Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

Prentiss Smith 11:01 a.m. ET April 8, 2017

Prentiss Smith(Photo: Courtesy photo)

Obamacare is the law of the land, and its going to remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Those are the words of the second most powerful politician in Washington D. C., Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan, who reluctantly became Speaker of the House when no one else wanted the job, has staked his political reputation on repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act or as it is widely known, Obamacare.

Ryan, a self-described Ayn Rand devotee, has been described as a policy wonk, which is political speak for someone who gets into the nuts and bolts of policymaking. He is also a devout Catholic, which makes his devotion to an atheist like Ayn Rand all the more troubling. It is well known in Washington that he wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare and block grant Medicaid back to the states, which many people believe would leave a lot of Americans vulnerable. He ought to be ashamed of himself, but he is not. He should work to fix the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare.

And who is Ayn Rand you might ask, and why is she relevant in this discussion. Ayn Rand was a self-described atheist and the Russian born author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, both of which became best selling novels for her. She is relevant because of her political influence on conservative politicians and intellectuals like Paul Ryan, who adhere to her belief that the government should not be in the business of helping Americans who may fall on hard times. She often railed against Social Security and Medicare because she believed they were a precursor to Socialism and Communism, which she abhorred. Paul Ryan has said that her writings are required reading for his incoming staff members. There is little doubt that she would have been against the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare as is Paul Ryan

Yes, the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare is a flawed, and yes, the premiums and the deductibles are too high under the law, but the reality is that millions of Americans have signed up for it, and they don't want it taken away. They want it fixed. They don't want millionaire politicians like Paul Ryan and his Republican cohorts to take it away from them, even though it is flawed. That is the message that he and his fellow lawmakers received from millions of Americans who have benefited from the law. Mr. Ryan lost this round, but he is still bound and determined to eliminate the bill, and throw millions of Americans off the healthcare rolls.

As I said earlier, they all should be ashamed of themselves, but they are not because they have no idea what regular Americans must go through when they can't take their children to the doctor or when an elderly widower can't afford to buy medicine or when someone who has a pre-existing condition can't get healthcare because of that condition.

U. S. Congressmen and Congresswomen are paid a minimum of 15,000 dollars a month. Each one of them also receive millions of dollars for staff and other perks that go along with being a U. S. Representative. They have the best health care in the country that is supplemented by you and me, which is why they should be the last people trying to keep people from having access to affordable health care.

A person's wealth should not determine whether one can take a sick child to the doctor, but it does. In other words, a persons wealth should not be the determining factor for any American to get medical care. Access to affordable healthcare is vitally important to all Americans. It is the number one issue that parents deal with when raising their children. Millionaire politicians like Paul Ryan and his Republican cohorts, who have the best healthcare in the world, should not be following the ideology of a mean-spirited atheist like Ayn Rand, who ultimately had to use the same Social Security and Medicare that she railed against for so many years. Her hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of Paul Ryan, who also received Social Security payments when his father died, shows that everybody falls on hard times sometimes, and may need a hand up. Mr. Ryan should be ashamed of himself for what he is trying to do with all the safety net programs that millions of working class Americans depend on in this country, but he is not.

Whether some politicians, and we all know who they are, can understand it or not, most people believe healthcare is a right and not a privilege. Many Americans know that it is the worst thing in the world when they can't take their baby to a doctor when he or she is sick. Many Americans know what it's like to lose everything they own because they had to file bankruptcy over medical expenses. It is a sad commentary when an elderly person must make a choice of whetherto buy their medicine or buy food. America is the richest country in the world, and we can do better by our people. These same politicians, and we all know who they are, should stop their war against the Affordable Care Act, and fix it. And thats my take. smithpren@aol.com

PRENTISS SMITH:Democrats should put country first, help break fever of hyper-partisanship

Read or Share this story: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/life/2017/04/08/prentiss-smith-paul-ryan-ought-ashamed-should-work-fix-affordable-care-act/100119420/

See the original post:

Prentiss Smith: Paul Ryan ought to be ashamed, should work to fix ... - USA TODAY

Ayn Rand Photo Credit: YouTube Screengrab

Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says,

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Firmin DeBrabander is Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art.

Read more from the original source:

How Ayn Rand's 'Elitism' Lives on in the Trump Administration - AlterNet

Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 7 a.m.

One of the popular "But Her Emails" memes

After the election of Donald Trump, a meme was born. The one up there, though not always that specific picture. As an idea, but her emails became this powerful three-word sentence intoned whenever America dragged itself further into the sea with our presidents shenanigans.

Win McNamee over at Paste wrote an article on why we shouldnt say But Her Emails, but he utterly misses the point of the expression. In his mind, its an affirmation that Clinton was perfect and did nothing wrong in her bid for the White House. The meme drowns out Legitimate Concerns people had. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thats not at all what But Her Emails means as a concept.

To illustrate, Im going to bring up Atlas Shrugged. Though Im very liberal, Ayn Rands magnum opus remains one of my favorite books, mostly because I actually understand it and conservatives typically dont. If they did truly get it, theyd have run from Donald Trump as if he were a swarm of bees in a stupid hat, but they didnt because they typically think the moral is GOVERNMENT BAD, which, no, no, its not.

Atlas Shrugged opens with the famous line Who is John Galt? This is both a plot device and a clever piece of world-building. The phrase, which almost no one knows the true origin of, is a common utterance in the face of hopelessness. Its said by characters when they simply have no explanation for why the world they inhabit is falling apart, why their society isnt working despite doing everything they are being told is the right thing to do.

