If you are going to propose a Robin Hood budget, you have to decide whether you are robbing from the poor to give to the rich, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Because you cannot do both. You cannot worship both the God of Jesus and the mammon of Rand.
I don’t agree very often with the Watergate criminal and evangelical leader Chuck Colson, but he has it right when he refers to Rand’s “idolatry of self and selfishness” as “the antithesis of Christianity”
Rand’s trinity is “I me mine.” Christianity’s is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So take your pick. Or say no to both. It’s a free country. Just don’t tell me you are both a card-carrying Objectivist and a Bible-believing Christian. Even Rand knew that just wasn’t possible.
Rand was an ardent social darwinist as are most of her so-called Christian disciples. I am grateful that Prothero and some thoughtful faculty members at Catholic University see the inherent conflict between the politics of right-wing Catholics like Boehner, Santorum, Ryan and right-wing evangelicals, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So many of our politicians have learned well how to sacrifice the Gospel of Christ for the gospel of personal ambition and the wealth that comes from ardent support of corporate America and advancing the doctrine of survival of the richest.
The false choice (or should we say false choices) at play here is/are pretty crude. Sure, you cannot reconcile Rand and Jesus as total philosophies, but parts may overlap (examples: non-initiation of force; eschewing mere materialism). Also, the idea that Christian moral duty is primarily acted out through the political sphere is repugnant (a “Robin Hood” budget). Our Lord drew a sharp distinction between what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. The inevitable step here is that if Rand and Christ are opposed, then one party’s budget = Rand and the other’s = Christ’s, QED. Cute, and so overly simplistic… perfect for USA Today.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so, yes there can be points that overlap. However, the author has been careful to not do explicitly pretty much anything that #2 has criticized the article for. He’s pointed out that Ayn Rand is appealed to by both the Tea Party and certain key GOP figures – that’s not some points in common, that’s an invoking of her and her philosophy as a whole. The fact that she isn’t comprehensively in error at every point is beside the point.
As a thinker Rand, and as a system objectivism, are brutally incompatible with the Christian faith, and that needs to be said. Marxism also can be seen to have some points in common with Christianity as well, but it is ultimately a denial of the faith to interpret Christianity as Marxism. Objectivism is no different.
I think I’d have very little sympathy for the author’s own views, but he’s written this article fairly carefully IMO, and the critique is in the right ballpark. Objectivism is a moral monstrosity and Christians should oppose it root and branch. If an endorsement of free market capitalism is seen to be necessary, then don’t invoke Rand, articulate it in critique of her.
As one of those stinking Liberals who sneaks in to look at your blog from time to time (most grievously) I’m going to follow this discussion since it exposes the fundamental fault line within American political conservatism–between the religious communitarian socially conservative agenda and the Libertarian program that looks back to Ayn Rand.
That split, I believe, will be your downfall–thank God! Just as the split between Dixicrats and northern liberal Democrats 50 years ago took down the Democratic Party for a generation–as Johnson recognized when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights law–that split between religious social conservatives and Randian libertarians will destroy you.
If I had to choose I’d go with the religious social conservatives over the libertarians any day in the year. I read everything by Ayn Rand in my late teens–the only time anyone ever bothers with her–one of the biggest wastes of time in which I’ve ever indulged. And she is most certainly a “moral monstrosity” whose “philosophy” is completely incompatible with any version of Christianity. But I would not want to have to choose and I’m happy to say I don’t think I’ll have to.
The one thing that is jarring to me is Mr. Prothero’s reference to Chuck Colson as “Watergate criminal”. Seems like an unnecessarily hateful jab – didn’t the Rev’d Colson serve his time for the crime and seek atonement in the public square for what he did? If he’s a redeemed Christian, as he professes to be, this is past history. What’s the point of bringing it up here? To make Colson seem even less sympathetic to Prothero himself? Weird. Not that I’m a defender of Colson – just don’t understand the point of the reference in the first place.
Fr. Darin Lovelace
St. John’s Anglican Church
Park City, UT
RE: “If you are going to propose a Robin Hood budget, you have to decide whether you are robbing from the poor to give to the rich, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor.”
Hey — here’s a radical thought. How about the State steal from nobody?
And how about its elected officials actually follow — as they swore to in their oath of office — the limitations that our founding and binding documents placed upon the role of the State?
Unless, of course, oath-breaking and stealing is considered a part of “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” by the political liberals. Heh.
Thankfully, of course, there is no conflict between the Gospel, a limited State, individual liberty, the free market, a Constitutional Republic and “the politics of right-wing Catholics like Boehner, Santorum, Ryan and right-wing evangelicals.” Nor are, of course, the limitations placed on the power of the State and its attempts at central planning remotely connected to “social darwinism” so that phrase is irrelevant anyway.
