who was Ayn Rand? and who in the hell is Mark Sanford?

Posted on Friday 23 October 2009

This article is a remarkable thing – on the wonders of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Epistomology written by the soon to be impeached Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford. His legacy as Governor may not be what he planned, but he will definitely be remembered for letting us know all about himself. He’s moved from being one of the C Street chosen people, to being a post-Bathsheba King David, to now being a follower of Ayn Rand.  I think there’s a theme here…
Atlas Hugged
Ayn Rand has drifted in and out of favor,
but she may be more relevant today than ever before.
NEWSWEEK
By Mark Sanford
November 2, 2009

In my experience, people who’ve read Ayn Rand’s books either love them or hate them. I’m one of the few who fall somewhere in between. When I first read The Fountainhead  and Atlas Shrugged  in the 1980s, I was blown away. Those books portray the power of the free individual in ways I had never thought about before. Since then, I’ve grown more critical of Rand’s outlook because it doesn’t include the human needs we have for grace, love, faith, or any form of social compact. Yet I still believe firmly that her books deserve attention…

The Fountainhead   is a stunning evocation of the individual and what he can achieve when unhindered by government or society. Howard Roark is an architect who cares nothing about the world’s approval; his only concerns are his integrity and the perfection of his designs. What strikes me as still relevant is its central insight—that it isn’t "collective action" that makes this nation prosperous and secure; it’s the initiative and creativity of the individual. The novel’s "second-handers," as Rand called them—the opportunistic Peter Keating, who appropriates Roark’s architectural talent for his own purposes, and Ellsworth Toohey, the journalist who doesn’t know what to write until he knows what people want to hear—symbolize a mindset that’s sadly familiar today.

The Fountainhead   makes that parasitic existence look contemptible. Near the end of the book, Roark is on trial for demolishing a building he had designed—he had insisted it be built exactly as drawn, but when some bureaucrats alter the structure, Roark feels he has no choice but to dynamite it. Representing himself, Roark pleads, in characteristically Randian terms: "I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need … I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society."
There’s another way to tell the Fountainhead story. Somebody commissioned an Architect to design a building. They made some changes in the design for reasons unspecified. So the crazy Architect blew up the building, deciding that his own artistic freedom was more important than the client’s building [I’d recommend picking a more rational Architect for any future projects].
Cold though they sound, these words contain two basic truths. First, an individual can achieve great things without governmental benevolence, and second, one man has no right to another’s achievement. These are lessons we should all remember today, when each week is seemingly marked by another government program designed to fix society.
It’s been a long while since I read The Fountainhead, but I don’t recall the government being involved in it. It seems to me it was about two competing Architects, hero Howard Roark and pretender Peter Keating [and a fickle chick named Dominique Francon].
After finishing The Fountainhead, Rand spent 14 years building a movement around what she called "objectivism" and composing the massive novel that would become Atlas Shrugged  (1957). "Who is John Galt?" is the first line of Rand’s 1,000-page book, and by the end it’s clear she wants everyone to think, and act, as if they were him. Galt had been, as we discover only as the plot unfolds, head engineer at the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which had produced a motor powered by static electricity. His superiors, however, had decided to restructure the company along Marxist or "collectivist" lines, and Galt had left the company. He leads an effort to get the nation’s greatest business leaders to go on a kind of strike. One by one, they disappear, making their way to a hidden valley in Colorado and leaving the now increasingly collectivist U.S. government to try and preserve the country on its own, with no help from these giants of industry. What happens, of course, is that the government collapses, and Galt emerges to reorder society along strictly free-market lines…
There’s another version of this story too. There are two kinds of people in the world – heroic, creative, talented capitalists and weak, collectivist, parasites. The heros "drop out" and the world falls apart. Then, the biggest hero makes a 57 page speech and the weak creeps recognize the position of the master race.
Why? I think at a fundamental level many people recognize Rand’s essential truth—government doesn’t know best. Those in power in Washington—or indeed in Columbia, S.C.—often lead themselves to believe that our prosperity depends on their wisdom. It doesn’t. The prosperity and opportunity we enjoy comes ultimately from the creative energies of the country’s businessmen, entrepreneurs, investors, marketers, and inventors. The longer it takes this country to reawaken to this reality, the worse we—and in turn, our children’s standard of living—will be.
While Sanford obviously identifies with the master class with such creative energies, it is not lost on us that he is not a businessmen, entrepreneur, investor, marketer, and inventor. He’s a guy who is apparently good at picking up women. His wife was a successful investment banker from a very rich family who managed his successful campaigns for Congress and the Governorship. And Maria, the tan Argentinian is a "looker." Other than that, Sanford seems to be along for the ride.
When the economy took a nosedive a year ago—a series of events that arguably began when the government-sponsored corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went broke—many Americans, myself included, watched in disbelief as members of Congress placed blame on everyone and everything but government. This wasn’t new in 2008. It’s an act we’ve seen over and over since the beginning of the New Deal in 1933. For that reason, I think, those passages in Atlas Shrugged  foreshadow what might happen to our country if there is no change in direction. As Rand shows in her book, when the government is deprived of the free market’s best minds, it staggers toward collapse.
Now, Sanford heads for the twilight zone. It seems that he thinks that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the Recession/Depression we’re in because they are "government-sponsored corporations." I’ve never heard that theory before, even from the right. Moving further into the Stratosphere, "members of Congress placed blame on everyone and everything but government. This wasn’t new in 2008. It’s an act we’ve seen over and over since the beginning of the New Deal in 1933." One actually wonders what he’s talking about. This is the first such collapse since 1933, coming 10 years after the dismantling of the New Deal regulations. Surely Sanford knows that. It’s in the paper in South Carolina just like everywhere else.

