Monthly Archives: June 2020

The New Republic article about Rand, which we looked at in Part 1, stood out not primarily because of what it said about her, but in how it conveyed its message. The article put a tribal prejudice toward Rand above facts and logic. That same mindset is on display, even more starkly, in Amanda Marcottes Salon article, Right-wingers finally got their Ayn Rand hero as president and its this guy.

Let me stress, again, that my goal is not to change your mind about Rand and her ideas, nor primarily to correct the many errors and misrepresentations in these articles (though Ill point out some of them along the way). Instead, the point is to explain how the two articles are fundamentally uninterested in convincing any active-minded reader. Their aim, rather, is to affirm a preset narrative about Rand. These are worse than mere smears, because their tribal mindset represents the abandonment of rational persuasion as the goal of intellectual discussion.

Marcottes point is captured in the subtitle: Conservatives finally have a leader who lives by Ayn Rands selfish philosophy, and hes an embarrassing clown, the clown being Donald Trump. But whatever you might think of Rand or of Trump, this is a claim thats far from self-evident. It requires a real argument. Marcottes article offers no argument. Its written for an audience that already partly or fully shares Marcottes preconceptions.

What would it take to build a case that Trump is the incarnation of Rands moral ideals? For a start, and at minimum, youd need to grasp what Rands view actually is, why she holds it, and how her radical view relates to, and contrasts with, existing views in morality. Rand once summarized her system of ideas by saying that My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic 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. Part of whats radical in Rands moral theory is that she argues for an individualist morality that is non-predatory.

Marcottes article offers no argument. Its written for an audience that already partly or fully shares Marcottes preconceptions.

Each individual, in her view, is responsible for achieving his own happiness by his own effort and the use of his own mind without sacrifices of anyone to anyone. That means a rational egoist neither surrenders his own values and goals to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. On Rands view, the egoist is someone guided by reason, pursuing creative achievement, building mutually beneficial relationships. It is nothing like the conventional view of a whim-driven brute who lies, cheats, and steals, walking over corpses to get his way.

From this brief indication of her view, it should be evident that what Rand means by selfishness is far different from what most people mean by that term. Regardless of whether one agrees with her conception, the fact is that Rand is saying something distinctive and new, and it takes work to understand it and think through what her morality does (and does not) look like in practice.

Marcotte, by contrast, evidently cannot imagine a moral ideal so dramatically at odds with conventional views. Apparently, the possibility of a non-predatory individualist is unreal to her, or else its pushed out of mind. Instead, Marcotte aims to patch together a narrative to affirm her prejudice against Rand. The goal is to portray Rand as a monster whose moral ideal, in practice, turns out to be a monster such as Trump.

To that end, Marcotte begins with a disturbing claim. Marcotte writes that Rand had a schoolgirl crush on a murderer, William Hickman, that she based a character on him in plans for an early story, and that she later reworked her idea of the individualistic, contemptuous hero into The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Marcottes smear operates in part by omitting important facts.

Since Rands mature views reject any form of predation, her youthful interest in Hickman is strange enough that if you are going to raise it, it demands thoughtful exploration. A multitude of questions spring to mind: What was the nature of Rands curiosity in him? Where did she articulate it? When was this? How does it relate to her mature, principled advocacy of individual rights as sacrosanct?

READ ALSO: Never-Before-Seen Ayn Rand Commentary on Politics

None of these questions interests Marcotte, who slants the episode to smear Rand. Marcottes smear operates in part by omitting important facts. Let me indicate just five.

First, its a gross distortion to call Rands reaction a schoolgirl crush, which you can see for yourself in Rands own notes on the subject. She made those notes in her personal journals, which can be found in Journals of Ayn Rand, published long after her death. Across decades, Rand wrote voluminously in her journals to sketch ideas for characters, plays, stories, novels; to engage in thinking on paper for her own understanding; to distill lessons and conclusions from her experiences with people and events.

Second, she wrote these journal entries for an audience of exactly one herself. In her journals she was continually forming, revising, changing, clarifying her views. Nothing in them was ever meant for publication, so its ludicrous to treat her journals as definitive statements of her considered view.

Third, Marcotte hand-wavingly notes that fans are quick to argue that Rand didnt endorse the murder, but elides the fact that Rand herself, in her own journal notes, repudiates Hickmans abhorrent crime.

