Paul Ryan confronted over Ayn Rand (found on Lawrence O'Donnell's site)

[TheNewMe]

http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...r-ayn-rand

Quote:Shortly after his appearance at the 2011 Faith and Freedom Conference in D.C. on Friday, a Bible-waving protester accosted Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan. The man, who is member of the religious group Faithful America, questioned Ryan for modeling his proposed budget after “the extreme ideology of Ayn Rand rather than the basic economic justice values of the bible.” He then offers Ryan a Bible and advises him to “bone up on what it says about how we should treat the poor and vulnerable” with a specific “focus on the Gospel of Luke.”

[KonaKane]

This is why I never got the alignment between the political right and Christianity. They are ideologically like oil and water to each other. Christopher Hitchens, an atheist neocon, is repulsive but at least he is honest.

[Velleity]

(06-08-2011 05:50 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  This is why I never got the alignment between the political right and Christianity. They are ideologically like oil and water to each other. Christopher Hitchens, an atheist neocon, is repulsive but at least he is honest.

Have you watched "The Power of Nightmares?"

It might be a little contrived and incomplete, but it's still instructive IMHO. It's been awhile since I watched it but, if I recall correctly, there is some discussion about how neocons hate "Liberal" and that's the glue that really binds "conservatives." If you think about fundamentalists, what is more threatening to their absolute way of thinking than relativism?

[KonaKane]

(06-08-2011 06:00 PM)Velleity Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 05:50 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  This is why I never got the alignment between the political right and Christianity. They are ideologically like oil and water to each other. Christopher Hitchens, an atheist neocon, is repulsive but at least he is honest.

Have you watched "The Power of Nightmares?"

It might be a little contrived and incomplete, but it's still instructive IMHO. It's been awhile since I watched it but, if I recall correctly, there is some discussion about how neocons hate "Liberal" and that's the glue that really binds "conservatives." If you think about fundamentalists, what is more threatening to their absolute way of thinking than relativism?

Thank you for the link. It's not like I don't understand a mutual disdain for something. But what I really don't get is the depth of the embrace rightwing American politics have with Christianity. The deeper you dig into the right wing psyche, the more you discover that they are in fact not just un-Christian, but ANTI-Christian.

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-08-2011 07:28 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  ...
they are in fact not just un-Christian, but ANTI-Christian.

I've been saying this for years. Republicans just use the excuse that everybody's a hypocrite, even though they're the only one's claiming to be holier than thou.

Honestly, Republicans are just plain ass holes - and proud of their assholishness.

[Velleity]

(06-08-2011 07:48 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Honestly, Republicans are just plain ass holes - and proud of their assholishness.

Republicans or "conservatives?" Is there a difference?

I have encountered Republicans who will try to distance themselves from "conservatives" but, at the same time, they support and act as apologists for them. So you may be right to label all Republicans. I don't totally understand how that works.

[Velleity]

(06-08-2011 07:28 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Thank you for the link. It's not like I don't understand a mutual disdain for something. But what I really don't get is the depth of the embrace rightwing American politics have with Christianity. The deeper you dig into the right wing psyche, the more you discover that they are in fact not just un-Christian, but ANTI-Christian.

They are not monolithic. Even radical capitalists such as the Rand "objectivists" and anarcho-capitalists have blood feuds over what we would consider to be minor differences. Check out this scathing attack on Ayn Rand by no less than Murray Rothbard:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

And talk about ANTI-Christian. Wow!

I have seen this first hand among sects. I grew up in a neighborhood with a substantial population of ultra Orthodox Jews and was made aware of certain disputes in that community. You would be surprised at how trivial and picky it can get.

It may be easier to bridge a major gap like the one you note with a common enemy, than it would be to bridge a more modest disagreement? I don't know, really. However I do agree with the premise that what these peopl

[RoyGBiv]

(06-08-2011 05:50 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  This is why I never got the alignment between the political right and Christianity. They are ideologically like oil and water to each other. Christopher Hitchens, an atheist neocon, is repulsive but at least he is honest.

Hitchens is an interesting case. Have you ever read his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything? After I read it (or while I was reading it) I got the idea that his neocon views fit the base meaning of neo-conservatism better than the views of those whom we often call neocons. His support for "regime change" seems influenced heavily by a hatred of religion, i.e. deep down what he seems to want is for every government in the world that is based heavily on religion to be eliminated.

