My wife was complaining recently about the failures of the Obama administration. Every candidate she ever voted for, she said, wound up disappointing her. She was also frustrated by the lack of apprent workable alternatives. She found some comfort, however, in concluding, "I guess it will be OK, the system pretty much runs itself anyway."
She really hit on the truth there. If there's an American genius, it's the ability to make things
work, even when they seem hopelessly broken. The system "runs itself" because fundamentally, we all agree about what things are essential and we know to get there, even though it seems we never agree about anything.
Obama's signature issue was health care. He had a plan. The Republican's didn't like that plan. They had a different plan. Or, they liked the plan we already had. Everyone said they knew how to fix health care and the other guys didn't. What we got was a power play, not real agreement.
In civil law, there's a procedure known as "summary judgment" to bring a lawsuit to an end without a trial. A summary judgment requires an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to relevant facts, or an admitted inability by one party to dispute facts alleged by their opponent. Once there's no dispute as to facts, the Court will apply the law to those
facts and make a ruling. Trials are only needed when relevant facts are in dispute: that is, the purpose of a civil trial is to establish what the facts actually are. The basic way to avoid a summary judgment motion by one side is for the other side to show that relevant facts are in dispute.
Congress is supposed to be the greatest fact finding body in the world. They can subpoena any witness, compel the production of any document, and inquire of the greatest thinkers in any field to aid them in framing legislation. Republicans and Democrats had all that power at their fingertips, but evidently never used it. What Obama should have done was to call the leaders of Congress to the White House and said, "I want you to find out why it costs so much to be sick in this country and after you know that, jointly propose legislation to reduce those costs or figure out a way to pay for them". Once Republicans and Democrats uncovered the real facts, workable solutions could have been reached with far less partisan grandstanding. We might have learned stuff we didn't know, or disproved what everyone thought they did know.
Passing health care laws without a joint investigation was the equivalent of a judge ruling on a lawsuit without agreement on the facts. What we got was a partisan plan, based on what the Democrats thought were the facts.
My wife was right-- the system runs itself. It just doesn't run very well.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
AYN RAND AND THE CONSERVATIVES
Ayn Rand's lofty perch in the ideology of American conservatives continually amazes me. It's hard to believe anyone takes her seriously, but clearly, many people do. Among them are people holding high public office, powerful business executives and policy makers. Prominent examples include the current conservative stars Ron Paul, his son, Rand Paul and financial luminaries like Alan Greenspan.
I thought that after years of not hearing about her, she had been forgotten, but I was wrong. The depth of her continuing influence was recently suggested by the surprising financial success of "Atlas Shrugged," a movie critics dismissed as a turgid, wordy mess. I'm pretty sure no one went to that film for the special effects, for the romance, the suspense or the drama.
In 1968 after securing an MBA, I was a loan officer trainee at a major midwest bank. Among my fellow trainees and the loan officers we worked for and among the intellectual set I sometimes rubbed up against after work, Ayn Rand was the hot guru: Krishna concsciousness had not yet made itself fully felt.
Intrigued by Any Rand's books and by expressions of admiration from my co-workers, I attended a few of her lectures. Rand was the perfect Republican "philosopher." She held that that the only legitimate functions of a government were maintaining armed forces to protect the nation, operating a police department and a court system. Anything else was unnecessary, and worse, a calculated infringement of one's god given rights to be left the hell alone. Of course, as an avowed athiest, Rand would never use the term, "god-given." She held that taxes levied to fund anything outside of the permissible three constituted outright robbery by the government and it was every thinking citizen's duty to vigorously defend themselves from theves. All of which dovetail perfectly with popular conservative doctrine.
I believe that unless you know where someone comes from (emotionally, intellectually or politically) any criticism of them will be wide of the mark because your own perspective is probably inadequate. To us, Communism is odeous, but if you lived in Russia under the Tzar, Communism would look wonderful. If you lived under Communism (as opposed to just reading about it) laissez-faire capitalism would look pretty good.
Ayn Rand escaped communist Russia in the 1920's. Being subject to the arbitrary imposition of absolute power in the pursuit of goals you didn't understand or share would make anyone paranoid about government control. In fact, her one really good book, We the Living, is a vivid picture of how scary life could be under the dictatorship of the proletariat. As an escapee from absolute control it was no suprise that she embraced its polar opposite - no control at all - as an ideal.
In Rand's view, once government control got started, "mission creep" was inevitable. Before long, faceless bureaucrats would have you by the throat. So, I can understand why she took the view that government should get off everyone's backs. She also rejected altruism as an ethical obligation. I'm pretty sure she viewed Social Security as government imposed altruism, and thus, evidence of a moral disease.