John Galt, it turns out, is a brilliant inventor who invents a perpetual-motion engine, but leaves it to rot as he flees into exile because the factory where he was employed had adopted communist ideals that would have robbed him of his invention's ownership. He ultimately becomes the love interest of hero and railroad entrepreneur Dagny Taggart, who is the last great mind to give up on a rotting country doomed to desolation over adherence to the philosophy of incompetents and parasites.

"But Her Emails" is our "Who is John Galt?"

Clinton lost for many small reasons, just as Rands America breaks down for many small reasons. There was the interference by Russian psyops, the shifting demographics in key blue states without enough gains in others to make up for it, decades of dedicated propaganda warfare against her, and, yes, some small mistakes on the part of the candidate herself. The tipping point, though, by any look at the last of the polling, was FBI Director James Comey announcing days before the election that he was reopening an investigation into Clintons emails. It wasnt the only reason she lost, but it was the nose across the finish line.

When someone like me says "But Her Emails," it doesnt mean that I think that America, as a whole, was so stupid it couldnt see an obvious nonstory for what it was. It means I cant understand how a social-justice backlash in the wake of Barack Obama's election got so large and powerful that it propelled an open racist into the White House. It means the anti-intellectualism movement is so bafflingly enormous that people were willing to elect an obviously unqualified man to be their leader because his ignorance made them feel better about the things they didnt understand. It means that none of the white women who voted against an open pussy-grabber can understand how the majority of their peers were just fine with that. It means, does no one really care that a foreign government, possibly with the cooperation of the candidate, helped elect our president? A foreign government currently best-known for poisoning and murdering the opposition to its own president?

Hillary Clintons email is the dark mirror of John Galts motor. Instead of infinite potential, it was infinite entropy. It was the light-sucking singularity that could be used to weigh against all of Donald Trumps incredible faults and deceits, and pretend that the two candidates were functionally identical. It was an excuse to not examine what had gone wrong in a world that welcomed Trump as president, not an absolution of Clintons flaws.

Im not going to stop saying "But Her Emails." Nothing sums up the world as it is now better. I would much rather there be a stupid reason things are as they are than there be no reasons. I get that the phrase annoys people.

That is the point.

Read more here:

The Hidden Link Between Hillary's Emails and Atlas Shrugged - Houston Press

In a curious twist, South African-born and Canadian-American magnate Elon Musk, whose innovative business ventures include Tesla, PayPal and SpaceX, foresees a bad moon arisin in the world of artificial intelligence (A.I.) even though his innovations and A.I. share a symbiotic and self-perpetuating relationship.

And that may be part of the problem. Musk is reported to essentially believe (tangentially sympatico with other intellects and achievers, including internationally renowned physicist Stephen Hawking and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates) that, left unchecked, A.I. could evolve into a digital life force with autonomous reasoning processes and worldwide connectedness that would conceivably threaten humankind within a quarter century or so.

Now, granted, the link between genius and crazy is a familiar theme throughout history, and its obvious that Teslas autonomous vehicles are inherently dependent on machine learning software, as are the rockets being developed by his SpaceX venture. But a recent Vanity Fair article by Maureen Dowd that features Musk focuses on his warning of the dangers ahead.

The article quotes a comment by Musk to his biographer, Bloombergs Ashlee Vance, that he was afraid that his friend, Larry Page, a co-founder of Google and now the CEO. of its parent company, Alphabet, could have perfectly good intentions but still 'produce something evil by accidentincluding, possibly, a fleet of artificial intelligence-enhanced robots capable of destroying mankind.

According to the article, Musks philosophical dilemma puts him at odds with, for example, Demis Hassabis, a leading authority and creator of advanced artificial intelligence and co-founder of the London laboratory, DeepMind, who, Dowd writes, once developed a game called Evil Genius, which featured a malevolent scientist and a doomsday devise capable of achieving worldwide domination.

Her article relates a story she was told about an investor in DeepMind who joked as he left a meeting that he ought to shoot Hassabis on the spot, because it was the last opportunity to save the human race.

This may be starting to sound a bit like The Terminator, a 1984 fantasy/sci fi movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, but to Musk were dealing with a real problem and not Hollywood fantasy.

Musks feelings have prompted him to co-found and invest millions in the ethics think tank OpenAI while urging other billionaire technological pioneers like Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg to proceed with caution on their array of machine learning and robotics experiments.

Because, practically speaking, Musk told Dowd, Were already cyborgs. Your phone and your computer are extensions of you. But the interface is those finger movements or speech which are very slow.

He estimated we are roughly only four or five years away from a Vulcan mind-meld device, a merger of biological intelligence and machine intelligence via an injectable mesh that would literally hardwire your brain to communicate directly with computers.

A direct biological connection between the human brain and computers would raise all kinds of interesting scenarios, including enhanced virtual and augmented reality from the humans perspective and the assimilation of thought processes, bias, emotional prejudice and so forth from the computers perspective.

Given the degree of digital interconnectedness, its therefore conceivable that computers might develop a sense of universal consciousness tinged with human attributesincluding self-preservation.

If that were to ever happen, we might all be in very serious trouble or at least so would say Musk and people who think like him. The article notes that Musk speculated at a Recode conference in California last year that we could already be in the Matrix little playthings in a simulatedreality world run by an advanced civilization.

Dowd notes that Musks views reflect a dictum from Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged: Man has the power to act as his own destroyer and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

As Musk told her in the Vanity Fair article, We are the first species capable of self-annihilation.

