Last week, the Huffington Post published an article titled “Why Democrats Must Read Ayn Rand” by Eric Sapp, which aims to point out the themes in Rand’s work which contradict the ideas of conservatism, and thereby drive a wedge between the Tea Party and the religious right:
Rand’s total rejection not only of faith and God but of everything Jesus stood for is anathema to Christians, and especially to more conservative and evangelical Christians. Forcing this discussion and calling GOP leaders who praise her on what she actually taught would sow deep discord in GOP circles because the Tea Party libertarians will defend her, which will be impossible for the Christian right to stomach.
But almost as important, the Rand connection lifts the veil on GOP motives and creates a narrative for their actions and budget priorities that most Americans — regardless of their faith — will rightly find appalling. It helps explain the GOP rush to default on the debt as well (Rand taught that any U.S. interference in the economy was dangerous and it was better to destroy structures than allow broken ones to continue). We have their leaders on record saying she is their inspiration and a great thinker and moralist. If we help Americans understand Rand, they will have a narrative and the WHY that explains the GOP actions.
Sapp is also the executive director of the American Values Network, whose site prominently features a similar pamphlet comparing Randian ideas with Biblical ideas.
The project of demonstrating the contradictions between Randian ideas and conservative ideas is certainly of interest to me, since I started this blog for very similar reasons. Rand, by her own words, was not a conservative, and she would in all likelihood have been disgusted by the people who today use her name to justify their ideas. She called Ronald Reagan “the representative of the worst kind of conservatism” for his religiously-motivated opposition to abortion rights, even though Reagan saw himself as aligned with her ideas; one can only imagine what she would think of Sarah Palin’s folksy populism. Therefore, it is clearly to the benefit of those who oppose conservatism to expose the conservatives’ co-opting of Rand.
So, what hitherto-unknown facts about Rand does Sapp present to dissuade conservatives from their embrace of Rand? His points about Rand, essentially, amount to these:
- She was an atheist.
- She didn’t think people should love their neighbors.
- She once said something nice about a murderer.
A rather underwhelming exposé, unfortunately.
There’s no way that conservatives could fail to have noticed Rand’s atheism at this point. Even the most cursory look at her work will leave the reader in no doubt what she thought of God, faith, and religious morality. Despite the many angry things Rand said about the conservatives’ persistent attachment to religion, they continue to see her ideas as fundamentally compatible with theirs. They have had ample opportunity to resolve any cognitive dissonance they may feel about her atheism. And as for her idealization of William Hickman, a conservative mind capable of blanking out a secular humanistic worldview that forms the entire basis of her philosophy is going to have no trouble at all rationalizing away a few mildly troubling paragraphs written by the near-adolescent Rand in an obscure personal journal. (Especially given that a brief look at the source material would tell them that Rand’s thoughts on Hickman are generally taken out of context and exaggerated anyway.) Nor are they especially likely to be shocked by what she supposedly says about love or charity or altruism, since the Tea Party has long since abandoned any pretense at real Christian charity anyway.
Let us term Sapp’s approach to dividing religious conservatives from their Randian underpinnings radicalization. Its aim is to stress how radical Rand is, and to insist that no one with political credibility is served by ideological affiliation with her. Sapp explains:
Sure, some GOP leaders will try to say that their ongoing praise of Rand wasn’t for all the stuff she really believed and claimed was the goal of her books… they’ll say they are good Christians and just liked some of her ideas but clearly don’t agree with her on this other stuff. And if we’re smart we’ll say that excuse is just as hollow as a politician who’d go around praising Hitler as a great teacher and inspiration and then try to come back and say, “Well, of course I wasn’t talking about the whole genocide/fascist/warmongering part… I’ve just always thought his prioritization of education and the need for society to invest in its children were really important, and that’s why I make all my interns read Mein Kampf“!
Sapp’s hope, in other words, is to portray Rand as just as politically toxic as Hitler, and thereby eliminate her from credible political discourse as completely as Hitler has been eliminated. But what makes this approach fall flat is the fact that Rand simply was not that radical in the way he means.
The most radical thing that Sapp can find to say about Rand, however, is that she didn’t believe in God and she disagreed with Jesus on some ethical points. Is this really such a radical position that it convincingly puts the person espousing it on par with Hitler? Atheism is included as a legitimate viewpoint in the progressive coalition today. What is accomplished if we claim to welcome atheists into the progressive tent, while simultaneously using trying to use an author’s atheism as the ground on which to dismiss her ideas? Not only will such a silly contradiction be transparent and laughable to conservatives, but it might turn around and radicalize atheism for progressives! In a political environment where atheists are already the least trusted minority in America (less than even Muslims or GLBTs!), this seems a dangerous direction for progressive rhetoric.
So, the same positions that might divide Rand from conservatives are fairly moderate and mainstream ones within progressive ideology. From a progressive point of view, her radicalism comes down to her pro-capitalist and pro-business rhetoric. But that same rhetoric is now mainstream among the Tea Party! From one angle or the other, there is simply nothing about Rand that puts her so far beyond the mainstream of political discourse that she can reasonably be pushed aside into the political wilderness with untouchables like Hitler. Sapp’s radicalization strategy, therefore, can never succeed. What is the alternative?
It’s actually quite simple. Since Rand can’t be easily placed on a linear political spectrum, and since some parts of her ideas are relatively mainstream on each end of that spectrum, then why shouldn’t progressives embrace those points we have in common with Rand just as much as conservatives do? If conservatives can appreciate Rand despite her atheism, why shouldn’t progressives be just as capable of respecting her despite her advocacy of capitalism? If there were a healthy community of progressives finding inspiration in Rand, then that would at least force conservatives and moderates to think somewhat more critically about Rand’s ideas before embracing them as an unambiguous endorsement of the conservative agenda. Seeing progressives claiming Rand for their own might even drive conservatives from her entirely, given their Manichean division of the ideological world into conservative “truth” and liberal “propaganda.”
So, in calling out the parts of Rand that conservatives blank out, I argue that progressives should point out the synergies with our own beliefs, rather than futilely trying to paint Rand as more radical than either party. We should start with her atheism and secular worldview, of course—but in a positive way, not as the weird anti-atheist scare tactic attempted by Sapp and the American Values Network! We should point out Rand’s belief in the validity of reason and science, and contrast it with conservatives’ rejection of scientific evidence on global warming, evolution, abstinence-only education, and nearly every other instance where science ought to inform policy. We should stress the extent to which she valued intelligence and education, contra the Tea Party demagogues who rant about latte-drinking Harvard elites and hold up “Joe the Plumber” as the realization of American values. We should cite her belief in the absolute right of the individual to self-ownership and her uncompromising support of abortion rights. We should identify the hypocrisy of conservatives who blather on about going “on strike” while eliminating the power of workers in Wisconsin to do just that. The more progressives can find in Rand to respect, the less power her work will have as a uniting force among conservatives, and the more it will become simply another piece of our cultural background, a set of symbols and associations no different from those of the Bible or Harry Potter, a source of mythic resonance accessible to any side in a discussion.
That is the central argument this blog aims to make. Instead of radicalizing Rand, the goal of progressives should be to reclaim her.
Reclaiming Rand 