He adds, "As Rand shows in her book, when the government is deprived of the free market’s best minds, it staggers toward collapse." Again, what is he talking about? The free market’s best minds created financial bubble after financial bubble, oversold derivative contracts, and speculated wildly until the bottom fell out. They  staggered  raced towards collapse all by themselves once they had gotten the government out of the way. This whole paragraph is delusional
Ironically, as Heller’s biography makes clear, while Rand’s philosophy was based on the individual’s absolute freedom, Rand herself exercised a dictatorial control over her followers. She would denounce anyone who expressed opinions even slightly diverging from her own. Her chief acolyte (and lover), Nathaniel Branden, once circulated a list of rules for Rand’s inner circle to follow; one of them read, "Atlas Shrugged  is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world"; another said, "Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man’s life on earth." For the leader of a group dedicated to human freedom, Rand didn’t allow much of it around her.
I’m glad he noticed that Ayn Rand was a grandiose, philanderer [like Sanford], who required hero worship from her followers. Actually, she was pretty crazy herself…
There is one more major flaw in Rand’s thinking. She believed that man is perfectible—a view she shared with the Soviet collectivists she hated. The geniuses and industrial titans who retire to Galt’s hidden valley create a perfect society based on reason and pure individualism; and Galt himself, in the 57-page speech near the book’s end, explicitly denies the existence of original sin. The idea that man is perfectible has been disproved by 10,000 years of history. Men and women are imperfect, or "fallen," which is why I believe there is a role for limited government in making sure that my rights end where yours begin. There is a role for a limited government in thwarting man’s more selfish instincts that might limit the freedoms or opportunities of others. But we need to remember the primacy of the individual, of his or her ability to make the world a better place.
‘Okay, okay’, says Sanford. ‘Maybe a little government might be okay [for "thwarting man’s more selfish instincts"].’
Over the past year, we’ve seen Washington try to solve all our problems—chiefly by borrowing billions from future generations—to little effect. In that sense, this is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She’s more relevant than ever.
And finally to my reason for writing about this. Here it is [again!]:
They keep talking like this, "Over the past year, we’ve seen Washington try to solve all our problems—chiefly by borrowing billions from future generations—to little effect." Ronald Reagan and both Bushes ran the whole government by " borrowing billions from future generations." This graph isn’t that hard to read. And George W. Bush stood by while our economy tanked and moved towards a DEFLATIONARY SPIRAL for the first time since the Great Depression. When Obama did the only thing possible to check the collapse, a Stimulus Plan, they started screaming bloody murder about borrowing. Do they not know what Reagan and the Bushes did? Do they think we don’t know what Reagan and the Bushes did? Does Sanford not know that one of the major players in what happened was an Ayn Rand Disciple named Alan Greenspan who ignored warnings about Derivatives and the housing bubble – actually stopping others who wanted to do something about these time bombs? Is it even possible that they can believe what they’re saying, or do they consciously know that they’re working a mega-scam?

