Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I feel a bizarre sense of indebtedness to Tucker Carlson Editor-In-Chief of The Daily Caller and Fox News commentator. Thanks to Tucker’s blank out on live t.v. Hunter now feels simultaneously blessed, fearful, discouraged, and – borrowing from the sense of life of the 2008 campaign of then Presidential hopeful Barack Obama – hopeful.

Today we know that the hope of President Obama’s oratory was at best disingenuous, and yet…oh, the hope.

It certainly inspired all those Statists in our midst.

Such a bag of mixed premises and ambivalence your correspondent now lives with this fine morning. Hunter must thank Tucker for his open (though hidden from himself) acknowledgement that Ayn Rand was usually right. Thanks, Tucker. With friends like these…

Tucker was discussing the 2012 election on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom this morning.

Speaking to Martha MacCallum, Tucker and Martha came around to the oft alluded to ‘gender gap’ and ‘marriage gap’ between Conservatives and Liberals. Tucker acknowledged that said gap exists: he recognized that unmarried people and women are far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. He admitted he was a bit unnerved by it, saying he wasn’t sure why it was so.

Thank you – and, also…thanks a whole friggin’ lot, Tucker. Thank you for handing Hunter a gift few people receive – the opportunity to watch decades of failures and evasions of a philosophical movement and a political party jump out from the screen in the guise of your blank out on live television. Thanks, Tucker, for the reminder of how right Rand was about the mess that is the Republican party.

In his inability to understand why unmarried folks and women just might be turned off by Republicans, he blanks out – wilfully ignoring the obvious. Unwilling (or unable) to accept the notion that the Party’s ideas are the problem, Tucker hums the party line that ‘we just gotta try harder to reach them’ and ‘we haven’t packaged the message’ of fiscal responsibility well enough. Oh, Tucker, if only. The message is not the problem, the messenger is.

Like many others Carlson is unable to understand why unmarried folks and women just might be turned off by the Social Conservatism of the party of Reagan. He wilfully ignores the connections between the liberal (small ‘l’) social values held by most Americans (obvious in nearly every poll) and their voting tendencies. Odd, for a self identified Conservative and Libertarian. Isn’t it the Conservative who tends to believe one’s position on political issues tend to come down to one’s values? Perhaps Tucker should look, as is often necessary when issues such as these come up, to Ayn Rand and Objectivist thought for the answer to his dilemma.

What motivates people, any person, to support a Party or its platform? Surely it cannot be social issues or the values that drive them, right? Isn’t this the objection to movement conservatism we hear from Liberals? Don’t they claim people should and do care more about their bottom line and not, like Republicans, about what others do with their bottoms? And yet isn’t this why they keep pounding on Conservatives – claiming Conservatives are obsessed with the bedroom and the barroom at the expense of the American wallet? Isn’t it Liberal and Democratic success at a rhetorical two step that has brought them so much success?

Perhaps all of us (including Conservatives) ought listen, not to the Liberal arguments on a given subject but, as Rand suggested, to their methods of persuasion.

What motivates unmarried people, particularly the young? Most young people are not swayed by the ‘our economy is doomed, we need free markets’ rationalism of Conservatives and their logical, well thought out and well articulated yet emotionally disconnected persuasive techniques.

Young, unmarried folks are too busy working, partying, and fucking – and too optimistic that things will always be ok – to obsess over concepts like fiscal insolvency or overspending. We (forgive the conceit of this Gen X’er numbering himself among ‘the young’) are however disgusted with and a bit terrified of the concept of a Handmaid’s Tale style Socially Conservative theocracy.

Not planning nor interested in establishing one of those, Tucker? Please.

Spare us your mind in denial. Have you heard your Party? Are you familiar with the platform?

Don’t open a mouth to say that ‘this isn’t your Daddy’s GOP‘. In policy and voting record, such as the oft obsessed over ‘reproductive rights/free exercise of religion’ , ‘marriage equality/traditional marriage’, or even the ‘protect the borders/immigration rights’ nexus, Republicans and Conservatives have little to say in their own defence.

Policy creates potential and principles build policy. Motives and methods matter.

From whence does the gender and marriage gap originate? From the philosophical origins of the policy and the social principles and the methods of persuasion of the respective Philosophical movements – The New Left, the Neo Conservative, as well the amalgams of these, the Occupy Wall Street Movement & the  Tea Party.