But, what most people who embrace Rand's philosophy don't know, is that as a student in Russia, she was heavily influenced by Neitsche. His influence is clearly evident in Rand's two famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Her protagonists (each of which has a some great benefit to bestow upon an unappreciative society) are Nietszschien Supermen; brave, and by artistic necessity beautiful or handsome, ready (compelled instincitively) to go against the crowd and willing to nobly suffer for the principles they believe in. Those who oppose her heroes and heroines are clearly lesser men, allied with the loathsome, unthinking masses, and richly descrve the calamities ultimately meeted out to them.
In Atlas Shrugged the Superman/Innovators withdraw from society, denying the world the progress their untrammeled vision would otherwise bestow. Sequestered and inspired by the one person with the vision and courage to shelter and guide them, John Gault, they commune and learn from one another. In Gault's Valhalla, they grow and flourish, each in full appreciation of one another's contributions and special gifts, while the larger society collapses in confusion and anarchy, belatedly realizing that they have driven away the "engines" which kept them going.
In The Fountainhead, the architect protagonist, who, rather than compromise his vision, works for years as a stone quarry laborer, finally secures a desirable commission. But he blows up the nearly completed project because someone made changes to his design he could not endorse. He is arrested and tried, but of course, the jury acquits him (Rand, a succcessful screen writer and playright, crafted at least two jury thrillers before Fountainhead) because they recognize that as the creator, he was entitled to absolute control of his creation. By the way, Rand's faith in juries is entirely at odds with her scorn for "ordinary" people.
In Rand's view, the ideal society needs no regulation (remember, she's a laissez-faire capitalist). If everyone were left to their own devices, she argues, rational self interest would provide all the regulation and balance necessary. Amazingly, wide swaths of the "educated" public swallow this bullshit like fresh truffles in season. Thus, Rand seemingly provides intellectual depth the conservative's core values.
The Nietzchean undertone of Rand's "philosophy" gives her novels staying power. Readers are deeply moved by her heroes and heroines' romantic suffering and, more importantly, inspired by their ultimate triumphs. Once readers buy into her mythos, they are hooked, usually for life. But, just like the Force in "Star Wars," Nietzchean philosophy has a dark side. The Superman mythos inspried Nazi Germany. Swallowd whole, the myth can easily lead to disaster on a grand scale.
Romantic art is the anthises of the realistic. When Rand's noble protagonists fail, only they are harmed, and they bear their suffering nobly. Their failures don't drag down entire economies, but that was real laissez-faire capatilism can do. The economic melt down of 2008 was a perfect demonstration, but with an ugly twist Rand would never have contemplated.
The twist is, of course, that when our Innovator/Supermen make mistakes we bail them out because they are "too big to fail." Even worse, they get the keep the profits they made before the entire thing went into the toilet, while you and I pay for their mistakes. What's more, conservatives argue we shouldn't tax the "engines" of our economy, because they might pull a John Gault and decide not to endow us with more progress.
The conservatives (here, read the GOP) consistently pull off a magic trick: they convince hard working blue collar types that any hint of government control is the first step down the road to to totalitairian communism, including of course, seizure of guns. And of course, that road is paved with a progressive income tax. So those who can barely earn a living wage are willing to live in squalor and penury to have the chance that one day, they too will be Supermen and keep every penny they make, and further, pass it down to their children. Some philosophy!
I thought that after years of not hearing about her, she had been forgotten, but I was wrong. The depth of her continuing influence was recently suggested by the surprising financial success of "Atlas Shrugged," a movie critics dismissed as a turgid, wordy mess. I'm pretty sure no one went to that film for the special effects, for the romance, the suspense or the drama.
In 1968 after securing an MBA, I was a loan officer trainee at a major midwest bank. Among my fellow trainees and the loan officers we worked for and among the intellectual set I sometimes rubbed up against after work, Ayn Rand was the hot guru: Krishna concsciousness had not yet made itself fully felt.
Intrigued by Any Rand's books and by expressions of admiration from my co-workers, I attended a few of her lectures. Rand was the perfect Republican "philosopher." She held that that the only legitimate functions of a government were maintaining armed forces to protect the nation, operating a police department and a court system. Anything else was unnecessary, and worse, a calculated infringement of one's god given rights to be left the hell alone. Of course, as an avowed athiest, Rand would never use the term, "god-given." She held that taxes levied to fund anything outside of the permissible three constituted outright robbery by the government and it was every thinking citizen's duty to vigorously defend themselves from theves. All of which dovetail perfectly with popular conservative doctrine.
