All you nice out-state Republicans getting post cards from Base Connect, pay attention....

Pat Powers continues to dismiss my investigation and criticism of fake Senate candidate Annette Bosworth as hysterical sexism. He'll have a harder time dismissing prominent Republican Lee Schoenbeck, who dismisses Bosworth in language easily as harsh as mine.

Powers reports that Bosworth has responded to the revelation of a campaign worker who quit over legal and ethical concerns and who is still owed back wages (a claim backed up by Bosworth's last FEC filing, page 119, Debts and Obligations: Ethan Crisp, $2,000) with evasive meme-nuttiness:

This is the repeating story of America. Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? I feel like Dagny Taggert [Annette Bosworth, quoted by Pat Powers, "The Experience of a Lifetime, or Lesson for a Lifetime: Crisp Unpaid, Atlas Shrugs," Dakota War College, 2014.03.09].

Lee Schoenbeck, Republican candidate for District 5 House and leading light within the South Dakota GOP, flunks Bosworth on literature and politics:

Well I have read Atlas Shrugged, and Dr Bosworth, you’re no Dagny Taggert. You are the kind of fraud that caused Atlas to Shrug [Lee Schoenbeck, comment, Dakota War College, 2014.03.09].

Ayn Rand was a fraud, too (see also here, here, and here), but that's not the point!

Like Lee, I've read Atlas Shrugged. Like Lee, I know Dagny Taggart was an honest, successful businesswoman who paid her employees. Like Lee, I know Annette Bosworth is none of those things.

And like Lee, I describe Annette Bosworth with the word fraud.

9 comments

Via Jezebel...

Given how often Paul Ryan said he rereads Ayn Rand, I wonder how he could have missed Rand's position on abortion:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? [Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death" The Objectivist, October 1968, excerpted at AynRand.org]

Ayn Rand is right. Embryos and fetuses are not people. A woman's right to have an abortion takes precedence over the rights of non-persons imagined by Paul Ryan.

12 comments

South Dakota hard-right blog P&R Miscellany responds to left-wing cries (including my own) for right-wing consistency with this defense of Paul Ryan (recycling this National Review spin from April 2012) from charges of fealty to the atheist Ayn Rand. The Displaced Plainsman catches P&R trying to hide from the real issue. The problem, says LK, is not that Ryan is an atheist (no one says he is, and it's certainly not in my interest to encourage voters to reject a candidate because he's an atheist); the problem is that Ryan bases his worldview and his policies on Ayn Rand's philosophy. Yes, Ayn Rand was an atheist, but much, much worse, Rand preached a "relentless, single-minded dedication to one's passions" that flies in the face of community and Christianity.

I find P&R's Ryan apologetics worthy of some line-by-line. First, P&R tries to get Ryan out from under the onus of Rand fanaticism:

To be sure, Ryan finds some of Rand's moral arguments for capitalism and individualism as opposed to collectivism quite helpful and has said so. He did say that he "tried to make my interns read [Atlas Shrugged]." While I'm personally with the interns who did not read it (Rand is, in my opinion, largely unreadable, tendentious, boring, and worse), this is a far different thing than adopting wholesale Rand's objectivism. As this Politico piece makes clear, even when he was doing that he was not endorsing objectivism or atheism but individualism and capitalism as morally defensible [P&R, "Ryan and Rand: Not So Close as Charged," P&R Miscellany, August 12, 2012].

P&R recognizes, as made clear in his own subsequent comment, as made clear by Ryan's own recent spin, that conservatives must keep Rand from becoming the issue. But Rand is the issue. The clearest proof of Ryan's fealty to Rand is Ryan's own words to a 2005 meeting of the Atlas Society, an Ayn Rand fan club:

I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There's a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well [Paul Ryan, address to Atlas Society, 2005].

Ryan acknowledges that Rand's books played a significant role in forming his value system. He acknowledges that he required his interns and staff to read Rand's two biggest books. He is deep enough into Rand that he knows the internal debate among Randians about which novel new recruits ought to read first.