Fourth, a relevant fact for understanding Rands interest in Hickman is that she was a fiction writer, and she was sketching ideas for a story. She was curious about the character and psychology of individuals, about what ideas and attitudes motivated them, in part for the sake of depicting the motivation of fictional characters. This is an issue central to the craft of writing fiction, which Rand (at the time, aged 23) was striving to master.

Fifth, it is impossible to read Rands notes about Hickman and the story she was planning without observing the influence of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche on the young Rand. That influence is manifest in the premise of the story and the lead character she envisioned for it (Rand uses concepts borrowed from Nietzsche and quotes him in her notes). Rand never got far in planning that story and decided to abandon it. Why? The project was too alien to her deepest premises, writes David Harriman, editor of Journals of Ayn Rand, who points out (along with other scholars) that Rand went on to discard Nietzsches philosophic ideas and explicitly repudiated them.

For Marcotte, such facts are pushed aside in the dash to affirm a preconception about Rand. The next step in that process is to link this fictional Rand to conservatism and President Trump.

Marcotte wheels out the trope that Rand is the backbone of modern conservativism. This metaphor obscures a complicated reality, which I mentioned in Part 1, about the nature of Rands influence on conservatives and right-leaning folks. Moreover, there are abundant counterexamples that negate this trope. The aim of Marcottes article, however, is not to convince, but to reinforce preconceptions, and her intended audience is already primed to feel loathing at the mention of conservatism. Thats the emotional context Marcottes article works to activate.

Marcottes unwarranted lumping together of Rand with conservatism reflects a definite purpose. Rands philosophy, Marcotte writes, serves as a pseudo-intellectual rationalization, beloved by assorted Republicans, for a reactionary movement that rose up to reject the feminist and anti-racist movements of the 20th century. One giveaway here is the word reactionary.

In this mindset, its unimaginable that someone could have a view different from ones own that is grounded in reasonable argument.

Even if you reject conservatism (as I do), Marcottes characterization of it betrays, not a reasoned opposition, but a tribal opposition. Were there conservatives who were racist and misogynistic? Yes, and there still are. But the sweeping claim in Marcottes article is that conservatives were reactionary: meaning, they stubbornly opposed progress. They could have had no legitimate basis for their concerns about, for example, the growth of government regulations, or the cost of burgeoning welfare programs, or the budget. Regardless of whether you share those concerns, some conservative intellectuals actually did voice reasoned objections to these developments. But for Marcotte and her intended audience, these outsiders, members of an opposing tribe, can be nothing but wrong and evil. In this mindset, its unimaginable that someone could have a view different from ones own that is grounded in reasonable argument.

In linking Rand with conservatism, Marcotte is uninterested in the fact which contradicts her narrative that Rand wrote at length about her philosophic opposition to the conservative movement (see, for instance, the essay Conservatism: An Obituary). Whats more, nowhere in Marcottes article will you learn that Rand was a fierce opponent of racism. Nor will you learn about Rands distinctive, profound opposition to the conventional notion that a womans place is in the home; or that a woman is somehow intellectually or morally inferior to a man. Among Rands fictional heroes are two women, Kira Argounova (in We the Living) and Dagny Taggart (in Atlas Shrugged), who shatter stereotyped roles for women. Long before it was imaginable in our culture, Dagny Taggart took it for granted that she could run a vast railroad network, and she did so superlatively; it was at most an afterthought for her that anyone might object. Kira Argounova, fascinated by buildings and bridges, wanted to be an engineer, and her will to achieve her goals in life was indomitable.

READ ALSO: An Alternative to Conspiracism's Foolish Illusions

All of this, and more, Marcotte must brush aside in order to shoehorn Rands ideas into the same category as the reactionary right, the opposing political tribe that Marcotte and many of her readers hate. Doing so, in defiance of the facts, is part of Marcottes larger effort to present Donald Trump as the full, perfect embodiment of Rands moral theory of selfishness. Linking Trump and Rand serves to smear each with the taken-for-granted evil of the other.

Whats the argument for that link? There is none and, tellingly, no attempt to engage with obvious objections or counterarguments. What Marcotte conveys is a disdain for the sheer possibility that anyone could hold a different view on the subject. Regardless of your assessment of President Trump, the claim that hes the embodiment of Ayn Rands moral ideas should give pause to anyone with even an elementary grasp of her outlook.