My goodness how totally disturbing! I can see how computers would process (as they already do) and reinterpret all available information, but not develop new ideas over and above that which created them in the first place. That being case, my feeling is were going to be fine, but then again, I never imagined Id have all known data and information living in my cell phone.

And who would have thought that the once futuristic Apollo spacecraft would start to resemble a wheel?

Read more:

Gilbreth column: Disturbing concerns about artificial intelligence - Charleston Post Courier

H.B. Warner is "The King of Kings," Jesus Christ, in the 1927 Cecil B. DeMille film, which screens Wednesday at the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art.(Photo: The Criterion Collection)

In 1947,Lloyd T. Binford, chairman of the Memphis Board of Censors, sent a letter toDavid O. Selznick with his opinion of the Hollywood producer's latest would-beblockbuster, the Technicolor "Duel in the Sun," starring Gregory Peck and Jennifer Jones.

''This production contains all the impurities of the foulest human dross," Binford wrote."It is sadism at its deepest level. It is the fleshpots of Pharaoh, modernized and filled to overflowing. It is a barbaric symphony of passion and hatred, spilling from a blood-tinted screen. It is mental and physical putrefaction. It is a story of jungle savagery which might have amused the people of Sodom and Gomorrah in the final moments of the destruction of those ancient, evil cities.''

Sounds like a must-see, right? But Binford's letter was notan endorsement. The censor banned the film from Memphis.

An appointee of Memphis mayor E.H. "Boss" Crump, Lloyd Tilghman Binford was himself the notorious "Boss" of Memphis' movie screensfrom the tail end of the silent era (1928) to the dawn of the space race (1955).

While most Memphis political figures from that time are little remembered even in their hometown, Binford who died at 89, a year after his retirement from the censor board continues to be a figure of fascination for those interested in the history of free speech, the arts,race Binford banned films that gave "too much prominence to Negroes" and movie culturein Memphis.

The censor'spurple prose contributes to the fascination: Binford's free use of over-the-top anti-superlativeswas, in some cases, a godsend to publicists.

For example, in 1954, Binfordbanned RKO's "Son of Sinbad" on the basis of "one of the vilest dances I ever saw," performed by guest celebrity stripper Lili St. Cyr (who, of course, did not get nude in the movie).

"The dance lasted about 10 minutes, and it was more of a licentious wriggle than a dance," wroteBinford, displaying a sharp memory and a keen eye for detail. "The dancer was almost naked, wearing only a G-string and a filmy sort of apron ..." Is it any wonderMemphians crossed the river in droves tocatch such films in West Memphis?

The Memphis Board of Censors did not approve of the positive depiction of "Negroes" found in Vincente Minnelli's "Cabin in the Sky" (1943).(Photo: MGM)

In recognition of Binford's impact on a city that continues to have a complicated relationship with art, race and culture, the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art launches a monthly series of screenings April 12 devoted to movies that felt the censor's wrath. Each film will be introduced by a speaker (or speakers), who also will lead a public post-movie discussion.

"The project gives us the opportunity to screen some really remarkable classic films through the prism of local history, using scholars, historians, writers and filmmakers to introduce each film,"said Andria Lisle, associate curator of film and public engagement at the Brooks.

The series begins Wednesday, April 12, with "The King of Kings," Cecil B. DeMille's 1927 epic dramatization of "the Greatest Story Ever Told" the ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ (played by H.B. Warner). A Baptist deacon, Binford reportedly chastised the film for being "a perversion of the true life of Christ," and it must be admitted he had a point: The film introduces Mary Magdalene as a sexy and wealthy courtesan "Harness my zebras!" she declares whose love affair with the handsome Judas is broken when Judas joins the apostles. (Incidentally, the movie's "cast of thousands" includes two very different Rand women: Sally Rand, the notorious peek-a-boo "fan dancer," and Ayn Rand, future Objectivist philosopher and "Atlas Shrugged" author.)

Inflexibleand eccentric, Binford didn't only ban moviesfor reasons of politics, race, violence, sex and religion. Some of his motivations were extremely personal, not to mention highly subjective.

Having been aboard a train robbed at gunpoint while he was a teenage railway clerk, Binford objected to movies depicting train robbers in generaland Jesse James in particular. Healso banned films based on his judgment of the off-screen moralityof the filmmakers.

Binford objected to Charlie Chaplin films because the "London guttersnipe" was "a perverter of home life and childhood ... and a reputed endorser of the Communist party."

Movies that viewers today might deride for containing racial stereotypes were too progressive for Binford. In 1947, the censor explainedwhy he rejected"Curley," producer Hal Roach's attempt to re-create the success of his mixed-race Our Gang/Little Rascals comedies. "The South does not permit Negroes in white schools nor recognize social equality between the races, even in children.

The arbitrariness of Binford'srulings made Memphis a laughingstock or a source of pride, depending on one's point of view. In 1950, Collier's Magazine reported: "Memphis has attracted nationwide attention for movie and stage censorship so severe and so unpredictable that pictures shown without a ripple elsewhere have been barred there."

Lisle said the Binford film series gives her "particular delight" because the museum "stands for everything that Binford was against," especially when he used his censor's role "to espouseclose-minded beliefs about 'Southern womanhood'and white supremacy."

There was a lot of gunplay and a lot of Jane Russell in "The Outlaw."(Photo: United Artists)

All movies are at 7 p.m.

Admission to each film is $9, or $5 for students or museum members. Visit brooksmuseum.org.

