All You Need to Know about Contemporary Conservativism
Posted on June 25th, 2009
by John Payne |
|
Chances are you’ve seen the Young Con Anthem rap that’s been making the rounds the last week or so, but if not you can find it here. (I tried embedding it, but it didn’t work. Sorry.)
I think this neatly encapsulates the main incoherencies of contemporary conservatism (and, by extension, liberalism, but that’s not imporant for our purposes at the moment). They criticize government for dictating how people should run businesses, but then thank Miss California for “reminding us of marriage,” which implicitly endorses government interference with a far more intimate aspect of our lives. Further, they say that “government spending needs to deflate” but readily celebrate the biggest government program of all, the military. Sorry, but you just can’t be a credible advocate for smaller government without wanting to see substantial cuts in military spending.
Finally (and my personal favorite), they say that the three things that taught them “consevative love” are “Jesus, Ronald Reagan plus Atlas Shrugged.” I don’t think there are two thinkers in the history of the world more diametrically opposed than Jesus and Ayn Rand. One said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven and the other published a collection of essays called The Virtue of Selfishness. Any movement predicated on this mishmash of contradictions must, like a union of matter and anti-matter, explode.
Cross posted at my personal blog Rough Ol’ Boy.
Filed under: Uncategorized
To be fair to these boys, it seems unlikely that either of them have actually read anything by Ayn Rand.
I wonder if they have read much of anything, period.
Excellent summation of how the popular conservatives, or pop-cons, like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc, are really just decepti-cons, warmed over liberals who only disagree with who the federal behemoth oppresses, not having any problem that it actually oppresses.
I actually heard Limbaugh try to defend self-interest one time. It was the most pathetic thing I’d ever heard - like he was tiptoeing around the tender sensitivities of his listener’s religious beliefs. Christianity is all about sacrifice, as epitomized in the crucifixion. But then again, sacrifice to others is also the moral basis for the various forms of collectivism, including liberalism.
So it’s no wonder that the evangelicals cannot, and do not, defend Capitalism on the grounds of an individual’s right to pursue their own happiness. Pursuing your own happiness is the OPPOSITE of sacrifice and of Christian philosophy.
It’s time to throw the evangelical bums out, and allow rational, freedom-loving individuals to take over.
“Self-interest” does not always have to imply selfishness. “Self-interest” can extend to, not only to the individual, but to one’s family, friends, and community.
If Christianity is about sacrifice, then how far should that sacrifice extend to? Community, nation, hemisphere, world? The “sacrifice” element can be applied so broadly as to be entirely useless. You can only do so much for others of which you are not familiar with.
If “self-interest” is to mean “do x in accordance to one’s self, family, and community,” then “self-interest and Christianity are not at odds.
I don’t think there are two thinkers in the history of the world more diametrically opposed than Jesus and Ayn Rand.
I agree, and I choose Rand.
If there even was a Jesus Christ, which is doubtful, he certainly was opposite to Ayn Rand–as opposite as the supernatural is to her axiom “existence exists” and as opposite as faith is to reason.
Mr. Binswanger is obviously too intelligent to fall for that religious nonsense. So he settles for the One True Philosophy of Universal Objectivism.
I wonder if Jeremiah Whitmoore is aware that Dr. Harry Binswanger, with Dr. Leonard Peikoff, is one of the world’s two leading Objectivist philosophers and a mentor to generations of Objectivist intellectuals.
I wonder what could possibly be meant when Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is derided for being “the One True Philosophy”. That there is MORE than One True Philosophy? Then how many True Philosophies are there? How would you know they are true? And can two philosophies be both true if they contradict each other?
Or perhaps it is meant that there is NO True Philosophy? And how does one know that? Isn’t that itself a philosophic position?
One might as well deride a mathematician for advocating the one true algebra or a biologist for teaching the one true botany. The issue being avoided here is whether Objectivism is true at all. If Mr. (Dr.? Rev.?) Whitmoore has disagreements with Ayn Rand, he seems not to be willing to address them openly. Indeed, this is typical of the opposition to Objectivism that dares not oppose it directly because they don’t have reality or reason on their side.
Anyone who wants to know the truth about Objectivism can find a wealth of information at the website of the Ayn Rand Institute http://www.aynrand.org.
No offense to Dr. Bingswanger, but being the world’s leading Objectivist philosopher is analogous to being the world’s tallest midget.
Your pedantic, yet juvenile rebuttal to my comment is most unnecessary as I presently have neither the time nor inclination to compose a voluminous post (on a comment section of a blog) regarding the flaws, perniciousness, or intellectual destitution of your life-affirming philosophy (sic).
And the Randroids egress from their matriarch’s crypt to stalk the one of the few rational conservative sites left.
And Mr. Whitmoore demonstrates the emptiness of the typical opposition to Ayn Rand and Objectivism with sarcasm, ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and unsupported claims.
The truth about Ayn Rand and Objectivism is readily available to anyone interested in truth. Learn and judge for yourself.
Yes the truth can be found and is readily available. Just don’t google Ayn Rand. There’s no truth to be found there.
After 25 years of belief in Objectivism, I finally discovered truth, and its name is Stefan Molyneux.