The author makes it clear that he is not a Christian (“I don’t see…the bible as holy writ”) so we should be chary of being too supportive. He is also, as #2 points out, inclined to rather silly oversimplifications (“you have to decide whether you are robbing from the poor to give to the rich, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor”). From a Christian standpoint, there’s nothing the least bit laudable about giving away someone else’s money. But then there’s no particular reason to oppose holding one’s nose and doing such a thing as circumstances dictate. Tax rates are among the many, many prudential matters about which the Christian Church rightly takes no particular position.
As far as I’m concerned, the embrace of the objective evil of legalized abortion by the Democrats places the prospect of voting for them unambiguously outside the sphere of possibility for any Christian with a properly formed conscience. In a two-party system, then, the Republicans, however quarrelsome, arrogant, covetous, foppish, ignorant, jejune, or (worst of all) boring they may be, become by default the only plausible choice. And that’s a crying shame. There aren’t many of these people any normal citizen has much cause to think highly of.
Saying nice things about a dime-store anti-Christian like Miss Rand may be foolish (atheists would do better to take their Nietzsche straight), but it’s not necessarily the same thing as embracing her brand of barbarism. I think a more carefully written, less ideological article would recognize this. Nevertheless, I’m glad that this author is pointing out that there is little to be said for the woman or her muse. I would like to see my Christian brethren be more careful about making ideological endorsements.
#4 As the comments by #2, 5 and 6 indicate, the author is writing a ‘result orientated’ article. What he’s doing in the article is putting a well deserved boot into Rand and pointing out the links between Rand and America’s Right at this point in time. [i]Why[/i] he’s doing that is somewhat obnoxious – he doesn’t seem to be speaking as a friend of the Right, or as someone who is seeking to reduce Rand’s influence. He’s using it in the hope that it will discredit the Right. The critique of Rand is the means to a different end.
So calling Colson a Watergate criminal is a good example of his approach – it is an entirely valid way of describing Colson, that is meant to carry a rhetorical force beyond its truth statement, discrediting Colson even as he is used to discredit other conservatives. While it is a valid description of Colson, it is hardly the most natural way of describing him at that point in an article of that nature. It’s just another piece of low hanging fruit.
I think the author is fairly despicable, based on this example of his writing – at least part of his reaction to Rand is probably because she’s a mirror of him, just from a different side of the fence. I think what he’s saying about Rand needs to be heard and taken on board, but you have to hold your nose about an awful lot to do with the writer to do it.
Sarah (#5),
As a matter of curiosity, where do you stand on tax breaks intended to bring business to a locality (as I gather the Palmetto State has recently done with Amazon).
I can certainly see the logic of attracting potential employers with financial incentives, but it still ends up tilting the fiscal playing field and – since even a minimalist state requires some funding – if you give a break to someone, aren’t you going to have to get it back somewhere else, at least in the short-term? In the 19th century, that was precisely the Jacksonian critique of the Whigs.
That’s what continues to confuse me, almost twenty years after I first arrived. There must be some strict free marketeers in the United States. They just never seem to make it into elected office (except Rand Paul, perhaps).
Hi Jeremy Bonner — I’m for radically decreasing taxes in SC for all businesses and am not for offering targeted tax breaks for one or two companies in an industry.
That is — obviously — a ridiculous attempt at central planning by the state legislature because they have selected, say, Amazon as a “better” company than the corner bookstore.
Of course, if we drastically slashed taxes and regulations, with our right to work environment we’d be a hugely popular relocation state regardless of whether we played the “special tax break” game.
I will note that Nikki Haley appears to be — shockingly — standing by her own principles on this, which is that she is opposed to special economic incentives for particular corporations. All of the Amazon thingy was sealed in stone and legislatively promised during her predecessor’s term so she promised not to spend a veto on it if the legislature approved it, which they cravenly did.
So — though I don’t know if Haley fits your definition of a strict free marketer — her stance on economic incentives cost her the endorsement of the SC Chamber — something that all of us conservative business people will remember. Obviously I won’t be joining the SC Chamber of Commerce any time soon. The economic incentives thing — which they are desperately addicted to — was a big reason why that organization endorsed a liberal. Ridiculous.
She won anyway. ; > )
What I will find interesting is . . . will she succeed in the radical slashings of regulations and taxes *on a level playing field* that she so desires. If she does, that will snatch tons of power away from the “economic developers” and legislators who desperately want to be able to select their own favorites for these things.
Very clear; thank you.
And now – before we both get clobbered by an Elf – back to Ayn Rand.
Thanks, Sarah. Well put. And thanks to Jeremy for asking for clarification.
For those who are all to willing – like Prothero, seemingly – to lump political conservatives with Ayn Rand and her ilk, or tendentiously to dismiss political conservatism with some farcical “steal from the poor to give to the rich” trope, might I suggest a read of Russell Kirk’s [i]The Politics of Prudence[/i]? You might be surprised to learn what political conservatism actually is.
(For that matter, it would be an eye-opener for many big government, big corporation Republicans and for Ayn Randian/Libertarian Tea Party folk as well.)