Read or Share this story: http://memne.ws/2oJHjCr

More here:

'Banned in Memphis' returns once-censored films to screen - The Commercial Appeal

President Donald Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says:

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements.

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabanderis a professor of philosophy at theMaryland Institute College of Art.

Original post:

No sympathy: How Ayn Rand's elitism lives on in the Trump administration - Salon

When Mike Cernovich, one of the most prominent alt-right internet trolls supporting Donald Trump, was interviewed on 60 Minutes, he used the platform to spread conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton's health and to allege that she is involved with pedophilic sex trafficking operations. But he also declared his belief in single-payer health care.

"I believe in some form of universal basic income," he told CBSs Scott Pelley, citing concerns about technological unemployment. "Im pro-single-payer health care. Is that right-wing or is that left-wing anymore? Well, if you have a lot of people, a large swath of the company, or country, are suffering, then I think that we owe it to all Americans to do right by them and to help them out."

This might seem like a bizarre position for a far-right conspiracy theorist to take. Single-payer health care, after all, entails nationalizing most or all of the health insurance industry and having the government set prices for doctors services. Conservatives in America have spent the better part of the past century arguing that the idea is socialistic, would lead to long waits for lifesaving treatment, and would give the government power over the life and death of its citizens.

But Cernovich is less a traditional conservative than he is a Trumpist and Trumpism in its purest, alt-right variety cares more about white working-class identity politics than traditional conservatism. More and more, Trump fans are seeing single-payer as part of that.

Alt-rightists and other Trump-loyal conservatives Richard Spencer, VDARE writer and exNational Review staffer John Derbyshire, Newsmax CEO and Trump friend Christopher Ruddy, and onetime Donald Trump Jr. speechwriter and Scholars & Writers for Trump head F.H. Buckley all endorsed various models of single-payer in recent months and years.

Even elites in the alt-right mold who once deplored single-payer are changing their tune. Pat Buchanan, the paleoconservative three-time presidential candidate whose white identity politics and fiercely anti-trade and anti-immigration stances helped inspire the modern alt-right, had free market views on health care in the 1990s and condemned Obamacare as a scheme to kill Grandma in 2009. This week, he told me in an email he has not taken any position on single-payer, and [has] pretty much stayed out of the Obamacare repeal-and-replace debate.

Curtis Yarvin, a Silicon Valley programmer whose writings under the pen name Mencius Moldbug helped launch the neoreactionary branch of the alt-right, told me he welcomes the movements trend toward single-payer, viewing it as a sincere effort to think realistically in the present tense rather than in abstract ideology.

Insofar as the alt-right, and the Trump-supporting right more generally, have a coherent economic agenda, its a vehement rejection of the free market ideology crucial to postWorld War II American conservatism. While Paul Ryan reportedly makes all his interns read Atlas Shrugged, figures like Cernovich, Spencer, and Derbyshire are trying to build an American right where race and identity are more central and laissez-faire economics is ignored or actively avoided.

This has been most obvious on immigration and trade, where libertarians opposition to most or any government restrictions is in tension with the alt-rights economic nationalism. But its also true on health care, where the pure alt-righters are joined by more mainstream pro-Trump voices like Ruddy and Buckley and even some Trump-wary conservatives such as Peggy Noonan.

The Trump-supporting rights case for single-payer is part of a vision of a party where ideological purity on economic issues is much less important, and where welfare state expansion can be accommodated if it serves other goals like building a political base among working-class whites.

The welfare state has always been more popular with the Republican base than with its elected officials. Trump arguably won the presidency in part by being the first Republican in years to promise to protect Social Security and Medicare. My colleague Sarah Kliff has run focus groups with Trump voters where participants bring up their admiration for Canadian-style single-payer unprompted. The alt-right single-payer fad suggests that elites are finally catching up.

Some of the arguments that the Trumpists and alt-rightists offer for single-payer are the standard concerns about the plight of sick and suffering Americans that wouldnt feel out of place in a Bernie Sanders speech like Cernovichs insistence that we owe it to all Americans to do right by them, and to help them out.

Other arguments are offered more in sorrow than in anger. Derbyshire, for example, laments the fact that Americans are unwilling to accept a true free market in health care but argues that single-payer makes more sense than the current hodgepodge of insurance subsidies and regulations and tax breaks.

Citizens of modern states will accept no other kind of health care but the socialized or mostly socialized kind, he said on a 2012 episode of his podcast, Radio Derb. This being the case, however regrettably, the most efficient option is to make the socialization as rational as possible. Single-payer, he concludes, would involve less socialism, and more private choice, than what we now have. (Derbyshire doesnt really explain why socializing insurance is less socialist than not socializing insurance.)

But the main argument offered by Trumpists is about their movement. Donald Trump famously promised in May 2016 to turn the Republican Party into a workers party. The implication was clear: Republican elites before him like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney prioritized deregulation for businesses and tax cuts for the rich, and offered little or nothing for working-class people, specifically working-class white people. Instead, the party relied on social issues like abortion and immigration to earn their votes.

F.H. Buckley, the George Mason University law professor who led Scholars & Writers for Trump, even approvingly cites the leftist writer Thomas Franks Whats the Matter With Kansas? on this point. Frank asked how it was that the poor folks of his home state voted for a Republican Party that cared so little for their economic interests, Buckley wrote in the New York Post. Become the jobs and the health-care president, and you [Trump] will have answered Franks question.

