Is That John Galt?

“Who is John Galt?” Good question. Largely due to the political atmosphere, Ayn Rand’s dystopian opus, Atlas Shrugged, is making a cultural comeback of sorts. Recently, Atlas Shrugged, Part I, directed by Paul Johansson, was given a limited release on the silver screen. The panning of the film on Rotten Tomatoes, far from a conservative bastion, is laughably predictable given the capitalist friendly, pro wealth narrative of Rand‘s vision. That being said, I have not seen the film, and though I intend to watch it when possible, I expect to see a well intentioned project that made due with limited financial resources. That is to say, a so - so film, better than the critics want to believe, perhaps an Indie-like film. Even so, it has the potential to be a breakthrough kind of project with a crucial message the country needs to hear and understand presented in a format long dominated by contrarian views. For too long people who dislike or even hate the United States have controlled the narrative in entertainment and it is costing us things we may never be able to recover, like a Constitutional order under the rule of law. There is such a vacuum of civics understanding in such a large percentage of the voting public that it's now a crisis. Additionally, it seems schools are trending toward a troubling social justice ideology and revisionist history platform. The result is a rising generation of Americans with little understanding of the Wealth of Nations or the Rights of Man - Concepts that were key to the unprecedented, spectacular rise of America as a world leader. Nor is there an intuitive understanding of the vital differences between negative liberties, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights under a government that upholds the Constitution, and the enslaving positive liberties that get such raving academic and media support. Too many Americans have no idea what removing the Constitutional shield that protected them from government will mean in the years to come. Politics alone can’t turn this corrosive trend. Talented people who love liberty in the media must invest more in films, music, and books to shatter the collectivist monopoly on the narrative in the entertainment industry. In essence, people who value freedom will have to learn to “dance faster than the white clown…” as Bradbury stated in his own dystopian opus, Fahrenheit 451. By affecting the culture, the politics will follow. It is an unfortunate reality that freedom has to be advertised thus, but there it is.

“Who is John Galt?” Well, a radio program that sounded suspiciously like NPR (see my earlier post), tried to answer that unforgotten query this morning. Rather than do a full play by play of the questions and responses of the various guests and callers, I’ll summarize. First, all of the callers hated Ayn Rand and the Republican Party. Predictable? Of course. Second, the callers lacking intellectual confidence detoured from the meat of the debate, the reason for the resurging interest in Rand’s books and simply went for subjective insults. For example, a man called opponents of collectivism “infantile.“ A woman called Atlas Shrugged the realm of “teenage intellectuals.“ These jabs are subjective because the same terminology can boomerang and describe their world view and the media which validates that view for them. It’s fun to use adjectives like these but ultimately they are useless, unhelpful pejoratives that don‘t move the debate anywhere. Others simply derided her human inconsistencies. Third, were the commentators and callers who touched on Rand’s atheism and dislike of Christianity in an attempt to marginalize Rand sympathizers. It was pretty clear the purpose of several caller and commentator attacks on Ayn Rand weren’t to denigrate her, per say, but rather to assault what they perceived as a dangerous threat to their illusory utopian hopes - a visible cultural phenomenon espousing a contrarian poison to their ideological hegemony. They challenged the notion that Christian Americans could support her philosophy of individual empowerment and free market economics even when she was an espoused atheist. It was stated as if Rand’s atheist faith produced a contradiction sufficient to put to rest any validity of her free market message in the minds of those pesky Christian libertarians and conservatives - as if her espoused different faith negated her ideals and world view, regardless of how sound some of them might be to the faithful Christian reader. Notice, these kinds of questions had no relevance with the why - that is - why Ayn Rand has made a kind of come back in the public eye. But side topics such as these took a lot of airtime that otherwise might have been allotted to address those all important whys, such as individual freedom, inalienable rights, national sovereignty, a Constitutional order of government, risk and reward free markets, personal responsibility, volunteerism, the destructive tendencies of crony capitalism, and equal protection under the Rule of Law to name a few. It’s important to note the vast majority of Americans who connect with Rand are most likely not Ayn Rand purists but find the overall message in her narrative consistent with their cherished views of the ideals of private property and the Rule of Law established by our nation’s Founders. This leads to the actual philosophical variances the voices on the radio eventually discussed. The ideological arguments employed against those sympathetic with Rand’s view of meritocracy were ultimately unimpressive, and ironically, they very much resembled the arguments Rand put in the mouths of the impeding antagonists who appear throughout the 1,300 pages of Atlas Shrugged.

The root cause of Rand revivalism, a reaction to a command and control economy, is a critical fault line dividing America today. It represents the blossoming of the conflict between two irreconcilable ideologies that will be at war with one another until one emerges the victor. The outcome is still in question, but for reasons cited in my opening paragraph, the momentum is on the side of collectivism. As so clearly stated in today’s radio interview by one of the commentators, “Taxing the rich is a popular position. Tax cuts for the rich is politically untenable.“ Indeed it is. The “Tax the rich” collectivist rallying cry was parroted throughout the program. As I listened, I was reminded of Fiddler on the Roof. In Act One, Tevye says to a wandering intellectual, Perchik, “You know it’s no crime being poor.“ Revolutionary minded Perchik replies, “It is the rich who are the criminals…Some day their wealth will be ours.“ To which Tevye simply says, “If they would agree I would agree!“ Ah, Tevye, my friend, there are many people in desperate need of your simple wisdom.