Another Catholic blogger—who likes to insult his readers with terms like “right wing noise machine”—wrote about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand today, in a way that I told him was defamatory to Paul Ryan. Thanks for this post, Matthew. Can anyone point to a more upstanding member of Congress than Paul Ryan?

The issue with separating one’s self from the ideas of collectivism is problematic for two reasons. The first, more obvious reason, is that without a collective sense of species, we wold not advance and prosper, as knowledge and success would die with the creator.

The second reason is a bit more complex. Collectivism is fundamentally tied to the idea of being apart of a group or a larger whole. Any word or phrase that we use to describe ourselves is influenced by collectivism, as we are “black” and “white” or “Republican” and “Democrat” and thus part of a whole. When we submit to these labels, we submit to all of what being in that group requires, whether we truly believe it or not. Now I know the immediate reaction is often to divide and separate into sub-groups with more friendly ideas, but in most cases individuals will still carry individual preferences with them, no matter the number of words or phrases used to describe them. However, the more fundamental problem is that even if we could find enough words to make a group of one, this classification will still be founded in labels and collectivist ideas, and is prone to exhibit the same negative characteristics of collectivism as the article supposes.

This is where I believe the author makes a critical mistake. The collectivist label she rejects is still found in the religious identification she uses to argue against collectivism. Because she is “Catholic” she is subjected to the same risks of collectivism as catholics (like any group) also exhibit collectivist behaviors. This creates a menacing double standard when it comes to rejecting economic collectivism, as many Christians believe the bible stresses being “sheep” for a Shepard and being part of a flock. So either the author must reject these christian principles and embrace individualism, or accept collectivism.

To truly break free of the cycle, we would have to stop trying to label ourselves. While labels are a cognitive skill that speeds mental processes, it also limits are ability to see the individual and philosophies and religions as truly complex and undefinable. We will always need a balance of collectivism to ensure our knowledge and skills benefit humanity in the long run, but we should not let ourselves define our very core values in terms of labels.

Just posted this elsewhere, but pertinent here as well, taken from an interview with Lopez and Fr. Scioco at NOR:

LOPEZ: How troublesome is Ayn Rand? Does Paul Ryan have a problem here?
FR. SIRICO: I believe it was Chesterton who said something to the effect that “heresy is truth gone mad.” This is certainly the case with Rand. Few writers describe more dramatically, clearly, and, at times, hysterically the evils of collectivism. She knew how to get the reader’s attention. Whatever happened in her life before she escaped the USSR enabled her to see down to the root of the danger of socialism, but not until it scarred her deeply. From all reports, she was as bright as she was cruel. She could vehemently denounce Communism in one breath and exercise a slave driver’s control over her followers in the next.
All of this is to say that one can find some good things in Rand (her appreciation of Aristotle, grudging respect for Aquinas, and high regard for America). Yet she was also contemptuous of religion (especially Christianity), people who were religious, the poor, and the vulnerable, and she had an utterly irrational contempt of unborn human life. This means that Rand inspires contradictory thought among many. Obviously Rand has an appeal, especially to the young in search of heroes and idealism. Rand gives this to them in spades. Are there other places to find these things? Of course, but not everyone finds them early on. Is she troublesome? Yes. But most of the people I know who read her when younger have outgrown her and moved on.
I certainly do not think that Congressman Ryan has a problem with anyone he would not already have a problem with. His descriptions of what he liked about Rand are all references to what some might call the “Good Rand.” Besides, all you would have to do is imagine what Ayn Rand would think about Paul Ryan to know just how far removed he is from her core philosophy. She would, for one thing, utterly despise his Catholic faith and his solid pro-life record. If you know Rand, it would not take a great imagination to construct what she would say about him. That, I should think, would establish the moral and philosophical distance between them.
So, no, I do not think Congressman Ryan has a problem with any reasonable person.

Thanks for the mature column, Mr. Archbold.  Paul Ryan strikes me as a discerning adult, capable of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in the manner you describe for yourself.  My mother read Ayn Rand’s books and recommended them to others, and my mother, Ruth (RIP), was not some simple-minded school girl easily conned by faddish philosophy.  My mother was a rock-solid convert to Catholicism who lived what she believed.  May God bless you and your work, Mr. Archbold.