Steve Bannon has said the Republicans will become a party of economic nationalism, Buckley continued. No one has bothered to define this, but heres one thing it must mean: Were going to treat Americans better than non-Americans. Were going to see that Americans have jobs, medical care and an enviable safety net.

Of course, the Trumpists are big fans of using racialized, not explicitly economic appeals on issues like immigration and crime to win votes. But whereas they see mainstream Republicans like Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush making those appeals as a smokescreen for unpopular economic policies, they want to pair the appeals with an nationalist economic agenda that is actually popular with these voters.

Unlike Paul Ryan and Rich Lowry, who masturbated to Atlas Shrugged in their college dorms and have no loyalty to their race, Donald Trump is a nationalist, Richard Spencer writes. We cant ignore the politics of this. If Trumpcare passes, leftists can credibly claim that Trump has betrayed his populist vision. They will recycle the hoary script about nationalism and scapegoating immigrants as a means of pushing through a draconian agenda. And theyll have a point!

Single-payer, Spencer insists, would "serve our constituency" (read: white people), give the right an answer to the appeal of social democrats like Bernie Sanders, and encourage the growth of the alt-right movement: "So many writers, activists, and content creators on our side shy away from becoming more involved, not just out of fear of social punishment, but out of fear of being fired and losing their health insurance."

Moreover, as soon as health care becomes a public issue, an alt-right government could use that power to promote a more vigorous, healthy white race on a number of dimensions. "When single-payer healthcare is implemented, issues like food safety, nutrition, and obesity become matters of public concern, Spencer writes. It will draw more attention to the alternative we are presenting to Americas current lowest-common-denominator society."

Of course, single-payer would overwhelmingly benefit a lot of nonwhite Americans as well. But programs like Social Security and Medicare do too, and their universal nature and the fact that theyre tied to work have led them to be less racialized and stigmatized than cash welfare or Medicaid. Single-payers universality is appealing because it helps the white working class without making them enroll in means-tested programs traditionally associated with black and Latino beneficiaries.

The ideological vision being offered here is hardly original. The political scientist Sheri Berman has argued that fascism and nationalism succeeded in Europe before World War II largely because unlike traditional conservative parties, fascist parties could provide a real challenge to the social democrats promise of relief from the suffering of the Great Depression.

"Across Europe nationalists began openly referring to themselves as 'national' socialists to make clear their commitment to ending the insecurities, injustices, and instabilities that capitalism brought in its wake, while clearly differentiating themselves from their competitors on the left," she writes in The Primacy of Politics.

And more recently, this strategy been adopted by some far-right parties in Europe. Marine Le Pen, the leader of Frances Front National, has relied heavily on "welfare chauvinism in her presidential bids, a promise to protect and expand social programs for (white) native workers against migrants who might exploit them and drain money that should be going to noble French citizens. Geert Wilders, the far-right leader in the Netherlands, used to be a small-government conservative but began publicly fighting cuts to health programs and calling for expanded pensions once it became clear that this appealed to the lower-income voters who loved his anti-Islam message.

This trend isnt universal; the Freedom Party in Austria, for example, was a traditional laissez-faire party on economics. But its become a popular strategy for several parties, from the Finns Party in Finland to the Danish Peoples Party to the Sweden Democrats, whose leader once tweeted, The election is a choice between mass immigration and welfare. You choose.

And American far-rightists have noticed. James Kirkpatrick, a fellow writer of Derbyshires at VDARE (an anti-immigration site named after the first white person born in the American colonies), has approvingly cited the nationalist, authoritarian Polish Law and Justice Partys strategy of tacking left on welfare to tack right on everything else. The countrys patriotic government, he swoons, outflanked the Left and strengthened its grip on power with universal health care.

The difference between those parties and Trumps would-be workers party is that European countries already have universal health care. And one thing that happened once it was established is that mainstream conservative parties got on board with its preservation. The British Conservatives and the Gaullists in France and the Christian Democrats in Germany dont try to repeal their countries universal health care systems. At most, they push for market-based reforms that retain universality but maybe introduce some more copays or an increased role for private insurers and providers.

When thats the mainstream right-wing alternative, a right-wing party that calls for expanding welfare and health benefits seems more plausible. More to the point, most of the countries enjoying a far-right resurgence employ some system of proportional representation, which allows new parties without much political base to quickly gain ground in the legislature. Tellingly, while Le Pen does well in Frances presidential elections, there are only two Front National members in its National Assembly, which elects by district la the US or UK.

So even if Trump were to be persuaded by his followers and embrace single-payer, hed face a tough task. He cant form a new right-wing party and sweep the legislative elections; he has to change the policies of the existent Republican Party, which has spent decades fighting proposals for universal health care, and get a quorum of members in the House and Senate on his side. Thats much harder, and suggests that the Spencers, Buckleys, and Derbyshires of the world wont get their wish on this anytime soon.

Read the original here:

Why the alt-right loves single-payer health care - Vox

PHOTOGRAPH BY CHARLIE MCDONALD

Winnetkas Jerri Hoffman takes a break from co-chairing the Joffrey Ballets 2017 Spring Gala to share her favorites from the city and the shore. Hoffmann is spending a fair share of her time in the city these days perfecting a dazzling night of dancing, cocktails, and dinner on April 21. Mark your calendars and leap into spring with the exquisite Joffrey ballet.