Mark Sanford obviously sees himself as a member of The Family‘s chosen people or as one of Ayn Rand‘s brilliant, creative, rugged individualists. It’s a bit hard to fathom what he bases that assessment on. His accomplishments aren’t too impressive [unless you count getting elected to the government that he doesn’t believe in]. And if this piece is an example of his thinking, he’s not a rocket scientist either. It’s an amazing example of an ideology driven argument that’s based in fantasy and misinterpretation. While one might question why Newsweek published it, an even more interesting question is why he wrote it. Does he think he has a standing as a pundit?

Ayn Rand wrote heroic fiction. She was good at it, though somewhat monotonous. One should leave a period of reading Ayn Rand like the rest of us did – deluded for a bit, then realizing that her ideas only work if you are, in fact, one of those talented, brilliant, chosen people. She works best as a catalyst for an encounter with one’s own Narcissism, so as to realize the folly of such thinking, and to rejoin the rest of us a little wiser. To get stuck with Ayn Rand into adulthood is to live the life Howard Roark should have lived. Instead of riding off into the sunset of brilliance, Roark should have been sent to prison for  unlawful use of explosives and willful destruction of property. And Mark Sanford? His illusions of grandeur and specialness have gotten him a failed marriage, public humiliation, and an opportunity to be thrown out of government on his ear. That’s Objectivist Epistomology for ya’…
  1.  
    Carl
    October 23, 2009 | 10:26 PM
     

    I’m working these days with two classes of Army people. On one hand, a class of “Wounded Warriors” who are assigned to a Transition Battalion. On the other, a class of career cadre who are charged with the care of the transitioners. Many in the latter group feel as though “their” Army is going to hell in a handcart on many levels not the least of which their conviction that “90%” of the former class are opportunistic fakers. The latter have deep suspicions about TBI and PTSD and what they see as the Army’s overly soft treatement of those of their colleagues that have been so classified. I thought the 90% estimate was high for malingering and, in preparation for my session next week, undertook to understand a bit more of this complex problem. My researches aren’t able to support the 90% claim but there is no question that there may be a dose-response relationship at play in the phenomenon. That is, as financial and other personal stakes are raised, so too does the likely incidence of malingering. But to the point. I was startled to learn (serendipitously) that Davide himself is one of the first “high profile” malingerers, to wit:

    12 David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish king of Gath. 13 So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard.

    That, I propose is about as close as the not-soon-enough-to-be-ex-governor of the State of South Carolina will get to this particular Bible story. The sonofabitch is crazier than a bedbug – for real.

    I read Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Brandon myself at age 16…I was looking to make sense of the murders of Bobby Kennedy, MLK, the Kent State students, the burning of cities across the entire country, the ability of the KKK to lynch and bomb and kill and get away with it. Objectivism had a certain balm to it and I thought at the time that maybe it had a certain sense to it because of its tangential references to individualism, individuation perhaps…stuff that stacked up well to what Nature herself and being American seemed to be pointing to. I also read a great deal of Hesse and he won a Nobel Prize for literature where Ms. Rand won a following of whackos and King David poseurs. If Mark Sanford ever gets unstuck from the insane-David part, he might pause for a moment on 1st Corinthians:

    When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

    Ayn Rand and Hermann Hesse are for kids Mark!

  2.  
    Carl
    October 23, 2009 | 10:35 PM
     

    btw – I second the motion to take up a collection to send Joy to Cheney’s next speech!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.