In Dr. Kevin Vost’s “From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to the Truth,” he recounts how Ayn Rand was a stepping stone in his own conversion to Catholcism (the philosphy of Aquinas was what sealed the deal).  Matt, it’s exciting to hear how God made use of her in leading you home as well - another testimony to how God continually makes use of flawed instruments, and even acts of evil, to bring forth amazing goods.  I appreciate your reflection on the extent of Rand’s influence on Paul Ryan too; it seems a more balanced approach.

There’s some good to be taken from libertarianism, but a little goes a long way.Just like Ron Paul.

Ayn Rand being the greatest defender of reason necessarily has to be at odds with any religion (philosophy based on faith). Unfortunately Ryan was unable to rid himself of faith and thus had to reject the tenets of Objectivism. Capitalism is also at odds with religion and so is Ryan. His history proves it. He supported TARP among other rights violating wealth redistrobution programs. Hopefuly though, the kind of critical thinking done by Ayn Rand, and found in her books, will have rubbed off on Ryan to some extent to make him less consistent of a statist than Bush and Obama.
To finds Ayn Rand’s official statements and contrast them with Ryan’s check out the Ayn Rand Lexicon website. http://aynrandlexicon.com/

Never was a Rand fan. Too simplistic for me.

Thanks for writing an article with genuine personal perspective rather than political posturing that masquerades as “Catholic intellectualism”, as is the case with a few self-righteous souls in the Catholic blogosphere.  We are taught that even in the midst of moral error, we can find nuggets of God’s truth and light if “we have an ear to hear” (Mark 4:9).  If we start excluding the possibility that we can find elements of God’s voice in pagan (atheist) exegesis, then I suppose those self same ‘Catholic Intellectuals” will also condemn Augustine, Justin Martyr and other contemporary authors such as C.S. Lewis (among others), given their history as one-time pagans. And they will of course also condemn those who may have read those authors and extracted something of truth for their own faith walk. It appears that the Pharisee party may have not actually disappeared, but has simply restructured under the PhariShea party label.  Once again, thanks for some perspective on the non-issue of Paul Ryan’s book list.  I can think of…oh, a thousand or so other questions of greater relevance than whether he read Ayn Rand at some point in his life.  But then again, I do not belong to the PhariShea Party!

This is all well and good, and it’s quite reasonable to “like” a specific author based on a sub-set of their ideas (and the eloquence with which they propose those ideas) while simultaneously rejecting the author’s other ideas.

But by comparison, conservatives generally (and Catholic conservatives in particular)  have made a great deal of fuss out of Barack Obama’s reading and admiration of Saul Alinsky.  Alinsky is another “thinker” who put forth a number of ideas with which a good Catholic could accept and embrace without reservation, as well as a number of ideas with which a good Catholic could not in good (and properly formed) conscience agree.

It goes both ways - if you’re going to forgive your political allies’ embrace of thinkers who spread noxious and anti-Catholic ideas on the grounds that those thinkers also said many good and respectable things, then you have to extend the same courtesy to your political opponents.

@ SD (9:39)

Thanks for demonstrating the principle of false equivalence in such striking form.  President Obama has been living and applying Alinsky’s “principles” to his personal and political life for a very long time now, and we can see just how antithetical to Catholic teaching these principles really are.  Your claim that “Alinsky is another “thinker” who put forth a number of ideas with which a good Catholic could accept and embrace without reservation” is nonsense on stilts, unless you believe that Catholicism is fundamentally Marxist in its nature.  Blessed JPII would be interested in that theory and your support for same.  Listen, Alinsky was a Marxist through and through.  President Obama was raised on the “Marxist-milk” of Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky, and his actions in the political arena demonstrate the teaching of both.  Best take of the blinders and do more than read the sanitized Wikipedia versions of Alinsky, Davis and their protege.  Just a few nuggets of truth to examine:

PLAYBOY: What was your own relationship with the Communist Party?

ALINSKY: I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work; they were in the vanguard of the labor movement and they played an important role in aiding blacks and Okies and Southern sharecroppers. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a GD liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line. Without the Communists, for example, I doubt the C.I.O. could have won all the battles it did. I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party.

