All Aboard

Ayn Rand, and her seminal treatise on Objectivism cum fiction Atlas Shrugged is gathering widespread support from those on the conservitive side of the political spectrum. Fueled largely by recommendations from talk radio hosts, particularly Glenn Beck, conservatives are embracing--and sadly, apparently few are actually reading--the story of John Gault and the rebellion of the productive segment of society against the non-productive leeches. What many don't realize, or do realize and ignore, is that the central philosophy posited by the book results in many ends that are absolutely contrary to the fundamental beliefs of most who have suddenly jumped on the Rand bandwagon--or as I affectionately call it, the Randwagon.

The demographic that is so gung-ho over Atlas Shrugged is mostly fundamental Christian conservatives. This is a very curious situation, as Rand's philosophy known as Objectivism is directly contradictory to much of fundamental Christian belief. One of the undergirding principles of Objectivism is that reason and rationality are to be used in every endeavor, and faith utterly rejected. It esteems the individual above all other entities. It rails against any one or anything that attempts to hold authority over the individual mind, to include another human being, a government, a church or a god. The natural consequences of the philosophy are, among other things, selfishness (which Rand redefines in a manner as to make it a virtue) and atheism. Mind you, I fully embrace reason and rationality, and I'm not arguing against the veracity of Rand's philosophy. I'm merely showing that such a philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the stated belief structure of most Randwagonneers.

To wit, here is what Rand had to say during an appearance on the Phil Donahue Show:

Religion is a psychological weakness of a man who is afraid to stand on his own mind and his own responsibility. The absence of proof has gone on for centuries. I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire, above the evidence of what your mind knows.

All one need do to find this isn't an isolated idea is to actually read any of her works. Aside from direct atheism, the selfish nature of Objectivism--upon which the so-loved revolt in Atlas Shrugged is inescapably based--is diometrically opposed to the majority of Jesus' teachings in how humans are to relate to one another. The people Jesus is said to have embraced--the poor, the disadvantaged, the weak, the meek, even the retarded--are all disgusting to the central philosophy of Atlas Shrugged. Its ideals are also in direct contradiction to the Bible's central tenet that God, not the individual, is the center of a man's world. The revolt of Gault and company has no genesis without this man-centric view.

I've heard people say they embrace Atlas Shrugged for the parts they like and just discount the rest (well, the people who have actually read it and understand what it is espousing, which, again, seems to be a minority among its current crop of supporters) . The problem with this is that you can not discount the Objectivism in the book. The book (and yes, this includes the revolt itself) is Objectivism. To argue that the favored part of the philosophy can be separated from the philosophy as a whole is akin to saying that one is opposed to drinking alcohol, but he likes the taste of whiskey, so he will drink it for the tase and just discount the alcohol. The two are inseperable, both from a practical standpoint and an ontological one--the taste is a direct result of the alcohol. Separate the alcohol from the other componets, and you are not drinking whiskey. Likwise, attempting to separate Objectivism from the uprising in Atlas is to remove the very thing that justifies the uprising. Those arguing otherwise are participating in selective hypocricy and intellectual dishonesty, both of which run counter to Christianity and the Objectivism-based revolt people are currently fawning over.

Anton LaVey, who wrote the Satanic Bible and founded the Church of Satan, used Rand's writings (in their intended context) as inspiration for his own philosophy. That is not to say the two are in lock-step, but one who claims Christianity as a belief system has to ask oneself how closely he wants to be allied with a philosophy from which Satanism can so easily and naturally borrow.

To reiterate, I am not here to make a case against Rand or Objectivism. My purpose is to point out the fact that many people who are on the Randwagon because of its stance against socialist ideals are implicitly embracing a philosophy that cannot be reconciled with their stated beleifs. The fact that they are so eagerly willing to do so, in spite of having this evidence pointed out to them, makes them no different than the Obomatons they so virulently chide.