Ryan also told the Atlas Society that he consulted Rand's writings religiously:

It's so important that we go back to our roots to look at Ayn Rand's vision, her writings, to see what our girding, under-grounding [sic] principles are. I always go back to, you know, Francisco d'Anconia's speech (at Bill Taggart's wedding) on money when I think about monetary policy. And then I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end, and go back to a lot of other things that she did, to try and make sure that I can check my premises so that I know that what I'm believing and doing and advancing are square with the key principles of individualism... [Ryan, 2005].

Ryan knows Rand's characters and parables. He treats her novels like Scripture, "checking his premises" for consistency with Rand's words. Ryan's knowledge of Rand is no casual acquaintance with a pop culture figure. It's serious attention. By his own words, Ryan is a Randian.

P&R admits Rand's philosophy is "immoral." To preserve his conviction that the Ryan-Romney ticket deserves his support, P&R must toss principle in favor of "anyone but Obama"-ism:

But a lot of Republicans are Christians and Protestants. If the left can destroy Ryan by tarring him as an atheist in the same way that they keep reminding us of Romney's Mormonism, then they can demotivate the GOP base. This will help to preserve Obama, including his attacks on religious freedom, his raw assertions of executive power, his devastating economic policies, and all the rest.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if Ryan were an atheist. Such irreligion would still be preferred to Obama's religious infatuation with government and the fiscal bankruptcy to which it is driving us. None of the candidates for president and vice president share my religious beliefs. There are two Catholics (both vice-presidential candidates), one Mormon, and one Black Liberation/Christo-Marxist (Obama). Religiously, I think they're all wrong [P&R, August 12, 2012].

A Christian conservative admits he'd rather have an atheist in office than the clearly Christian Barack Obama. Wowza! I guess all that talk about how the Founding Fathers created a Christian nation and said we couldn't govern without Christian principles really is just campaign chatter. We're making progress here!

As P&R throws religion out the window, he begs us to prioritize other values:

But Ryan and Romney are right on the economics, right on their appraisal of human nature, right on their understanding of how business and government work, right on the public morality they wish to uphold and defend, right on the limited nature of government and the U.S. Constitution... [P&R, August 12, 2012].

P&R is in la-la-land on the specifics. Ryan-Romney preach trickle-down economics disproven by the Bush tax cuts. Their every-man-for-himself thinking pales as public morality compared to President Obama's understanding that we have obligations to each other within community. And no one is preaching limited government; Romney and Ryan just want government to interfere in different realms (ask anyone with a uterus). But in general, I can get on board with P&R's declaration that the church you go to matters much, much less (if at all!) than other principles that guide one's public policies.

P&R then makes clear the ability of the right wing (of all humanity, really) to will itself to the outcomes it preconceives:

I'm not voting for pope or pastor. I'm not voting for God, either. I'm voting for president and vice-president and nothing Ryan has said that I'm aware of dampens my enthusiasm for him in the least [P&R, August 12, 2012].

In other words, Paul Ryan can cite a radical atheist egoist as the basis of his policy making, can indoctrinate other people in that egoist's bad literature, can even get his own Catholic theology grossly wrong, and good conservatives will still line up and vote for him.

Fine. As I said to Taunia last night, I don't like fighting a religious war. You can't win. But P&R and the Right's "anyone but Obama" rationalizations make me willing to fight the religious war with the objective not of victory but of cease-fire. I will accept the argument P&R makes, that we aren't voting for God, pope, or pastor. I will accept his argument that it doesn't matter what religion a candidate professes or shuns.

But I offer the cease-fire on two conditions:

  1. No Republican ever again mentions Jeremiah Wright.
  2. No Republican may say, insinuate, or countenance without rebuttal accusations that Barack Obama is a Muslim (not that there'd be anything wrong with his being a Muslim, but we're talking truth here).

If Republicans accept that cease fire, then we will have made immense progress to talking real, practical issues.

If they don't accept that cease fire, then the GOP will crush itself with the Romney-Ryan, Mormon-Rand ticket.