When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, “This is the face of a warmonger.” But there were too many Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Latvians in the area for that tactic to go over very well. Actually, the greatest weakness of the party was its slavish parroting of the Moscow line. It could have been much more effective if it had adopted a relatively independent stance, like the western European parties do today. But all in all, and despite my own fights with them, I think the Communists of the Thirties deserve a lot of credit for the struggles they led or participated in. Today the party is just a shadow of the past, but in the Depression it was a positive force for social change. A lot of its leaders and organizers were jerks, of course, but objectively the party in those days was on the right side and did considerable good. [Playboy, March 1972]

And this gem:

The 1972 Vintage Books paperback edition of Rules for Radicals by Saul D. Alinksy has a page of quotes just before the table of contents. In the last of the three quotes, Alinsky himself said the following:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

Lex Libertas:

It’s not “false equivalence” at all.  Everything you point about about the incompatibility of many of Alinsky’s ideas with Catholic teaching is entirely true.  But the same can be said about Rand’s militant, vocal atheism, her bitter hatred of Jesus Christ and Christianity, her contempt for the values implied by the Sermon on the Mount and her full-on embrace of abortion as a positive good. 

And yet if, despite all of this, a Catholic can in good conscience still harvest non-objectionable ideas from Rand’s writings (e.g. the insights she had into the dangers of collectivism) then a Catholic can in good conscience harvest non-objectionable ideas from Alinsky’s writings.  For example, much of Alinsky’s work advocates that communities work together at a grass-roots level to advocate for political change beneficial to the community.  Not only is that a non-objectionable notion from a Catholic standpoint, it looks, feels and smells a helluva lot like an idea that a Catholic Distributist might advance. 

Catholic Social Teaching exists at the fruitful tension of Solidarity and Subsidiarity.  The modern Left emphasizes the former at the expense of the latter, while the modern Right emphasizes the latter and the expense of the former.  One is always well reminded that the same mid-19th century Encyclicals that condemned socialism also condemned any attempt to suppress unions.

Often we get to where we need to go by way of some unexpected path.  I wouldn’t have expected anyone to arrive at Catholicism by way of Ayn Rand, unless it was by being utterly repelled by her and her “philosophy.”  William F. Buckley reported that Ayn Rand refused to attend any anti-communist event which would place her in his presence after he published in the National Review Whittaker Chambers’ review of her book, Atlas Shrugged.  The review, which is devastatingly critical, can be found here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback?pg=1 Before that, upon meeting Buckley, she told him he was much too intelligent to believe in God.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPLkiqnO8 She was wrong about that, as she was about so many things.  Messrs. Buckley and Chambers would be surprised to learn that they collaborated with Ayn Rand to promote faith in God.

sd ,
Good posts. Thanks!

SD,

“...much of Alinsky’s work advocates that communities work together at a grass-roots level to advocate for political change beneficial to the community.”

Christianity does not do this.  Christianity advocates that WE taking care of each other not some governmental agency. “For I was hungry and YOU gave me food, I was thirsty and YOU gave me drink, a stranger and YOU welcomed me, naked and YOU clothed me, ill and YOU cared for me, in prison and YOU visited me.”  Seems pretty personal to me.  No mention of a local, state or national agency getting involved.  Seems that WE will be held responsible.

John F. Kennedy,

Check out the description of the life of the earliest Christian community in the Book of Acts.  Clearly the community acted collectively to provide for the needs of the vulnerable in its midst.  The idea that a single, solitary person aiding the misfortunate is an example of “Christian charity” while a group of people working as a group to aid the misfortunate is somehow a perversion or distortion of Christianity is silly in the extreme.

SD @ 11:20
Parry & riposte!  Worthy points, and I will not split too many philosophical hairs in response.  We agree on much, but I do see a material difference in the careers and influence of Alinsky and Rand.  Alinsky was someone who engaged in applied Marxism (class consciousness leading to collective action)throughout his life.  He both published his theories and lived them daily in his organizing activities, which of course involved a great deal of direct indoctrination of fellow travelers.  Rand however, was primarily a novelist, part time Hollywood screen writer and populist(?) “philosopher” that may have indirectly affected the internal and external zeitgeist of some, but had materially less impact than Alinsky and his disciples.  That’s all I was trying to say (not so clearly).