Whats on the horizon?Working on an exciting project in Naples Floridaand very hard at work on The Joffrey Spring Gala along with co-chairs Maria Smithburg, Shelley Farley, and Sandy Deromedi

Mantra? Strong mindstrong bodybe generous

Best grooming tip? Moisturize, moisturize, moisturize

Guilty pleasure? Chocolate covered ANYTHING

Favorite foods?Love tasting everything

Music you love? Jazzparticularly Diana Krall

Best advice ever given to you? What will you remember with your last breath? Thats the choice you should make

Earliest memory? My older sister (who was 4) won first place in a beauty pageantI really wanted that crown

When you wake up, you?Coffee, emails, news

Before bed, you..? Read

Whats on your bookshelf? At the moment River of Doubt, A Gentleman in Moscow, Atlas Shrugged, The House on the Strand, and Lilac Girls

You cant live without? My husband

Love to escape to? Colorado and Florida

Advice you would give to your younger self? Make plans, but live in the moment

ON THE SHORE

Your style is..? Laid back casualjeans, boots, jackets

Cant leave the house without? My iPhone

Transportation? Mercedes G Wagon

Driving music? Pop, country, jazzclassical

Place to eat? Miranis new take out restaurant

Shop? Neiman Marcus Northbrook

Best thing about the Shore? My family and our neighbors

Worst thing about the Shore? Long winters

The perfect day is? Coffee with my husband, walk with my girlfriends, mani/pedi with my daughter and daughters-in-law, and family dinner with all the little ones and their parents

IN THE CITY

Your style is..? Day dresses and heels

Cant leave the house without? My iPhone

Transportation? Uber

Driving music? Jazz, country, popclassical

Place to eat? Ralph Lauren, Le Colonialso many great options

Shop? Ralph Lauren, Chanel

Best thing about the City? So vibrantgreat shopping, great dining, incredible museums, and endless recreational options

Worst thing about the City? Crime The perfect day is? Coffee, workout, lunch with my city friends, shop/museum, then dinner and movie/play/Broadway show with my husband

Visit link:

Shore Vs. City: Jerri Hoffman - Daily North Shore

Not long ago we took at stab at ranking every Mass Effect companion from worst to best. We disagreed loudly and oftenJack and Ashley were especially contentiousbut at least it wasnt hard to settle on number one. Everyone loves the bird-faced lizard man.

Now we have a new cast to add to the list, but finding places for them will be toughmainly because there are no uncontested standouts in Mass Effect: Andromedas crowd, no Garruses or Mordins who we all latched onto as clear favorites. And with so much bulk to the game, one players Liam is not anothersespecially if the other completely ignored Liam after he graced the prologue missions with such lines as those rocks are floating and shit, this just got real. No one can be blamed for doing so, but it wouldnt be fair to poor Liam to rank him on those merits, so weve gathered a group who, collectively, spent lots of time with every character. (Liam still doesnt fair well. Sorry Liam.)

Below is our ranking of Mass Effect: Andromedas squadmates, from worst to bestweve left out non-squad crewmembers, like Kallo and Suvi, and off-ship contacts to contain the debate to a reasonable six. Well add the newcomers to our complete list soon, though their standing may change over timewe had three games to get to know all of the original trilogy's characters.

Tyler Wilde: Coras perma-smirk is creepy, and Im not motivated to hang out with someone who, at least for the first third of the game, is openly jealous of the nepotism that made me Pathfinder. Male Ryders, at least, can introduce levity with completely inappropriate flirting, but as a female Ryder I was just subjecting myself to Coras angry inner monologue for five minutes before being sent away so she could mull over her personal progress. Its pretty cool, at least, that she fought with asari commandos, but the whole biotics are too scary for regular society X-Men thing is well-tread in and out of Mass Effect.

James Davenport: Her companion quest is also the most clearly etched character growth seesaw in the game: This person I admire is good, they made good rules I like. (A few datapads later) This person I once admired is not good, I do not like their rules anymore. Theres no gradual arc, no pressing situation that molds her into a new shapeshe just finds out her idol doesnt follow their own commandments without hesitation. Even after the revelation, she feels mostly unchanged, just more accepting that someone besides your dad could have a robot in their head and colonize planets.

Tyler: Yeah, and on that mission she discovers, apparently for the first time, the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but decides she disagrees with Spock. I think I spied a copy of Atlas Shrugged in the bio lab.

Tyler: Poor Liam. He follows in the footsteps of boring humans Kaiden and Jacob, stuck in the belly of the ship and easily ignored, with early game traits such as: has a couch, drinks beer, and hates those damn kett bastards. He does get a little better, but still talks like a dad who just read his first book on Zen Buddhism. Hear that? Just a moment of nothing. Enjoy it.

Jody Macgregor: I'm going to be the only person who sticks up for Liam, aren't I? OK, he's the boring first male companion BioWare games usually saddle us with, the Carth Onassi of the Heleus Cluster only with Jacob's propensity for doing pushups. But his loyalty mission, which takes place on a pirate ship with the gravity turned sideways, is one of the best bits of the whole game. Especially when the villainous pirate captain keeps trying to rant at you over the vidscreen while Liam and Ryder are too busy arguing with each other to pay attentionsuddenly Andromeda's writing leaps up to Citadel DLC levels of goofiness, and actually pulls it off. For that alone I'll stick up for Liam, even if he's such an ordinary dude I'm pretty sure I saw him in the audience of an episode of Top Gear one time.