What leaps off the pages of Atlas Shrugged is not that Rand glamorizes all businesspeople, but rather that she draws a bright moral dividing line. On one side are productive business leaders, who use their minds to create real value, exchanging it in trade for mutual advantage. It is such producers who are the business heroes she valorizes for their achievements.

On the other side of that moral line are the businessmen who rely on political pull to handicap their competitors, who extort protections and corporate welfare, and who lie, cheat, and exploit others in their grubbing for unearned wealth. Such villains, in todays world, embody the scourge of cronyism.

Marcottes disdain for argument, for evidence, indeed, for the intellect of her readers is blatant in what she takes as a credible source on Rands ideas.

Just on the basis of this sketch of one aspect of Rands view, Donald Trump is far from an obvious manifestation of her moral theory. The evidence, in my view, is that his actions and statements contradict the virtue of selfishness; that, for instance, Trumps business career has relied on pull peddling and that, as president, he feeds that cronyism dynamic. My colleague Ben Bayer has argued convincingly that Trump negates Rands view of selfishness; and others still have pointed out ways in which Trump is actually more like an Ayn Rand villain.

But my aim here is not to convince you of either of those points. Rather its to indicate that any claim that Trump embodies Rands concept of selfishness would need to build an argument for that, and take seriously counterpoints and obvious objections if your goal is to convince.

Thats precisely what Marcotte disdains. I say disdain, because any reputable magazine would expect its writers to Google the topic theyre pitching, to see if anyones written on it before. Try it yourself; you should find at least two articles on the subject by my colleague Onkar Ghate. One evaluates the Trump phenomenon generally; the other considers what Rand might have thought of Trump. You might also find my article on how Trumps foreign policy clashes with Rands philosophy. And again, we at ARI are hardly the only ones to voice our perspective on this issue. Marcotte, however, does not even gesture toward engaging with these contrasting views; doing so would imply that there could be a credible view different from her preconception.

READ ALSO: Crisis, Lies and Morality: Snyders On Tyranny

Marcottes disdain for argument, for evidence, indeed, for the intellect of her readers is blatant in what she takes as a credible source on Rands ideas. For a credible third-party source, where does Marcotte turn? To one of a number of the established, published scholars of Rands ideas? No. To an expert on the field of ethics, who has some awareness of how Rands ideas relate to the intellectual landscape? No.

Who, then? Marcotte turns to a guy with a blog. She cites someone who posted blog entries while reading his way through Atlas Shrugged. To pretend that this blog is a credible source is journalistic malpractice. If a journalist wrote about, say, Marxs Das Kapital, or Darwins Origin of Species to take two influential works that defied conventional thinking and presented a random blogger with no evident expertise as an authority on the subject, it would be laughable.

What Marcottes article exhibits even more blatantly than Sammons piece in the New Republic is a tribalist mindset.

The tribal mind is insular and keen to stay that way. Outsiders are viewed with suspicion, often hostility. The sheer possibility that outsiders might have different views and beliefs, and hold them for good reasons, is simply alien. Thats largely because the tribalist himself has fastened onto his beliefs and pieties, not through a thoughtful weighing of the evidence and by following the logic, but through conformity with the group. Theres just what his own tribe believes. All else has to be wrong. Its beyond the pale, worthy only of contempt and disdain.

Theres an underlying commonality between a Trump rally and the Marcotte and Sammon articles: they put a tribal narrative above facts and logic.

We can observe two important consequences of this tribalist mindset on display in Marcottes article about Rand. One is Marcottes disdain for facts and logic. A tribalist sees no need to convince others of his views: why take the effort of trying to communicate with outsiders, who by virtue of being outside the tribe must be wrong? Besides, if he himself didnt need evidence and logic to swallow his groups beliefs and pieties, why would anyone else?

Second, the tribalist does feel a strong need to affirm and reinforce for himself and fellow tribe members that their ways and beliefs are right, and that outsiders are wrong, if not evil, too.

A critical reading of Marcottes and Sammons articles makes clear that a major, if not the prime, aim is to rally certain readers. To activate them emotionally, not cognitively. For those readers, the common takeaway is that, despite Rands distinctive views, she can be lumped in with the hated right-wing/conservative tribe.

These articles offer the reassurance that, despite Rands enduring prominence and ongoing cultural influence, she is unworthy of serious attention. That the Objectivist movement is nosediving. That Rand, finally, is canceled.