On your other points, I would respectfully ask you to expand on this - “much of Alinsky’s work advocates that communities work together at a grass-roots level to advocate for political change beneficial to the community.”  What does that mean in real terms?  I am reasonably certain what Alinsky meant by the phrase, as he clearly advocated a collectivist model.  And a collectivist model, given the realities and weaknesses of statist ideology in pratcice, driven by mankind’s nature of functional concupiscence (non-sexual), always results in the same general outcome.  And I would suggest that your phrase (Alinsky’s?)is at odds with the Catholic Solidarity/Subsidiarity model, as the model (as always) contemplates a normative and ordered balance in principle, not a tension.  When one claims that communities should work together for political change which is beneficial, it ipso facto means greater government involvement.  Which is the enemy of true solidarity and of course subsidiarity.  And a minor quibble with your presumption(quite common), that Solidarity and Subsidiarity are necessarily “in tension”.  Actually they are fully complimentary and co-dependent in the fullness of Catholic teaching. One can not exist without the other. I’m just sayin!  Pax

If having Communists as friends is a crime (or heresy), how do you explain Dorothy Day?

Posted by sd on Tuesday, Aug 14, 2012 11:59 AM (EST):John F. Kennedy,

Check out the description of the life of the earliest Christian community in the Book of Acts.  Clearly the community acted collectively to provide for the needs of the vulnerable in its midst.  The idea that a single, solitary person aiding the misfortunate is an example of “Christian charity” while a group of people working as a group to aid the misfortunate is somehow a perversion or distortion of Christianity is silly in the extreme.”
**************
True, but the other poster was citing govt. agencies specifically.

I love this piece! I blogged something similar; I too was an Ayn Rand fanatic when I was younger, for about 2 years, and in a roundabout way she led me to the ideas I still hold today, totally opposite of Objectivism! I always say she opened my mind to new ideas.

GCook @ 1:22
I assume that your question is not merely rhetorical?  First, I did not claim that having Communists as friends was either illegal or heresy.  One might say you have created a typical straw man argument (or straw woman perhaps). And any attempt to “explain” Ms. Day is beyond the scope of the comments section.  Suffice it to say that Day was a cheerful anarchist who loved the Church, and who later in life appeared to be absolutely devoted to most Church teaching, certainly as it relates to works of charity.  However, as we are cautioned by no less than Jesus in Matthew 12:36 & 37, we will ultimately be judged by an accounting of our life (and words).  Clearly, Day lived what would be considered a very “complicated” life, and it serves no purpose to attempt any judgment on that totality.  But even she would have admitted (and did) that her associations with Marxists, atheists and moral libertines in her earlier years was objectively wrong.  Heresy is a sin, but failure to repent of heresy is mortal sin.  Alinsky never repented, and could not as he was an atheist.  Dorothy Day was quite different.  Bad example, please try again.

Mr. Archbold,

Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. I had a somewhat similar experience with Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged for a book report in high school (1961 or 1962) and was captivated by her grasp and exposition of what was wrong with societies whose governments intrude on their citizens’ personal liberty. Unlike yourself, I was, at the time a Missouri Synod Lutheran. (It would be another 10 or 11 years before I became Episcopalian and almost 40 more before I realized that God was calling me to the Catholic Church.) And, although I could reconcile neither her atheism nor her devotion to selfishness, versus enlightened self-interest, nor her stark black/white contrasts with what faith I had at the time, there was no doubt in my minde that she was “onto something” in her devotion to liberty, whether she was able to live up to it or not.

And, I realized at the same time that I realized God was calling me to become Catholic, that one reason I needed to pursue God’s purposes was that God had made me, over the course of those five and a half decades, an Austro-libertarian Catholic. To cite but two examples, the reasons it is neither moral nor Christian for me to demand under penalty of law that my fellow adult citizens refrain from engaging in solitary activities that are sinful and harmful to them alone, nor to require under penalty of law that they help pay for the care of the sick and the needy, include:

(a) That Christ requires me to respect the dignity of every human person. In doing so, He did not authorize me to treat the other person as an incompetent or a child. He did not place me in loco parentis over them. I am allowed moral suasion, example and reasoning as the tools to influence their conduct, absent harmful conduct toward an innocent third party; and,

(b) That Christ’s injunction to feed the hungry, care for the sick and visit the prisoner was a personal responsibility He gave to me, not an order that I was to enforce upon my fellows. And He gives me the resources to allow me to do carry out that mission to the best of my ability. If my neighbor does not, I can charitably bring it to that neighbor’s attention, or encourage the neighbor, but, again, He did not give me authority to compel my neighbor.