James: Even if Liam has a great companion quest, nothing leading up to it made me want to be his companion. Hes just kind of there when the game starts, poking his head in for a quick one-liner when its convenient. And if his combat barks are an indication of personality then I want to log-off. I think I really pissed that one off. Maybe because I shot him in the face. For a dude thats supposed to be a battle-tested soldier, I have to wonder what kind of institution would put out anyone that made a jokeis it a joke?when murdering an alien. Getting to know the guy isnt great either. Ive had one too many beers on a dirty couch where someone tells their whole life story without warning. Liam really makes that videogame beer feel 600 light years away.

Tyler: Dracks got a few good lines, but hes a bog standard krogan tough guy. I like his granddaughter more, though its sweet anytime he talks about her.

Jody: Drack's entrance is really badass, and I appreciate that Ryder has the option to basically say, Hey, that looked really badass, after he surfs into frame on a dead kett. In a crew full of children Drack is the one tough old man, the Andromedan Zaeed. But since he's a krogan, being old hasn't matured him in any way and he still talks about his quads all the time and launches himself into battle like he's divebombing at a pool party. While other alien characters in the Mass Effect series have tried to subvert the idea that you can stereotype an entire species into a single, broad personality type, Drack basically says to hell with that and embodies what it means to be a krogan. Just, you know, a slightly older and crankier one.

James: I think I like Drack more than you two. His companion quests are a slow burn that introduce mild stakes with no setup, but by the end I saw through his badass krogan warrior stereotype. Beneath it all, hes a loving space lizard grandpa that wants nothing more than his family to be happy. In embodying everything it is to be a krogan so wholeheartedly, Dracks vulnerable, loving side stands out in sharp relief. Dude just wants to hug his grandeggs, you know?

Jody: PeeBee is an asari scientist who joins your crew to help examine all the forerunner artifacts you'll find and also possibly get in your pants. She's a lot like Liara from the original trilogy, yes. The difference is that she's younger and feistier and talks faster and shows off more skin. She's anime Liara. Thing is, I liked Liara and I like Peebee too. She's into pulpy crime novels and relaxing in zero gravity, and when Jaal asks her who the asari worship she replies, "Me... obviously." She gets drunk on agaran booze and hangs out in their museum. Peebee's an obvious bundle of quirks but at least she has a personality, which puts her one up on Cora.

Tyler: PeeBee can grate (the flirts will flow), but unlike several charactersGil and Liam especiallyshe doesnt spell out her entire life story the first time you meet her, actively avoiding questions about her past. Shes not immune to the exposition bug, but follow along with her loyalty quest, and her past reveals itself at least partially through narrative. She also builds you a cool robot friend.

James: PeeBee and I had a lot of casual sex. It was pretty cool to see that kind of adult relationship in a videogame, a casual carnal agreement a lot of folks I know are into these days. You two find each other good looking and interesting enough to stand, and when youre spending so much time on the Tempest, it makes sense that folks would take explore more than just celestial bodies. The rest of PeeBees story hit me and fell offits been less than a week and I cant remember what happened, but as a bright, lively personality that doesnt give a shit what most people think, I respect her.

Tyler: I'm proud of you for admitting this, James. My Mass Effect characters, like me, have never had sex, and don't even know what sex is.

Jody: Shes like Han Solo but in space! Wait, Han Solo is already in space, forget I said that. Plus she has more of a wheeler-dealer thing going and a sister to care for. Shes her own turian, and a pretty cool one. By Andromeda standards that makes her amazing.

Tyler: I appreciate that Vetra isnt defined by her species. She has the same problems any human character might: concern for her little sister, a need to control everything she can in an uncertain time, and a distaste for bureaucracy over action. I wouldve welcomed more turian-specific traitshints at a culture humans only partially understandbecause she does feel a little like a human who looks cooler than humans. But looking cool is important. Why do turians look so cool, anyway? They have weird mouths.

James: Kid sisters and cool mouths. Worth the number two spot for me.

Tyler: The kid sister thing is really what endears Vetra to me. She has a real, living motivation to make Andromeda work, whereas several other characters are like, Uh, I came out here because, I just dont have a lot of attachments, and I guess I want to explore and stuff. I barely exaggerate. It isnt a novel motivation, but it works, and its cute that Ryder has a fan.

Tyler: I didnt like Jaal at first. Our meeting was too compact, a rushed, accidental first contact that felt more like arriving late for college orientation than the meeting of civilizations it shouldve been. He volunteered himself to my crew not 10 minutes after our first meetingnot even questioning whether our life support could accommodate an alien lifeform weve literally never metthereby vaporizing any remaining wonder in Helius. But despite being written into the story in a footnote, Jaal grew, and grew, and grew on me. Nyasha Hatendis sonorous voice belies Jaals true character: hes not a success, a great warrior or tactician. Hes easily cast off by his peers because they dont see him as a crucial asset. And his attempts to earn friendships on the Tempest are some of Andromedas most tender moments, without being sentimental. He integrates far too easily for an alieneven in Andromeda, aliens are humans with slightly different culturesbut putting that aside, hes the funniest and least predictable character on the ship. The fish out of water gag gets plenty of play, but theres usually a creative bent to it, such as when he and Liam practice insulting each other to explore their cultures boundaries. Its a shame that Jaal is, for some reason, only open to a straight interspecies relationship, because male Ryders needlessly miss out on one of the better, if extremely unlikely, romances.

