Mark Sanford's New Soul Mate

Remove all ads!

I thought this was really odd, and I almost placed it in Booktalk, but since it was written by a famous/infamous politican with a political agenda, I decided to place it here. I read Rand back in the early 80s (like Sanford), so it's been over twenty years, but I didn't care much for her work.

A big tip-off, and watch out, because he can't even be honest in his first assertion, as his later comments will prove, since he sees her as both prophet and savior for our current economic condition. I guess he really expects us to believe that he's somewhere in the "middle" on Rand to convince us that he is "impartial." RIGHT!

I remember her as a good writer as far as craft was concerned but she and I are too far apart philosophcially for me to become absorbed in her major theme of "Light" (capitalism) versus "Dark" (socialism).

This is it in a nutshell:

It is, of course, making the government the ultimate "straw man." The first part of this, "the government knows best," could be read as "The People" who think they "know best," but really don't, according to Sanford and his literary muse. This seems rather odd coming from a professional politican in the first place (so he thinks he knows best?). But really the representatives in government are elected and kept in office by the People, which is how the Founders crafted our government. That Sanford and Rand have an argument with the Founders is no surprise, since the government they crafted was supposed to be reflected by the "wisdom of the People." Anyone who has read any of the actual writings of the Founders will know that turn of phrase at once, since it was commonly used by many of them, mostly Franklin, Jefferson and Adams.

What Sanford, and indeed, Rand, are arguing for is an elitist society, one in which "the country's businessmen, entrepreneurs, investors, marketers, and inventors" are responsible for its management, a notion many of the Founders would have detested, especially Jefferson and Madison who saw this notion of an elite class as self-serving rather than serving the public good. Franklin embodied many of the descriptions listed above, but he was perhaps the most democratic of all the Founders, especially in his later years, and his quest for social justice, which included the Abolitionist cause as well.

This is revisionist history at best, and at worst, delusional. Note that he omits Lehman and AIG among those that went broke and instead blames "government sponsored" corporations for the events of what led to the Wall Street meltdown, without explaining just exactly how that happened. The last line speaks for itself, since the taxpayer bailed out many of those "best minds of the free market." And that cuts to the chase: Sanford apparently has no problem with taking the "achievements" and "wealth" of the average worker for the benefit of the "business class," while at the same time allowing the business class to deprive the taxpayer of his/her own government-sponsored ownership of a "corporation."

Could it be that Rand did not believe in God in the first place? Why would she embrace the notion of original sin if there is no God? I guess Mr Sanford would embrace the concept of original sin, if only to help himself out of his own current situation a bit (and help explain it somewhat). And that Rand had a huge ego and was pretty much a "royal beach" is fairly well-known already, but it was nice of Sanford to revisit that aspect of her for us.

What's missing? The government bailouts, of course. Is THAT what all this about? that somehow all the "government spending" is related to all the big bailouts for Wall Street and GM? Why do I doubt that, since there is no mention of a single program by name that Sanford is opposing in his essay on Rand? And if it is, should this have arrived in our computers 8 months ago? and while Sanford still had an once of credibility left? No. I suspect that this is really about a more current issue, like, oh...say...Health care -- and maybe the Stimulus package, which he did strongly oppose (but which his state was more than happy to take). What Sanford is really arguing for is an elitist, corporate welfare state. One in which all those "great business minds" can enjoy, and help themselves to the "achievements" and "freedoms" of the average American citizen, courtesy of the "limited" US government, of course. At least, that's how I read this with its lack of specifics regarding actual policy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/219001/page/1

 

Ayn Rand was paranoid and disturbed, her writings are born from the traumas of the Russian revolution. The revolution might have been a fact then but it certainly is not now and today. Her writings are from a different era and bear as much value today as Orwell's 1984. Both good in their own way but are products of a very different age than the one we live in today. I see very little potential contribution from either book to today's political debate.

 

I think that's a very astute point. Her individualistic radicalism only is rightly understood as a polar opposition to the excesses of the collectivism of the Russian revolution. She is the ultimate Anti-Communist.

 

Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann, move over.

 

Of course. To her credit, no one could say she didn't know what she was was talking about. She had seen the excesses of the system first-hand.

 

Unlike Beck and Bachmann who only know socialism from their acid trips or generally their wild fantasy life.

 

I will say it. But I wish I could remember more of her writing, but I don't seem to recall her as a very gifted writer. She was an OK writer in regards to craft, but nothing spetacular; despite all her claims about individualism and "the self" her view of human nature is somewhat shallow and not especially insightful, iirc. It seems to me she wanted to replace one system of excesses with a different system of "excesses." It's almost as if she didn't get the larger picture: that there is no perfect system and despite the heroic nature of man, he is still remains a very fallible creature, which I suppose is typical for an elitist like Rand.

I would have to go back and take a closer look at her work. But I'm really not that inclined to do so.

 

Dude, she drops seventy page speeches in the middle of her novels.

 

She inspired Terry Goodkind, that alone makes he a perpetrator of crimes against humanity.

 

Iirc, I just skipped over a lot of the rants.

 

LOL I'd rep you for that if I could -- you are 100% correct!