Anyway ... I think the basic answer to the question is that the right-wing used organized Christian fundamentalism for its own purposes. The alignment is a tenuous one. As long as the right-wing harps on things like abortion, hatred of gays, etc. the alignment persists because the Christian right can't get any of what it seeks from the left, not even the center-left. Some of the fundamentalist leaders understand this, but the rank-and-file generally don't.

[Velleity]

(06-09-2011 08:26 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 05:50 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  This is why I never got the alignment between the political right and Christianity. They are ideologically like oil and water to each other. Christopher Hitchens, an atheist neocon, is repulsive but at least he is honest.

Hitchens is an interesting case. Have you ever read his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything? After I read it (or while I was reading it) I got the idea that his neocon views fit the base meaning of neo-conservatism better than the views of those whom we often call neocons. His support for "regime change" seems influenced heavily by a hatred of religion, i.e. deep down what he seems to want is for every government in the world that is based heavily on religion to be eliminated.

Anyway ... I think the basic answer to the question is that the right-wing used organized Christian fundamentalism for its own purposes. The alignment is a tenuous one. As long as the right-wing harps on things like abortion, hatred of gays, etc. the alignment persists because the Christian right can't get any of what it seeks from the left, not even the center-left. Some of the fundamentalist leaders understand this, but the rank-and-file generally don't.

I think there's more of an alignment than you might think. I never read Hitchens but I would bet you dollars to donuts there's something there about how weak the "Liberal" ideology makes us. This core "conservative" value threads through many issues, i.e. the torture debate and who, ultimately, should be in charge.

Another example: lassaize faire capitalism. What is Adam Smith's "invisible hand?" If you're a Hitchens you just leave it alone or you refer to some higher "natural law" that's just out there waiting for us to discover it. But you could just as easily consider this "invisible hand" or "natural law" to be "God."

Either way, whether you adhere to a religion or to Rand's "objectivism" or to some other excuse for not reasoning and considering all sides and regarding the world as being some kind black and white Manicheanistic deal where you're either on the side of "good" (by their definition, them) or you're "evil."

So if you're them the rich are rich because "God" or "nature" made them that way because they're "good" and not "evil." They have everything figured out that way, and a common enemy. And the simplicity of their cosmology reinforces their beliefs in a circular, boot-strapping kind of way.

[RoyGBiv]

(06-09-2011 09:02 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I think there's more of an alignment than you might think. I never read Hitchens but I would bet you dollars to donuts there's something there about how weak the "Liberal" ideology makes us. This core "conservative" value threads through many issues, i.e. the torture debate and who, ultimately, should be in charge.

With regard to Hitchens, not really.

Hitchens is a globalist and considers himself a "conservative Marxist." His alignment with neo-conservatism is ad hoc, meaning the goals is advances mesh with modern neo-conservative goals only in the moment as it applies to the destruction of various Middle Eastern theocratic governments. There's a distinct disconnect between Hitchens and the representatives of modern neo-conservatism in that the latter aren't so much attempting to dismantle theocratic regimes as they are trying to rebuild those regimes to be supportive of American capitalistic interests.

Some right-wing elements have latched on to Hitchens merely for his support of the Iraq war, but they do so without regard to his broader philosophy, often perverting his statements toward their own ends. For example, he has said that he rejected socialism because capitalism was the more revolutionary ideology. Capitalists took this as a positive reference, but Hitchens didn't necessarily mean it as such, at least not in the way capitalists would like to believe it was intended.

[Velleity]

Their identity. . . related to the title of this thread. . .

Do you suppose that Paul Ryan identifies himself as a Rand "objectivist?" There are a lot of these characters running around either dishonestly, not identifying themselves as "objectivists," or unwittingly, not knowing that they have assimilated bits and pieces of this perverse ideology.

I wonder how organized and coordinated the "objectivist" thing really is. What I do know, however, is that Paul Ryan is lying sack of crap who would not come clean and state his true goals.

Wouldn't it be something if "conservatives" would just come out and say that they are of the top 1%, by the top 1%, and for the top 1%, and that the rest of us, well, tough s*** for us?

[mzmolly]

Love it!