Despite my misgivings about the scope of Congressman Ryan’s understanding of what needs to be done about the looming financial calamity, I am grateful for your witness.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Matt, you’re a dumbass.

Atlas Shrugged Part 2 will be in theaters October 12th, 2012.

Bob W: You are kidding, I presume, hope and pray. He may be “upstanding” for you, but he sure as hell wasn’t for the thousands of workers in his district whose jobs were outsourced right under his big nose. Real upstanding representatives stick by their constituents and fight for them; not leaving their lives to chance and the mercies of the so-called “free market.” There’s no freedom for anybody if the system leaves them necessitous no thanks to such “upstanding” guys like Ryan. Only recently did Ryan diss his favorite economic crone. The timing of this diss coincidently reminds me of Mittens well-timed discovery about the birds and the bees insofar as they relate to stem-cell research. Gee, that was just when it was time for him to consider exiting Beacon Hill for the White House for the 08 campaign. What a handy coincidence for Mittens, just as Ryan’s diss of Rand.
Real “upstanding” pols don’t vote to bail out the likes of AIG, Goldman Sachs and so forth any more than they vote to create unfunded mandates for the Medicare Prescription D program, two wars to be put on Uncle Sam’s credit card and join in on the “oh to hell with our nation’s creditworthy reputation ... let’s just show the Dems who controls Capitol Hill” schtick. Really upstanding guys would at least be more interested in finding out if there really were weapons of mass destruction to risk the flower of American youth to go in and (maybe find.) Real upstanding guy. L O L, BIG TIME L O L!

I’m a flaming catholic (recent convert) and a Rand fan as well; and I don’t think they need to be considered mutually exclusive. I do differ from Rand in what she considers to be rational self-interest; as the qualifier, “rational”, suggests to me that long term gain is best accomplished by treating people as you would like to be treated, and even giving alms accordingly. But Rand, despite perhaps differing in what she might pursue as happiness, would be no threat to anyone, as she’d leave them alone to pursue their own dreams and even help their brothers and sisters to their heart’s content (even though she might think it foolish). The real threat, as she exposes, is from supposedly the plundering socialists, who pursue their invalid dreams of a collectivist utopia at the point of a government gun. Rand witnessed the evil of socialism as a child in Russia, and decades ago painted a vivid picture of the path we are headed down presently unless we change course. I excuse her for her lack of insight in other areas.
- Viva Cristo Rey!

“Ayn Rand being the greatest defender of reason “

Pity she, like so many atheists who vaunt reason as their sole property, are too busy defending to actually, like, use it.  In particular, to use it when talking about reason.  Reason itself ought to tell them using “rational” as a synonym for “atheistic” is unreasonable.

Here we go again,,,,, Another - I converted because,,,,, I am smarter than you,,,,,and want to make MY new church getter.  Go away.  -  There is nothing Catholic about Ayn Rand’s principles,,,,period,,,,end of sentance.  No need to go any deeper than that,,,,,,  And frankly, I don’t care a twit about his awakenings.

Oh, by the way, Sir,,, Any part of you and your long disertation show a thankfulness to God.  I simply tire of and hae been fascinate by New Age “I did it all by myself because I am smarter than you” Christianity that has taken over our world.

I just discovered your piece and I found it fascinating, enlightening and eye-opening.  I had never heard of Ayn Rand.  Seeing your article show up in the Google results in a search I was doing sparked my interest, and before I read your piece, I read the (lengthy) Wikipedia entry on Ayn Rand.  Altogether fascinating and educational!  Thanks so much for writing.  I am a faithful Catholic, and I appreciate your story as well as learning about Ayn.  I was very saddened that such a smart woman would espouse and end up atheistic.  I appreciate your insight as to how Ayn could be provocative in both a positive and negative way, and also just hearing about your journey of discovery.  God bless you.

Thing is, the “horrors of collectivism” are no greater than the horrors of individualism. The biggest problem with our politics today is simple-minded black/white thinking on this basic issue, which I have to say I see most predominantly on the right in the unreasoning hatred and fear of “big gubmint..”  Catholic social teaching, based on commonsense and the facts of history, takes the middle road on the proper role of government in society: We need private property and a market system to allow for individual freedom and as a safeguard against arrant government authority, while on the other hand government is indispensible as a means of remedying the ill effects of the market system and promoting the public good.