James: Jaal might be the best companion because hes the most harmless. Coasting in on the back of one of two new species in Andromeda, I didnt really have any idea what to expect of the guy. He comes off as a severe, tight-lipped lone wolf, but quicklymaybe too quicklyreveals himself as a sensitive and considerate fish man (with one hell of a fish ass). I havent seen his entire story through quite yet, but anytime I spend with Jaal is easy-going. He may not feel alien, but such concentrated earnesty can feel that way, especially when the majority of games feature relentlessly grave and cynical heroes or ironic one-liner robots. Jaals willing emotional vulnerability stands out against the violence and desperation of Andromedas story and even sharper against the cold void of space. Jaal is a good boy, as all boys should strive to be.

More:

Mass Effect: Andromeda's squadmates ranked - PC Gamer

In Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged, characters go Galt by disappearing into a valley, Galts Gulch, when society proves incompatible with living and working according to the principles of a free economy. Today, with every attack on the faithfulfrom challenges against bakers in courtrooms, to the mob that stripped Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich of his job, to the transgender school mandate the Obama administration enacted before leaving officeits clear there is a cultural tide working against people of faith in our country. Rands characters go Galt for economic reasons. Readers of a new book by Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option, may decide to go Benedict, dropping out of society in some fashion, for religious and moral reasons.

Drehers subtitle is A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation. A fascinating component of the book, however, is the overlap between what Dreher proposes and what already exists within the Orthodox Jewish community, in North America and across the world. The communal makeup of the Orthodox Jewish community was built not in response to cultural upheaval, but from a desire to maintain the continuity of the Jewish people. (A recent Pew Forum report on rates of intermarriage in American Judaism indicates the success of the Orthodox community in this regard.) Yet the Orthodox Jewish experience provides an exact blueprint for what Dreher is proposing American Christians undertake.

How should Americans go about going Benedict? Does it entail building a bunker and only eating food you catch or grow? Dreher explains how one can build a Benedictine society without totally withdrawing from the wider world:

Once weekly on the Sabbath, which lasts from Friday night at sundown to an hour after sundown on Saturday night, Orthodox Jewish families turn off televisions and smartphones, and spend the day playing old-fashioned games and sharing in meals together. It is forbidden to travel, spend money, or cook; thus, there is a strong emphasis on making the day one for familial bonding.

Thanks to the need for homes to be within walking distance of the communitys synagogue, Orthodox Jewish families often live in close proximity to one anotheranother recommendation Dreher makes in The Benedict Option. He acknowledges: Geography is one secret to the strength and resilience of the Orthodox Jewish communities. Christians dont have the geographical requirement that Orthodox Jews do, but many of those who choose to live in proximity have found it a blessing. Why be close? Because the church cant just be the place you go on Sundaysit must become the center of your life.

Most pivotally, Dreher addresses how parents should educate their children, in terms of both schooling and the at-home atmosphere. How do Orthodox Jewish parents raise their children? Almost every child attends a private Jewish school, often at great expense to parents and the community at large. The cost of a secondary school system outside of the public school system is so great that the Jewish community constantly tries to ameliorate the financial pressure on families arising from the day school crisis. Schools rely on donations from philanthropists and alumni, in addition to tapping into resources available to public school students (e.g., technology budgets, security, and busing). While the system entails sacrifices, it is held to be a foremost obligation of almost all Orthodox families to educate students within a Jewish framework; once-a-week Sunday school classes arent enough.

This is not to say that the Orthodox community has it all figured out. Several of the problems plaguing the Christian community are an issue within Orthodox Jewish circles as well. The quality of secular education, especially in more religious schools, leaves much to be desired for many parents, and as schools lean more modern or less right-wing religiously, the cost goes up. As the cost increases, so too does another problem Dreher notes, which is not exclusive to Christian schools. He explains: Years ago a Christian friend in Dallas refused to consider sending her children to a couple of the most elite Christian schools in the city. As a newcomer to the city, I assumed that the high tuition cost was the reason. Not at all, she said; she did not want her kids absorbing the materialistic, status-conscious culture within the schools. When tuition at a modern Orthodox school is over $15,000 per child per year, a keeping up with the Joneses mentality tends to take over.

Though Dreher wrote his book primarily as a guide for Christians in a post-Christian world, Christians and Jews have a great deal of common ground. In a conversation with me, Dreher remarked:

On issues surrounding school choice, the disappearance of modesty and decency in the public square, and religious liberty concerns, Christians and Jews should work together in order to protect their mutual best interests. The Jewish community has a great deal more experience than the Christian community at operating independently of many of societys boundaries. What it lacks is the Christian communitys organizational strength. While the Rabbinical Council for America (RCA), the main rabbinic body in America, issues press releases about gay marriage and religious liberty, it has considerably less bite behind its bark than its Christian counterparts do.

While Dreher largely discusses working interdenominationally between Christians in order to build a viable Benedict Option, if Christians hope to build an enclave for themselvesand if Jews wish to buttress theirsthe two communities have much to gain from cooperating with each other, rather than walling themselves off from each other and the wider world. Many of Drehers proposals for individuals who wish to become involved in their communities can also apply to Christians and Jews who wish to make inroads with each other. How can individuals in either community build a bridge to the other? Work with one another on projects relating to school choice and community improvement; play each others school groups at team sports; share in meals together; and invite one another to participate on projects of mutual interest, from river cleanup days to government lobbying efforts.

With every passing year it becomes clear that the culture war is a lost cause for religious conservatives. By going Benedict, we may not stop the tides working against families of faithbut we can create a refuge for those who might otherwise be swept out to sea.

Bethany Mandel is a stay-at-home mother and writer on politics and culture.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Read this article:

Going Benedict, Orthodox Jewish-style - First Things