It originates as well from the inability and unwillingness of these folks to divorce themselves from their insatiable need to control another – liberals the greed and guns and conservatives the backsides and beers of others. Given the disingenuous way both sides engage emotional triggers while mirroring the language of their antagonists we see, in living color, how both ultimately wish to control the minds of their own ranks.

Conservatism, especially since the advent of the Tea Party, are a coalition of freedom loving Libertarians, freedom constricting Social Conservatives, and freedom corrupting middle of the road Republicans unwilling to challenge the party’s social principles.

Modern Liberalism is and has been a coalition of free wheeling identity groups convinced that in control of economic purse strings one has freedom to wheel, deal, and dance. It is a coalition of mostly a youth unable to challenge the party’s economic platform.

Motivated by values, Liberals speak to their ranks base motivator – fear – fear of the loss of control of their personal work and playtime. Liberal argument convinces them that if only work weren’t so damn difficult – thanks to the greed of others, and if only they could, through law, control that greed, they’d be free.

Motivated by values, Conservatives speak to their base motivator – fear – fear of the loss of control of their purse and the destruction of their pews, to the hands of too many playful, greedy, ethically challenged others.

Conservative argument convinces them that if only God’s hand, through law, was employed in the bedroom and the barroom, they’d be free.

Singing the language of free economics, Conservatives strum the emotions of controlled values.

Singing the language of freedom of values, Liberals strum the emotions of controlled economics. Oh, the irony.

Rand and Objectivist principles address and correct this gross error. Its economic and behavioral freedom, however, is too much to bare, its demand of personal responsibility too much to contemplate, and its refusal to compromise too offensive. Too offensive for Republicans who will not back down from the distorted view that morality stems from the Bible and God rather than the individual’s own mind and a mind’s commitment to be honest with itself as well as others.

Such demands were too much for Tucker. He blanks out on the connection between the nation’s belief in the values of freedom from the control of another and the voting tendencies of an unmarried youth unwilling to believe Republicans when they claim they are about freedom.

Too bad for us that Tucker blanks out on Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Pity also that he blanks out on what is certain to be his uncompromising knowledge – – principles matter.

Policy creates potential and principles build policy. Motives and methods matter. Which brings us to Rand and Republican motives, methods and mental gymnastics.

Rand was right. As Jerome Tuccille observed, It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand.

Before the remainder of the nation’s Galts hide away in the Gulch and America begins to sing a handmaid’s tale or sets Herself up as an Animal Farm, here’s hoping Conservative blankouts end with Ayn Rand.

A fact acknowledged by critic and Objectivism student alike, Ayn Rand appeals first and foremost to hopeful youth. Here’s hoping Rand’s ubiquitousness in the dialogue of today sings to youthful minds prepared to hear that they can and should control their own lives and be responsible for them.

We heard from the horses mouth that the youth and women ought to be and are terrified of today’s climate of failure; failures both economic and moral. We heard that they ought find the Republican message of economic freedom appealing and just what is needed.

It is, if Republicans really meant it. Freedom isn’t free. Freedom stems from and is paid for with values.

Here’s hoping that Republicans find a way to stop blanking out and start paying more attention to the values they preach. Here’s hoping they come to understand that values do not exist in a vacuum, but originate in a mind and are expressed in the actions of the individual.

Here’s hoping they find value in reason, in freedom, and in genuine Capitalism – – soon.

Here’s hoping they understand – – soon – – that that particular message usually begins with Ayn Rand.

Be not afraid, young (and old) Republicans (and Conservatives). Where’s your faith?

Hunter is reminded of another messenger:  the Rock band Rush.

In their cross genre, cross fan base radio hit ‘Free Will’ one can almost hear Neal, Alex, and Geddy singing across decades of failures to today’s conservatives and republicans (as well as to confused yet freedom loving liberals):

if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice; you can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill; I will choose a path that’s clear – I will choose free will

GOD, unlike Conservatives, chooses precisely the right messenger to show the way to happiness and values and then back to the source. In the case of the values of Capitalism, freedom, and prosperity – – in the case of freedom to love, to value, to choose, and to act with purpose – – in the defence of the American Republic – – he chose a swinging, atheist, abrasive, creativity loving messenger.

This from yet another horses mouth on Fox News.

Oh, the irony.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s