What the Marcotte and Sammon articles do to Rand in print, Donald Trump does to his enemies in speeches at loyalist rallies. The approach is the same. The president can spellbind the audience with innuendo, pseudo-facts, and arbitrary assertions, precisely because they reinforce a conclusion many already came in with: Trump is right, his opponents in the enemy tribe are victimizing him.

No attempt is made to convince anyone in the stands. The conclusions, so congenial to the tribe, are already known. The facts or rather, innuendo, insinuation, hints and arbitrary allegations are conjured up, trimmed, shorn of context, bent, distorted to affirm the tribes common prejudices against its enemies. Theres an underlying commonality between a Trump rally and the Marcotte and Sammon articles: they put a tribal narrative above facts and logic.

There are fascinating questions to explore about the impact of Ayn Rands ideas and their cultural influence. Such questions, however, are shoved to the wayside in the Marcotte and Sammon articles. The driving impulse to cancel Rand in the eyes of their tribal audience hardly original to these articles is its own kind of cultural indicator.

SUPPORT ARI: If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Share this article:

See the article here:

When Tribal Journalists Try to 'Cancel' Ayn Rand (Part 2) - New Ideal

One of the defining features of the reactionary outlook is how thin its conception of lifes meaning is, and this, in turn, explains why reactionaries tend to be so anxious about it all falling apart

Introduction

It is not I who will die; it is the world that will end.

Ayn Rand, citing one of her favorite expressions

Rarely have so many concerned themselves with the politics of meaning. This is particularly true of the many reactionary figures who have emerged in our time, particularly post-modern conservatives. As far back as 2016a lifetime ago, it seemsthe conservative essayist Michael Anton described the culture war in the United States as being caught in an endless cycle of decline and fall brought about by progressive forces. So pervasive had progressives influence become, Anton argued, that even conservatives were increasingly willing to go quietly into the night. This he described as the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. More recently, R.R Reno, the editor of First Things, condemned the strict measures in place to moderate the Coronavirus (COVID-19), describing them as symptomatic of a culture that places fear of death at the center of life. And, of course, there are the endless complaints about dangerous academics at elite universities propagating nihilistic, post-modern philosophies.

Upon reviewing these often shrill polemics, one might expect that reactionaries would be acutely sensitive to the politics of meaning, and that they would be leading the struggle against cultural nihilism. However, in fact, I believe the opposite to be true. One of the defining features of the reactionary outlook is how thin its conception of lifes meaning is, and this, in turn, explains why reactionaries tend to be so anxious about it all falling apart, an idea I will explore in this brief essay.

The Reactionary Outlook

It is important, first and foremost, to stress that the reactionary impulse is an outlook, rather than a developed political philosophy. Consequently, reactionaries can be found to hold a mishmash of metaphysical and historical views. Some reactionaries are devoutly religious traditionalists, while others are militant atheists. Reactionaries such as Nietzsche might heap scorn upon vulgar economic reasoning, while others like Ayn Rand may romantically praise capitalists as creators and producers. However, all reactionaries dispositionally share much in common. The reactionary sees existence as a fundamentally threatening place, with meaningless chaos being the norm rather than the exception. For reactionaries, existence is an anorexic god, endlessly hungry and always on the verge of imploding from its own lack of substance. This god can only be preserved by applying great strength. This gloomy outlook also extends to the vast majority of humankind, who lacks the strength to bring much of value into the world. This is the herd in Nietzsches terminology, second handers in Rands, and the inferior as Ludwig von Mises put it. This reduction of most people to beings of minuscule worth implies that a majority in a society cannotand should notbe given a great deal of power over the direction the society takes. Those who should have such power are the so-called superior men: individuals who possess the character and strength to create an enduring and stable order, which provides the herd with a sense of purpose while also keeping them in line.

Each reactionary has a different conception of what the superior man is, though there are many commonalities. The most important is that the superior man is not a figure of Aristotelian moderationlet alone a humble and self-sacrificing Christian. Indeed, one of the great ironies of traditionalist reactionaries is their tendency to invoke fear of a declining homogenous Christian order, while talking a great deal about war and enforcing order. This, after all, is not exactly following in the footsteps of the lamb of God. The superior man is also typically just that: a man. The reactionary imagination is typically parasitic on the culture it reacts against, which, invariably, means drawing liberally from the clichs and prejudices of the time. This means that many reactionaries, including women, tend to be misogynists. They castigate so called effeminate qualities like compassion and empathy, while still insisting that most men are not stereotypically masculine enough. In a more crude form, reactionaries may decry that a culture has become too dominated by feelings, rather than reason. But this always excludes the emotions reactionaries cherish. These emotions include anger, competitiveness, pride, etc. And emotions such as these are usually associated with a particularly repressed form of masculinity. Finally, reactionaries tend to revere strength, though not necessarily of character or virtue.