99 comments

Rep. Paul Ryan drew hosannas from the Rom-Paul announcement crowd in Norfolk yesterday by wheezing, "Our rights come from nature and God, not from government." Of course, the Battleship Irony in front of which Ryan said these words wouldn't have been around to secure those rights if we hadn't instituted a big government among men to build those big guns.

And Paul Ryan's philosophical godmother, avowed atheist Ayn Rand, would say God had nothing to do with it:

Ayn Rand said religion is "evil," a "sign of a psychological weakness." Ever the Nietzschean überfrau, Rand said, "I am the creator of a new code of morality... not based on faith."

Paul Ryan says that Randian morality does "a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism." As we've discussed previously, Ryan cloaks his Randian-atheist political philosophy in Catholicism, and does so shabbily and theologically wrongly.

I suppose I should be happy. For the first time ever, a major American political party will nominate two non-Christian cultists for the Presidential ticket. Mitt Romney is a Mormon who rejects the basic completeness of the Bible. Paul Ryan is a pretend Catholic who bases his politics on the atheist writings of weird demi-tyrant Ayn Rand. Conservative men of faith are twisting themselves into pretzels of religious tolerance to declare Paul Ryan a good choice. For those of us seeking to prove that atheists are Americans, too, the Ryan nomination could shout, "Mission Accomplished!"

But as I've told some right-wing correspondents who try to paint me into the tolerance corner, I don't consider tolerance a primary value. I don't tolerate deliberate philosophical dishonesty. And Catholic Paul Ryan's public piety, paired with his willingness to turn Ayn Rand's selfish atheism into public policy, is deliberate philosophical dishonesty. For the next three months millions of faithful Republicans will commit similar dishonesty, telling themselves that Paul Ryan, who embraces an atheist philosophy, who writes a budget to take from the poor and give to the rich, affirms that America is an exceptional Christian nation. Ugh.

As an atheist, I reject Paul Ryan's selfish Randian values. If I were a Christian, I'd do the same.

Related: John Nichols of The Nation says Romney has ceded the floor to Ryan, making the election a referendum on the Ryan politics that now define the Republican Party and giving us a harder right ticket than we've seen since Goldwater-Miller 1964, "when the true believers got a nominee, a platform and 39 percent of the vote." In 1964, Ayn Rand endorsed Goldwater, although she got mad when she perceived he went soft.

119 comments

My favorite Anglican fount of wisdom, Father Tim, reminds me indirectly that I don't have to make any excuses to my conservative neighbors about being an atheist... not as long they keep worshipping Ayn Rand:

The Economist's Good Guru Guide says, "Ayn Rand—the heroine of America's libertarian right—described her philosophy as 'the concept of man as a noble being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute'" [Gary Moore, "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Great Recession," Christianity Today, 2010.08.27].

Sounds like nefarious secular humanism to me.

Like The Economist, most observers see Rand as a political and economic philosopher. I believe she was first and foremost an anti-Christian philosopher. She didn't understand the faith. But she knew that Moses was a lawgiver, that Christ told us to "render unto Caesar," and that Paul told us to pay taxes and to "honor and respect" government leaders (Rom. 13). So she had to get rid of Christianity in order to get rid of government.

Rand once declared, "I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion." Randian evangelist Leonard Peikoff preached that "every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to him rests on a false metaphysical principle" [Moore, 2010].

Enemy of religion?! I've never declared myself that. I don't mind religion all that much, at least not when folks do it right... or when they put on good potato suppers.

Moore's article is chock full of sharp observations that make one thing clear: atheist Ayn Rand poses a greater threat to your Christian faith and moral compass (not to mention the healthy, regulated free market Adam Smith envisioned) than I ever will. Rand does not believe in any moral obligation to your fellow man. I do. So did that carpenter from Nazareth.

16 comments

Support Your Local Blogger!

  • Click the Tip Jar to send your donation to the Madville Times via PayPal, and support local alternative news and commentary!

South Dakota Political Blogs

Greater SD Blogosphere

SD Mostly Political Mix

Greater SD Blogosphere

Madville Monthly

Meta