...And so to the US Presidential
election where, for a change, the male combatants take a back seat and a woman
comes to the centre stage of influence and controversy. Her name is Ayn Rand
and, while she died in 1982, her philosophy of Objectivism has been back in
focus and causing some discomfort for the Romney-Ryan Republican campaign.
For months now the media has been
guessing and second guessing who Mitt Romney would select as his running
partner for Vice President. A couple of weeks ago he announced it would be
Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan. As the press scrabbled to build their profiles
of Ryan one particular anecdote kept floating up. In 2005 Ryan gave a speech in
which he credited the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand as the key reason he
went into public service. He was a huge fan of her philosophy of Objectivism and
insisted all his staffers read her novel Atlas Shrugged. Fast forward to
this week and Team Romney has Ryan back-peddling furiously to deny much of Rand’s
influence. So who was she, and why does it matter?
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was born and
educated in Russia and moved to the US in 1926 where she became a playwright,
novelist and philosopher. She became famous in the US for the development of a philosophical
system she called Objectivism in which there lies ‘the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own
happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his
noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.’ Rand was an aetheist and
rejected all forms of collectivism or statism, having seen the suffering and
damage unleashed by the Communist revolution in Russia.
In Rand’s opinion the only role of the Government should be the
protection of minority. As she wrote, ‘The
smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights
cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. Individual rights are not subject
to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a
minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities
from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the
individual).’ She believed the only acceptable political platform was a
laissez-faire capitalism system and argued for the morality of that system. ‘Achievement of your happiness is the only
moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless
self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof
and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.’ Her beliefs were conveyed famously in two of her
novels. The first was called The Fountainhead (1943) and the second was Atlas
Shrugged (1957) - her best-known work.
Unfortunately for Romney, the
connection between his campaign and an aethiest philosophy guided by capitalist
morality has dawn massive criticism from Christian America. Ryan’s back
pedalling has largely been focused on assuring conservatives that his high
profile austerity plans are grounded in pragmatic localism rather than simply the
punishment of those who cannot provide for themselves. The latter is probably a
requirement of the Tea Party and no doubt mainstream Republicans will want to avoid
getting too close to them in case they scare undecideds toward Obama. More practically,
Romney’s own Mormonism will be frightening to many ‘mainstream’ Christians, which
means it’s doubly important for Ryan to appear a straight-forward, gun- loving,
anti-abortion Catholic. Ayn Rand was anti-God and pro-Choice.
No doubt Rand would have had more
in common with Ryan than Obama but it’s still hard to see how Paul Ryan squares
his ‘Rand influence’ with a Party that has, or will, allow states to legislate against
individual consensual love (anti gay marriage) and individual rights (anti-abortion).
States are still big ‘S’ States and they are not the ‘smallest unit.’ As Jennifer
Burns wrote in the New York Times last week, ‘Years before Roe v. Wade, Rand called
abortion “a moral right which should be left to the sole discretion of the
woman involved.” She condemned the military draft and American involvement in
Vietnam. She warned against recreational drugs but thought government had no
right to ban them. These aspects of Rand do not fit with a political view that
weds fiscal and social conservatism.’ I
think we know what she would have thought of Todd ‘you can’t get pregnant being
raped’ Akin.
It was
Radio 4’s Women’s Hour this week that
picked up on a particular paradox of Rand and her philosophy - her anti-feminism.
Objectivism argues for Man’s achievement as the ultimate achievement, and sadly
it does not mean ‘or Woman.’. This position was famously aired on a television
interview with Rand in which she was asked whether she would vote for a female
president. She said no, she would never do that. When asked, by way of
clarification, if she would vote for a woman if she were better qualified than any man, she replied ‘If we had
fallen that low, I might.’ She then went on to say ‘It is not in a woman’s personal interest to rule man. It puts her in
an unhappy position. I don’t believe any good woman would want that position.’
Oddly, she said she would happily vote for women as Senators or judges or other
leaders of high office, but not as Commander in Chief: ‘I think it’s unspeakable’
she said. You can watch that interview on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpzDdTrw5II
I wanted
to read more on this subject to see whether we might be missing a link to modern
feminism. Here is what she writes,
‘For a woman...the essence of femininity is
hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. “To look up” does not mean
dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense
kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only
by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments.
Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be
worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as
a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is
specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.’
Her view
seems to be about equality with difference, but ultimately, I couldn’t find
justification for her view as a feminist. If Objectivism says our own happiness
should be our moral code, and if we are all due the right to steer our own bodies
through our own personal moral maze then we must be capable of wanting and
enjoying the same outcome / position / status as anyone as, and that includes
men.
When I
read The Fountainhead I was puzzled
by the tortuous relationship between the protagonist – Roake – who chooses
suffering and obscurity rather than compromise his integrity – and Dominique,
who seems to love and loathe him in equal measure. Roake rapes Dominique in the
novel. Rand, and I now know why, is a red flag to the modern feminist movement.
Unkindly we could suggest that this alone might be something positive she could
offer the Republican Party. Nonetheless, The Fountainhead is a page turner and
well worth reading.
The credit
crisis, with its massive shadow of bankruptcy, joblessness and shuffling economic
recovery, will make arguing for a Rand-like system as controversial now as it
ever could be. While the Republican Party will always argue to minimise
Government it is a step too far for Romney’s team to argue that capitalism is a
morality in itself, and that the titans of production be free from all regulation,
support and oversight. There is very little stomach in ordinary America to let companies,
savings banks and housing institutions to fail for the benefit of a handful of
individual happiness. It is an interesting, personal footnote that in the late
stages of her life, too, that Ayn Rand herself signed up for Government social
security and healthcare benefits. But, no matter one’s support or repudiation
of her views, this is a woman who has had a huge influence on many in business,
the arts and in politics and for the moment again it is she who is the hero and
influencer of the men who follow her.
A personal footnote: my husband was recently given a copy of Atlas Shrugged - not by Paul Ryan, but by Dominic Johnson, Chairman of the Conservative Party’s City and Entrepreneurs Forum. No one ever accused a politician of original thinking.
You can listen
to the Radio 4 segment on Ayn Rand here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01m182q/
(available until 1st Jan 2099 in case you’re a bit busy this week.)
No comments:
Post a Comment