of the teachings of Christ, but look at the parts of the Bible as divinely inspired, parts as humanly inspired, and parts as uninspired. I consider it mythical truth, not literal truth. I see the laws of nature as the means of creation. I’m not an absolute deist, but probably closer to deist than theist. As for religion, I have little use for it. Religion serves to corrupt faith.
I made a long comment but it disapeared. Atheism is not a faith, we have no doctrine. The only requirement for atheism is to not believe in a god.
Ayn Rand was an atheist. She was one of my teen heroes. People have read her books. I read some of them as a teen. Skip the long speech in (I think it was Atlas Shrugged it’s been decades since I read them) I think its insultive to write a book then spell out the idealogy in it for the reader.
What I gathered from her books when I read them as a teen was you can be atheist without being a communist(an important message at the time of the books first publishing) , you should try to excel at what you do no matter if you’re flipping burgers or running a country, Capitolism is a good thing.
You’ll find several of her ideas echo’d in Terry Goodkind books and you may find them a bit easier to read.
I think she has a point. I don’t think anything the GOP gets ahold of ends up with the same message as it started with. I’ve never found one person in my life that I agree with everything they say. Last point to you, if you pay into social security why would you consider that charity? Sounds like the GOP mind machine have gotten ahold of your brains enough to implant that thought. You think you’re avoiding their manipulation but are you really?
Murky, I’m sorry you had trouble. I found both comments waiting when I logged on.
Ayn Rand’s dubious contribution to history is providing pseudo-intellectual cover for people who have no concern for their fellow humans. The great irony being, had our most distant ancestors taken Rand’s advice, we would have gone extinct long ago. Early human survival depended on cooperation, and modern human survival does as well.
Welcome ORAXX. 🙂
I like your analysis and agree.
I remember seeing her on Phill Donahue years ago and thinking she was the single most unpleasant person I’d ever witnessed.
Welcome MDK. 🙂
I remember her from TV years ago as well, but only that I was totally unimpressed.
Ayn Rand was a slut who liked to seduce young married men and was gleeful when those men’s wives found out about the affair and eventually filed for divorce. This is who Ron Paul named his son after? And like Karl Marx, Rand was also an athiest.
Welcome Roberto. 🙂
Her behavior identifies her as a Republican. Screwples without scruples.