news…

…. “Ayn Rand believed in the non-initiation of force. Conservatives invaded Iraq for no reason at all.”

and this follow up:

…. Conservatives “justify the Iraq war by saying that ‘in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril’ (a direct Joe Lieberman quote, who, to me, is as conservative as they come).”

I used the qualification “traditional” – “traditional conservatives” – to distinguish conservatives from “neoconservatives.” It’s really the neoconservatives who support the Bush Administration and their crazy foreign policy. Traditional conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, etc. oppose it.

As you say, Ayn Rand herself would have opposed what the Bush Administration is doing. But to make matters even more confusing, the so-called “Ayn Rand Institute” supports the Iraq War and now calls for an Iran War. And many alleged “Objectivists” go along with it.

But there are some Objectivists – many or more perhaps, it’s hard to say – who see through the ARI. The website ARI Watch at
…. http://ariwatch.com
discusses this at length. It shows how the Ayn Rand Institute has betrayed Ayn Rand’s ideas.

In a perfect world, I would be able to cast my vote for ousting anyone believing in big government. The problem is that my hand has been forced and I have voted in a manner where I choose the lesser of two evils. Perhaps, at some point, the Libertarian Party will gain ground and I will be able to commit fully to those beliefs. Until then, I don’t necessarily vote for something, but against straight liberalism.

Keep in mind, that this is not a referendum against social liberalism. I personally couldn’t care less what people do in private. I would argue that there are a lot more conservatives in this group than you might think. What I would further argue is that you are grouping conservatives based on a word that is lacking (when considered by the definition and not the practical application). A true conservative believes in limited government. As such, a true conservative is forced to set aside many of their religious beliefs for the sake of that principle of small government.

We can go at it in two ways:

1- the meaning of the word. To conserve is to maintain, to keep. Most people who call themselves “conservative” love tradition, and want to go back to some idealized “Fifties”, when people obeyed their elders, everyone was a devout Christian, there were no gay rights, and, why, black people still stayed at the back of the bus. Conservative is, in a way, being against anything new just because it’s new. It’s what the word means, you know…

2- what most people who call themselves “conservatives” are like. Again, I don’t see most of them saying that they want a minimal government - if they did, they’d be the biggest opponents of the Bush administration. What I see them doing is to try to ban gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion, save brain dead women, put the 10 commandments in public places, teach Intelligent Design, and justify the Iraq war by saying that “in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril” (a direct Joe Lieberman quote, who, to me, is as conservative as they come).

Now, if “true conservatives” are a minority, and most people who call themselves “conservatives” really aren’t, why don’t the “true ones” speak up? Why is it that everyone who criticizes the Bush administration or opposes the war (not on the grounds that it’s being “mismanaged”, but because there was no justification for it in the first place, except lies about “terrorism” and “WMDs”) is imediately branded “unpatriotic”, “a traitor”, “a commie”, ” a socialist”, “a liberal” (gee, a dirty word!), “un-American”, and so on?

If you disagree with Bush you are automatically a socialist? Is that it? Because that’s surely what it looks like.

There is no one, right now, saying “I’m a conservative, and let me tell you, Mr. Bush, you are no conservative.”

Let’s look at the distinction between a socialist and a free-market capitalist. Obviously, these are radically-opposed political ideologies. In fact, we can place them on opposite ends of a one-axis spectrum; “left” in this case would be socialists, while “right” would be free-market capitalists. Of course, again, this is oversimplified; but it should at least be obvious when it comes to things like corporate interests, environmental protection, and social welfare programs, these two ideologies are going to split along the more familiar lines…

Now, then: in this sense, where does Ayn Rand fall? As you say: she’s an atheist. But any free-market capitalist (Adam Smith, etc.) is going to recognize NO authority higher than the almighty dollar; ergo the separation of church and state. In this sense, religion is a non-issue, or at least a red herring; conservatives can be every bit as secular as their liberal counterparts. Furthermore, the appeal to tradition is equally misplaced; a true free market allows nothing to guide it but supply and demand; PROGRESS, as you also mention, is the rule of the day! Reconsider the “more vs. less government” issue, and it should again be pretty clear that Rand falls on the side of capitalism vs. socialism. The “invisible hand of the market” is supposed to trump all other authorities.

There is no coincidence, here; Rand’s ethics, indeed, her entire system, is a wholesale appropriation of capitalism. (If one tries to imagine capitalism as an ethical theory, can it lead to anything other than rational egoism?) The me-first approach, recognizing no moral authority to anything that isn’t a rational being (think animal rights, etc.), is in this sense VERY MUCH a conservative ideology.

You are absolutely correct, however, in seeing the fundamental incompatibility of the more classic, free-market conservative approach with the newer (NEO) conservative, “religious right” version. And this is why we are seeing a radical split in the “right” wing in America today. Look, for instance, at Francis Fukuyama’s most recent book, in which he criticizes and abandons neo-conservatism. Is Fukuyama now a liberal? No way! But nor is he a member of the religious right. However, by seeing the enemy of my enemy as my friend, we make the mistake of embracing conservative ideology just because it is hostile to other (perhaps MORE) conservative ideologies.

Thanks so much for a thought-provoking blog!

About the email problem, I was using SORBS on my home email server, and it didn’t like your server’s IP address, probably due to being a dial-up one. I’ve changed it now, not to use SORBS, so there should be no more problems in the future. Banning open relays is good, but banning an IP address just because it’s dial-up or something is just wrong - though with so many zombie Windows machines out there it’s understandable…

Hmm, I’m getting offtopic. Sorry.

I tried to send this to you via email, but it bounced back to me.

Thanks so much for the backup on my blog. You said the things I was going to say, but you said it better than I could.

It’s a bit hurtful, because I intentionally try NOT to hurt anyone’s feelings. You’re right — people accuse others of “ad hominem” when they are refuted.

I haven’t seen him cite any actual examples yet…

M.

EDIT: there. Not perfect, but it’s more readable.

Conservatives want to ban gay marriage, sodomy, sex out of marriage, stem cell research, abortion, violent video games, explicite lyrics in music, and a lot more.

Will you tell me that that’s not “legislating morality”?

Now, if you told me that the Bush administration, the Religious Right, and so on, aren’t “real” conservatives, you might have a point there (though I think they are - it’s what the word “conservative” suggests, after all - not to mention that most people who call themselves conservatives fully agree with them).