Perhaps we should all frame this dispute into two time frames; first the time when Paul Ryan said he was all for Ryan, and the latter, being the moment earlier this year when he (supposedly) disavowed Ayn Rand’s extremely individualistic nonsense that gave nothing but license to unbridled liberty. Keep in mind, within Romney’s inner circle, Ryan’s “star qualities” was starting to “shine a little more” as he started receiving more press attention concerning the presidential race. (He had beaucoup attention resulting from the moment he released his first budget with its draconian cuts and scam running under the ruse of “saving medicare” reforms, etc. Did Ryan really diss Rand? That remains to be seen especially given the crowd he runs with and what they gained materially partially as a result of her motivating theories providing self-justification for embracing the old dog-eat-dog philosophy that should’ve died the moment FDR took office in 1933. Unfortunately, Rand’s views, which are a repackaging of the old 19th century Spencerian devil-take-the-hindmost mindset, but put into a more “respectable literary format” not only gave that odious form of “capitalism” a rebirth among a newer, leaner n’ meaner cadre of younger conservatives, not to be confused with those of Bill Buckley’s, Stan Evans’, Russell Kirk’s and Fr. Neuhaus’ generation. Ryan’s definitely a product of the lesser-formed conservative generation that seems quite morally challenged when it comes to ethics in the marketplace. But they had their “elder gurus” too, most notably former Sen. Phil Gramm and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, (who has publicly recanted his reliance on such objectivist garbage spewing out of Rand’s screeds.) These young on-the-rise leaner n’ meaner free-market-uber-alles “conservatives” within the GOP and their (very) operative allies on Wall and K-Streets also had Democratic gurus as well…some of whom even Barack Obama hired after he seemed sufficiently impressed by the earliest glances of the Clintonian era’s great financial successes. And to give the disciples of their Randian-influenced Wizard (Greenspan) their due, they produced, along with Greenspan, the nation’s largest surplus, leaving President Bush (43) and his party a huge cushion to start with. WOrking off their handy campaign mantra of “the people contributed to it, so they should get it back,” indeed, a good chunk went back to the people. Except, guess who got the biggest chunch of the extra cash left over by Clinton’s crew? All of the people on a formula that was genuinely constructed with fairness in mind, or the “job creators, the wealth creators, etc.” Oh, but they paid the most taxes, right? Well, in a sense, but what they had then and still have left over after taxes gives considerable reason to doubt the apologists’ cry on behalf of the “job creators.” The nation was bamboozled enough to buy into the notion that so long as prosperity would rise, and rebound back quickly after any recession, well, we’d all gain and who’d want to miss out on having that extra cash ... Y’never know ... we could be rich, too Ma. That’s right, Pa. So we gotta trust the job creators. And the bankers, and the war merchants and the pill producers and even the shyster calling for privatization of Social Security. Easy enough to buy into when everything’s going rosy. BUT, one bank after another, one key industry after another, hell, one damn thing after another lead straight to the hell of October 2008. To be fair, there’s lots of blame to go around. However, I squarely put most of the blame on the people in charge, following the lead of the Ryans of the world who constantly misled the nation on this “trust me” notion, just as Ryan’s “new boss,” Mitt aka “Mittens” Romney, job creator for India and China, but not so much here. Ryan’s track record as a fiscal conservative is a mirror reversal of his “strong” and “bold” reputation as a “fiscal hawk.” (Just as Mittens tough talk on foreign policy/defense matters is given his record of draft-dodging that makes Bill Clinton look like Teddy Roosevelt.) Mittens will go down as the only draft-dodger who not only used his standing as a religious missionary five times, while serving the Almighty in France, tough assignment for a guy not allowed to drink wine, but nowhere in the same league as that endured by men our age who served in uniform, at least in ROTC classes as I did with my student deferment card in my wallet. (Hey Mitt, what’s your boot size?) Ryan, too young for that moral crucible of Mitt’s and my generation, has gone AWOL when it came time to serving his country when called to shoulder his weapon (electronic voting device, not CSpan microphone) and fight for his fiscally lean policies that he believes the rest of the nation, sans him and his close crowd of very close loved ones and fawning political groupies. Don’t take my word for it: Check out Sen. Sanders’ website, especially Sanders’ article and video about the so-called “deficit hawks.”