The strength reactionaries admire is the capacity to impose ones will upon the world, which, at its zenith, refers to the ability to compel or dominate others to bring them in line with the necessary order. This means that reactionaries tend to support hierarchical forms of political organization, with the exact form depending on whom the reactionary reveres as strong and who they castigate as unworthy. For early modern defenders of absolutism such as Robert Filmer and Joseph de Maistre, God had dictated that the aristocracy be in charge. With declining faith in theological arguments in the 19th century, reactionaries began to cherry pick more rationalistic sounding arguments about the superiority of their chosen culture. Or, at worst, they sought to develop scientific explanations for racial prejudice. In our day, many reactionaries insist that the secularized theological power of the invisible hand operates across the market to sort worthy creators from unworthy second handers. In doing so, the invisible hand bestows wealth and power on the former, while the latter is left to do the mundane work needed to keep the world turning. In each instance, it is only a small elite with the strength to maintain order that prevents the world from slipping into the vulgarity and chaos that would be associated with rule by the unworthy masses.

Conclusion: The Anorexic God

This brings me to the paradoxical approach to meaning at the center of the reactionary outlook. Reactionaries position themselves as opposed to the nihilism of the modern world, which has, without exception, decayed from some nostalgic ideal lost to history. One might respond to this by observing thateven if this ideal time did existit must not have been as spectacular as the reactionary supposes. Otherwise, it would not have been abandoned. If traditionalist Christian civilizationor unbridled 19th century capitalismwere such meaning saturated societies, then why did people rebel against them en masse, demanding dramatic changes? But this possibility is never entertained, with reactionaries much preferring vague but affective narratives of decadence, vulgarity, and a steep decline from greatness. More importantly, the often shrill denouncements of modern nihilism display how little meaning many reactionaries think the world actually has.

For the reactionary, the modern world is portrayed as dramatically fallen and drained of meaning. This is becauseunless the superior men and the right hierarchy are in placethe omnipresent threat of chaos and decline is all that can take their place. Modernity is damned precisely because it has ceded too much to the unworthy. The remarkable thing about this is just how fragile the reactionarys sense of the worlds meaning is. The reactionarys tremendous emphasis on strength and accomplishment displays an impotent fascination with bigness and grandeur that ignores the small but divine ways in which many ordinary people struggle to make life better for themselves and others. One of the reasons reactionaries despise the democratic culture of the masses is precisely because it directs our attention to the mundane needs that actually make up our lives. This often takes the form of a cooperative effort at gradually improving our communities and the world around us. The reactionary has no interest in that, solipsistically believing that unless the truly worthy are in charge (and the right order enforced), existence is leeched of significance.

This simplistic retreat from the complexity of the world demonstrates the existentially thin quality of the reactionary outlook. When commenting on Ayn Rand, Corey Robin, the Brooklyn College political scientist, observed that her bastardization of Aristotelian syllogisms such as A=Acombined with her relentless self-promotionrevealed more than she may have intended. Rand was attracted to a world where everything simply was what it was. She focused relentlessly on herself, while expressing scorn and disdain for the vast majority of people who came before and after her. She was convinced that when she diedfor all intents and purposesthe world ceased to exist. The only meaning that one could find in life came from oneself, paired with the private aspiration for romantic greatness as a heroic figure raised above the masses. This nihilistic outlook, along with its reactionary kin, worship an anorexic God, and we should reject their idolatries.

Matt McManus is Professor of Politics and International Relations at Tec de Monterrey, and the author of Making Human Dignity Central to International Human Rights Law and The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism. His new projects include co-authoring a critical monograph on Jordan Peterson and a book on liberal rights for Palgrave MacMillan. Matt can be reached atmattmcmanus300@gmail.comor added on twitter vie@mattpolprof

See the original post:

Understanding the Reactionary Outlook - Merion West