I believe that unless you know where someone comes from (emotionally, intellectually or politically) any criticism of them will be wide of the mark because your own perspective is probably inadequate. To us, Communism is odeous, but if you lived in Russia under the Tzar, Communism would look wonderful. If you lived under Communism (as opposed to just reading about it) laissez-faire capitalism would look pretty good.
Ayn Rand escaped communist Russia in the 1920's. Being subject to the arbitrary imposition of absolute power in the pursuit of goals you didn't understand or share would make anyone paranoid about government control. In fact, her one really good book, We the Living, is a vivid picture of how scary life could be under the dictatorship of the proletariat. As an escapee from absolute control it was no suprise that she embraced its polar opposite - no control at all - as an ideal.
In Rand's view, once government control got started, "mission creep" was inevitable. Before long, faceless bureaucrats would have you by the throat. So, I can understand why she took the view that government should get off everyone's backs. She also rejected altruism as an ethical obligation. I'm pretty sure she viewed Social Security as government imposed altruism, and thus, evidence of a moral disease.
But, what most people who embrace Rand's philosophy don't know, is that as a student in Russia, she was heavily influenced by Neitsche. His influence is clearly evident in Rand's two famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Her protagonists (each of which has a some great benefit to bestow upon an unappreciative society) are Nietszschien Supermen; brave, and by artistic necessity beautiful or handsome, ready (compelled instincitively) to go against the crowd and willing to nobly suffer for the principles they believe in. Those who oppose her heroes and heroines are clearly lesser men, allied with the loathsome, unthinking masses, and richly descrve the calamities ultimately meeted out to them.
In Atlas Shrugged the Superman/Innovators withdraw from society, denying the world the progress their untrammeled vision would otherwise bestow. Sequestered and inspired by the one person with the vision and courage to shelter and guide them, John Gault, they commune and learn from one another. In Gault's Valhalla, they grow and flourish, each in full appreciation of one another's contributions and special gifts, while the larger society collapses in confusion and anarchy, belatedly realizing that they have driven away the "engines" which kept them going.
In The Fountainhead, the architect protagonist, who, rather than compromise his vision, works for years as a stone quarry laborer, finally secures a desirable commission. But he blows up the nearly completed project because someone made changes to his design he could not endorse. He is arrested and tried, but of course, the jury acquits him (Rand, a succcessful screen writer and playright, crafted at least two jury thrillers before Fountainhead) because they recognize that as the creator, he was entitled to absolute control of his creation. By the way, Rand's faith in juries is entirely at odds with her scorn for "ordinary" people.
In Rand's view, the ideal society needs no regulation (remember, she's a laissez-faire capitalist). If everyone were left to their own devices, she argues, rational self interest would provide all the regulation and balance necessary. Amazingly, wide swaths of the "educated" public swallow this bullshit like fresh truffles in season. Thus, Rand seemingly provides intellectual depth the conservative's core values.
The Nietzchean undertone of Rand's "philosophy" gives her novels staying power. Readers are deeply moved by her heroes and heroines' romantic suffering and, more importantly, inspired by their ultimate triumphs. Once readers buy into her mythos, they are hooked, usually for life. But, just like the Force in "Star Wars," Nietzchean philosophy has a dark side. The Superman mythos inspried Nazi Germany. Swallowd whole, the myth can easily lead to disaster on a grand scale.
Romantic art is the anthises of the realistic. When Rand's noble protagonists fail, only they are harmed, and they bear their suffering nobly. Their failures don't drag down entire economies, but that was real laissez-faire capatilism can do. The economic melt down of 2008 was a perfect demonstration, but with an ugly twist Rand would never have contemplated.
The twist is, of course, that when our Innovator/Supermen make mistakes we bail them out because they are "too big to fail." Even worse, they get the keep the profits they made before the entire thing went into the toilet, while you and I pay for their mistakes. What's more, conservatives argue we shouldn't tax the "engines" of our economy, because they might pull a John Gault and decide not to endow us with more progress.
The conservatives (here, read the GOP) consistently pull off a magic trick: they convince hard working blue collar types that any hint of government control is the first step down the road to to totalitairian communism, including of course, seizure of guns. And of course, that road is paved with a progressive income tax. So those who can barely earn a living wage are willing to live in squalor and penury to have the chance that one day, they too will be Supermen and keep every penny they make, and further, pass it down to their children. Some philosophy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)