Now, did I mention something about “very close loved ones” ... indeed I had. Bear in mind, the Janesville WI Republican darling of these strange mutant versions of deficit-focused birds, has passed only two pieces of legislation in his dozen-plus years on Capitol Hill, (not counting all his other years on top of his service as an elected Member) and one of them was getting a regular ham n’ eggs “name the post office” bill in honor of his immediate predecessor, the late Les Aspin. The other has to do with a special tax matter dealing with a very small constituency, bow hunters. (No wonder he has so many fawning admirers lately in his party, given the record of the last Republican Veep to hold a weapon in his hands.) This oh-so-dynamic, “bold” and extremely intelligent rising young lean pachyderm (like lots of other things GOP these days, seldom challenged in the life’s contraditictions department) has not only voted for those budget busting Bush tax cuts, putting two wars on the nation’s plastic, a drug plan only Big Pharma’s Mom, “Kate, from K-Street” could love, TARP, and fought with Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell in leading the fight to welsh on the nation’s bills, but also to screw over the future elderly with his Medicare ideas and his fight to water down, if not outright kill off Obamacare albeit more slowly than his pal Mittens who wants to spike a nation version of what he left in Massachusetts, Romneycare. To give Mittens his due, it’s working nicely and saving us money. Granted, it took the Democratic legislature to keep it from crashing after he left.
Ryan’s another matter; this Ayn Rand discipline of rugged individualism and getting government out of everybody’s life. Well, he’s learned that what he can’t do constitutionally, by hook or crook, or with the help of a lovely lobbyist who worked for among other companies, UPS, and a company too close for comfort for myself, the Vermont Yankee nuke plant near Brattleboro, VT,—Ryan proved that with enough like-minded “let’s kill off the government competition,” pols, even if it’s earning a profit for its owners, the nation’s taxpayers)any agency can be crushed from within and without having to use the more manly way of getting the job done.
At least Hemingway, also of Wisconsin, would’ve had the manly stuff to face the large animal he was out to get by using a buffalo or elephant gun; not finding a way to starve the beast and shoot it when it’s too weak to escape, much less revive itself for another day. NOT Paul Ryan, or for that matter, his little helper, the future Mrs. Janna (Little) Ryan who worked together with him to saddle the Post Office, a constitutionally-created department, by Ben Franklin no less, with a whopping debt it has to pay back by a certain date or go belly up. (Hmmm, didn’t that create a baneful effect on the recently once very successful Post Office and lately, one cannot turn on the news without hearing about the “expensive post office” that’s “costing taxpayer dollars” while we could just finish it off by privatization and let the market forces take their share of the remaining usable parts of USPS’ carcass.
With the Ryans (as well as Romney) and the rest of the Republican Party, we can now get not only vulture capitalism, but via legislative skullduggery and lobbying finese, vulture cannibalism of once strong government agencies that will be divied up to the most (grateful) supporters, er campaign donors ... but we can’t ask the GOP ticket about that. No. No mention of vulture capiitalism, no mention of vulture governmental cannibalism, and certainly NO! mention that any of this could be even slightly taken as vulture crony-capitalism. Oh no.
See, the Ryan of his Randian years was the same Ryan who wooed, or was wooed by a lobbyist, and her employer who had a very neat way of pulling off another merger, er marriage of sorts; the vulture crony capitalism of the Post Office’s slow demise by debt strangulation no thanks to a GOP run Congress that saddled the Post Office with the obligation of being able to pay all the major benefits of its employees for nearly a quarter century ... but within less than ten years to finish this.
And has the pre-I’ve left Ayn behind, Paul Ryan ever shown any remorse for this deed pulled off with his wife, come around to seeing the errors of his ways and giving even the slightest inclination of changing his tune on this matter?
Lots of postal employees would love to know about this change, too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/janna-ryan-paul-ryan-wife_n_1774265.html
But, living downstream of Vermont Yankee, which bulldozed the State of Vermont into living with a rewnewal of its operating license, no thanks to a Federal judge, I’d really love to know more about this form of vulture/crony capitalism. This time the carcasses won’t be bureaucracies.