The Tea Party and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged | Megan Gibson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Quote:

If Ayn Rand were alive today, would she be a member of the Tea Party? The controversial writer – whose philosophy, Objectivism, advocates the "virtue of selfishness" – has long been something of a literary hero to American conservatives and the rise of the rightwing populist movement has only worked to increase Rand's popularity. Tea Party members can't get enough: references to the writer's works appear on their protest signs; political favourites such as Rand Paul namedrop her; and they seem staunchly devoted to promoting the first instalment of the three-part film adaptation of her epic tome, Atlas Shrugged, which opened modestly, if not quietly, last weekend in around 300 theatres across the US. The conservative grassroots group Freedomworks took the helm in promoting the film, sharing the online trailer with its mailing list and hyping the movie's opening day – 15 April, America's tax day. The low-budget movie with its cast of nobodies received resolutely scathing reviews – it garnered a dismal 7% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes – yet, through conservative support, it still managed to pull in enough revenue to justify expanding the film to more screens. By the end of April, Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 could be on as many as 1,000 screens. Despite the buzz, rigorous devotees of Objectivism aren't likely to appreciate Atlas's big screen treatment. For the uninitiated, Atlas Shrugged depicts a dystopian US where irrational government officials work with greedy socialist corporate heads to impose draconian regulations and taxes on those who have achieved success through hard work and natural talent. The novel's heroine is Dagny Taggart, an ambitious railroad executive, who teams up with Henry Rearden, an innovative metal manufacturer, to set out to save the country from being crushed by the collectivist government. Along the way, they partake in rambling diatribes about the glory of achievement and the nobility of pursuing greatness. It's rousing stuff – the first time, anyway – until it's belabored again and again throughout the novel. Sound familiar? The sections of the book that made it into Part 1 certainly seem written directly for current conservative interests, namely that a small section of the population must fight against the oppressive restrictions and heavy taxation of a socialist government. Yet, probe beyond the triteness of Rand's plot and the fragmented rendering of her philosophy, and striking discrepancies between her Objectivism and conservative sentiment become apparent. Yes, Rand was a staunch advocate of capitalism and limited government. She was also a staunch advocate of abortion rights and sexual hedonism, and an atheist to boot, which her conservative admirers have largely ignored. Rand and her characters maintained that morality wasn't something that could be imposed by outside institutions, rather should be a consequence from individuals acting in their own rational self-interest. Which, obviously, steps way out of line with the thinking of the Tea Party, which encompasses the religious right . As Jennifer Burns, the author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, has said, today's conservative pundits have found that they "can use the parts of Rand they want to use and not engage the rest". Which is where one of the most glaring incongruities between Tea Partiers and Rand's philosophy appears: Rand, almost above all else, championed the individual over the collective. The notion that a populist movement is using her name and economic philosophies to mobilise their broader political goal is laughable. During her life, Rand was outspoken in her disgust for Republicans, feeling that they were soft on individuals' rights. Today, it is only Randians who can argue that her philosophy is being inadequately promoted. However, there is a silver lining for Rand purists: while the movie's publicity has managed to stir up paltry interest among cinema-goers, it has succeeded in awakening a larger interest in the literary work. Rand's novel has sold around 100,000 copies a year in the US since its publication, and since the financial crisis and the rise of the Tea Party, that number has increased five-fold. The movie's publicity has only propelled sales yet higher – the opening weekend saw the book version of Atlas Shrugged shoot to the No 4 spot on Amazon's bestseller list. So, while the Tea Party's promotion of Rand has made a splash, Objectivists can take comfort knowing that the impact has largely been on book sales. If one has to delve into Randian territory, it's better to go straight to the master's words rather than a choice interpretation of them or convenient soundbites.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Well, quoting the parts of one's chosen gospel to support one's position has a long history.
So does selective ignoring of bits that don't.
Camels, rich men and needles come to mind as an example.

F

__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

So there are basicly two factions of the Tea Party.

One is an astro turfed, corporate backed movement that far right social conservatives jumped on. This is the one the media loves to talk about. The other, and larger AFAIK, is a true blue fiscal responsibility movement that sprang up after the Wall Street bail out. This is the one they like to ignore.

Plenty of polls out there showing even a majority of self identified Tea Party folks want taxes raised and don't want cuts to SS and Medicare. But the MM ignores it.. or glibly tosses out "well sure, its easy to raise taxes on the other guy.. nobody wants to deal with shared sacrifice".

Yeah, that shared sacrifice bit always makes me want to punch that person... since for the last 30yrs its only been the middle class and lower class in this country thats been sacrificing... to the point now where the economic inequality in America is closer to that of a 3rd world banana republic than other Western industrialized nations.

__________________
Righteousness will always be the trap at the gates of hell

I don't think it braeaks down quite that way. I thyink the tea party is interesting becuase even with the astrroturf interventions, it's still in large part a spontaneous mass movement. Also the cutting and tax raising stuff is more complicated; shrinking the state, as a slogan, has been very powerful but has avoided specifics. It gets more complicated when you start to name specific things that you intend to cut.

So I agree that the TP is essentially incoherent, but I don't think it breaks down into just two strands. The social conservative part is no less real; this stuff has been smouldering for a long time. I certainly exspect it to break down and split at some point, and that it paradoxically contains a kernel of what could even be an essentially left wing movement. But you are right to say that the media loves a policy that can be compressed into a soundbite, and so they are not paying attention to any of these complexities and treating it as a much more coherent force than it is.