I am somewhat familiar with various philosophers and theorists, including the usual "names" that are bandied about like Mill, Rawls and yes Rand. Rightly or wrongly, I never was much interested in reading too deeply into these people, quite honestly, finding primary sources rather boring. I took an intellectual history course once and read some material here, but it is simply not something I'm interested in.
I have not to my knowledge actually read Rand though have seen a few clips of her giving an interview and might have seen part of a movie based on her life. I also saw part of the recent first part of the "John Galt" film trilogy (?) until I had to shut it off since it was so boring. I might have first heard about her because a character in Dirty Dancing (recall, taking place in the 1950s) was enthused with one of her novels. This was not seen as a good thing, the idea probably that he really wasn't that deeply aware of her philosophy. Reading her apparent trudge prose was something
Of course, though he at times rather not admit it (making him a good fit on the ticket, I guess), Paul Ryan is a fan. He once said she was a major, if not the major, influence in his political career. We have "Rand" Paul, who cannot answer a simple question on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and now we have a Rand acolyte as vice presidential candidate, the person picked to show the party and/or base Romney is good people. This suggests a long time trend -- pick someone safe (though still pretty conservative in various ways) in a political way for the top of the ticket and then find a more movement friendly figure. Seems to be the case in each case after Reagan, where the approach was switched.
This again shows the fine tuning needed in labels -- this is not a "conservative" path as such William F. Buckley, e.g., was no big fan of Rand, not surprising from the author of God and Man at Yale. As LD on MSNBC noted, the gal was a Russian atheist. His positions are far from libertarian as well. We will continue to get the big spin job that will try to cover this up, much talk about "freedom" and less government, except for the usual suspects. Democrats are not for "less government," full stop. They are for appropriate government. As a social libertarian, this is the best move for me at the current time, even if Obama might annoy on certain issues. Gary Johnson, the libertarian choice, praising Ron Paul, who in several ways is far from libertarian underlines the point.
Chris Hayes found some video of Ryan defending stimulus when Bush was promoting it. This is far from surprising -- Ryan repeatedly (says it was so hard for him at times, poor thing) was the loyal solider, the Republican way, during the Bush years, including repeatedly supporting questionable government spending. His tax breaks philosophy is not about fiscal solvency, but empowering certain people. Rand went in some troubling directions, but the basic absolute individualism she speaks of might sound good to some shallow thinking sorts (the sorts that might think all taxation is slavery or the like) is a problem writ large.
[MHP suggested Ryan isn't serious about Rand ... he is more of a sort of trope and is not actually taken seriously by the candidate. This might be a bit too generous.]
Hayes noted yesterday how she managed to justify getting government benefits, so apparently hypocrisy (or rationalization) is there too. He had a woman who benefits from government programs on today as he had on regarding other issues, such as the DREAM Act. We often see talking heads, including lobbyists and insiders, but repeatedly they are of the favored view sort. But, policies affect the average person, you and me. The policies Ryan et. al. support hurts the general welfare. In various ways, imperfect as it might be, the other side has helped it. This is the bottom line. The line in the sand is ever more clear with Ryan though.
As I say, I find it depressing that the two choices is an imperfect centrist Democrat (whatever fantasy labels others want to put on him or those who felt betrayed because they naively expected so much more) and this ticket. MHP has a bit on Biden yesterday, noting he's our guy, even with his gaffes. Yes. He is clearly a credible choice to have in the wings if something horrible happens. The fact he puts his foot in his mouth at times doesn't change this and the whole "Bushisms" bit over at Slate always seems childish to me anyways. Bush wasn't bad because he (like his father before him, in a different fashion) spoke funny. Policy choices.
I have a new label -- "Ryan." I don't have a "Romney" label, though perhaps I should, since he brings his own baggage. But, this election has a better symbol of what the "anti-canon" should be. Ryan.
I have not to my knowledge actually read Rand though have seen a few clips of her giving an interview and might have seen part of a movie based on her life. I also saw part of the recent first part of the "John Galt" film trilogy (?) until I had to shut it off since it was so boring. I might have first heard about her because a character in Dirty Dancing (recall, taking place in the 1950s) was enthused with one of her novels. This was not seen as a good thing, the idea probably that he really wasn't that deeply aware of her philosophy. Reading her apparent trudge prose was something
Of course, though he at times rather not admit it (making him a good fit on the ticket, I guess), Paul Ryan is a fan. He once said she was a major, if not the major, influence in his political career. We have "Rand" Paul, who cannot answer a simple question on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and now we have a Rand acolyte as vice presidential candidate, the person picked to show the party and/or base Romney is good people. This suggests a long time trend -- pick someone safe (though still pretty conservative in various ways) in a political way for the top of the ticket and then find a more movement friendly figure. Seems to be the case in each case after Reagan, where the approach was switched.
This again shows the fine tuning needed in labels -- this is not a "conservative" path as such William F. Buckley, e.g., was no big fan of Rand, not surprising from the author of God and Man at Yale. As LD on MSNBC noted, the gal was a Russian atheist. His positions are far from libertarian as well. We will continue to get the big spin job that will try to cover this up, much talk about "freedom" and less government, except for the usual suspects. Democrats are not for "less government," full stop. They are for appropriate government. As a social libertarian, this is the best move for me at the current time, even if Obama might annoy on certain issues. Gary Johnson, the libertarian choice, praising Ron Paul, who in several ways is far from libertarian underlines the point.
Chris Hayes found some video of Ryan defending stimulus when Bush was promoting it. This is far from surprising -- Ryan repeatedly (says it was so hard for him at times, poor thing) was the loyal solider, the Republican way, during the Bush years, including repeatedly supporting questionable government spending. His tax breaks philosophy is not about fiscal solvency, but empowering certain people. Rand went in some troubling directions, but the basic absolute individualism she speaks of might sound good to some shallow thinking sorts (the sorts that might think all taxation is slavery or the like) is a problem writ large.
[MHP suggested Ryan isn't serious about Rand ... he is more of a sort of trope and is not actually taken seriously by the candidate. This might be a bit too generous.]
Hayes noted yesterday how she managed to justify getting government benefits, so apparently hypocrisy (or rationalization) is there too. He had a woman who benefits from government programs on today as he had on regarding other issues, such as the DREAM Act. We often see talking heads, including lobbyists and insiders, but repeatedly they are of the favored view sort. But, policies affect the average person, you and me. The policies Ryan et. al. support hurts the general welfare. In various ways, imperfect as it might be, the other side has helped it. This is the bottom line. The line in the sand is ever more clear with Ryan though.
As I say, I find it depressing that the two choices is an imperfect centrist Democrat (whatever fantasy labels others want to put on him or those who felt betrayed because they naively expected so much more) and this ticket. MHP has a bit on Biden yesterday, noting he's our guy, even with his gaffes. Yes. He is clearly a credible choice to have in the wings if something horrible happens. The fact he puts his foot in his mouth at times doesn't change this and the whole "Bushisms" bit over at Slate always seems childish to me anyways. Bush wasn't bad because he (like his father before him, in a different fashion) spoke funny. Policy choices.
I have a new label -- "Ryan." I don't have a "Romney" label, though perhaps I should, since he brings his own baggage. But, this election has a better symbol of what the "anti-canon" should be. Ryan.