Trouble A-brewin’ (Again)

I like to think that I am not “reactionary”.  I get a little bit weirded out sometimes, I know.  I see so much human weirdness at the internship that I ought to be immune to the things I hear are going on in the country at large.  This “9-12″ thing has me a little bit unnerved. I admit it.

Say what you like about public discourse. As a member of the “secular humanist” movement, I like to think that democracy is best served by well-informed people, peacefully coming together to air their grievances, discuss rational solutions to problems, and compromising favorably to reach a sound conclusion that works in everyone’s interests. I don’t see a whole lot of that these days.

I predict that this thing will be a disaster. If you look into it closely, you will see that the second and tenth amendments to the Constitution weigh heavily in the public discourse of these groups. I confess that owing to a scrutiny of recent history, I can see where some of these people are coming. It is often the case that our federal government has applied its heavy hand to favor the interests of corporations and to spread its power willy-nilly. Do I come down on the side of the “tenthers”? No, I assert not. I take advantage of federal student loans, I ride on Interstate highways (thanks Ike!), I travel through the airspace of several states to get where I go. Imagine if the function of regulation was handled independently by each state. In some matters, the states are self-regulating. See Vermont, for instance. If you think that the federal regulations in place now seem heavy handed and arbitrary, imagine if you will the tangled mess of weirdness that would spring up should each state (or a single state) be left to their own devices! Would I need a passport to go to Austin to see a show? Wouldn’t that be weird?

Anyways, I wish every individual (but not any particular group) good luck in their endeavors in Washington on Sept. 12th. I hope the guns stay holstered and no reports of ill-considered violence spring-up. Please, no shoot-outs or entanglements with the Feds, as it will only make matters infinitely worse. I mentioned before that I imagined the previous administration was chomping at the proverbial bit to try it’s military powers in the states. It seems to me that it would be the perfect opportunity to do so if violence erupted on either side. I’m not a conspiracy nut, nor a conspirator, but the bitter and tragic irony of troops deployed to defend against what ought to be law-abiding citizens in their own country over some split-second loss of good judgement and an itchy trigger finger… Well, it’s bitter and ironic. And it might plunge our country, that has so many other problems to address at this point in history, into a dark age of martial law and rebellion. Thanks for nothing, Beck, you asshole.

Damn. This post is un-fun. Note the date for when I have to shake my head and say “I told you so.”

Peace on Earth and Goodwill To Men (and Women)

Who is John Galt, really?

I have been reading Atlas Shrugged.  Sadly, or perhaps fortunately, it has made me see flaws in the logic of almost every person I talk to, and every event I see on the news.  In theory, rational self-interest ought to work.  And Platonic thinking tells me that in some sense the objective truth and hard and fast ideals may in some sense exist.  And it’s made me think long and hard about what “liberal” and “conservative” mean.  I draw the conclusion (and perhaps I will take this up at a later date) that the terms we use to make arguments in our public discourse are meaningless and confusing obfuscations of actual fact.  What about the term “Conservative” suggests that most of those who subscribe (in their own minds) to this way of thinking would hold that unrestricted capitalism and de-regulation of industry is a moral and ethical good?  And what about “Liberal” hints that, broadly speaking, those who stand on the left side of the line might support the idea that all people ought to be given the same “chance” and that the playing field should be levelled by the Government’s obligations?

The more I think about it, the more I begin to suspect that Chomsky is on to something, and that it is our imprecise use of language that drives our thinking.  As a counselor, I recognize that people don’t often say what they mean.  But add to this melting pot of ours the fact that what they mean has no relation to what is said or done and what we are told, then I think the results are clear.  You gave one big, gooey, mess to be mired in.  We are flailing about in the mud of our own language, and in some sense those people outside the puddle are adding more mud to weigh us down.

Now, back to Ayn Rand.  I have not yet finished Atlas Shrugged.  I think I see where it’s going.  I put aside for now the weird sexual politics, and the almost Aryan/Ubermensch imagery.  These things are fine in a literary sense – heck, I love the modified supersoldiers of Warhammer 40K, for instance.  Reading the book does highlight to me that the language of the “right” and “left” is awful and the appeal to reason that both make is really an appeal to fear and self-loathing.  Let that sink in, if you like, but I will continue.

I found out that Alan Greenspan was a close friend of Ayn Rand.  Objectivist thinking has guided the course of our history.  You may shrug and say that Rand was a heavy-handed and unskilled writer and that her prose is inelegant and tedious.  Rather, I assert this, and recognize that I should not sway your thinking by giving you imprecise language to start with.  Ahem.  This begs the question – is Objectivist thinking (i.e. rational self-interest) flawed, or did the system unravel recently because Greenspan did not have the moral fortitude to apply those principles in full?  Was he constrained by circumstance?  Does Greenspan have a place in the utopia of Midas Mulligan’s Colorado now that he has left the scene?  Would any Objectivist thinker brand Greenspan one of Rand’s heros, struggling against the masses of inferior men to Do What Is Right, or did he amount to another Washington Bureacrat who fucked things up because they ultimately failed to live up to their potential?

Recent history suggests to me that if has been Rand’s thinking driving our financial policies, then it has not been done well, or else it is flawed and ought to be scrutinized rather more closely.  Money is a central theme and image in the book.  The characters measure, in some sense, their worth and success by it.  Those who have money have been doing something correctly and are justly rewarded.  But the other side of the coin is the fat-cats who sponge off the others and scheme and steal.  I assert that if Rand’s book is a model, and if it is a model that ought to guide our way, then it is highly illustrative of how we have let the villains of literature come to life and settle into the real world.  Look at what has become of our economics?  Rand’s ideas do not imply, I think, that sheer greed and manipulation are to be condoned.  Rather, they suggest that should everyone work in their rational self-interest, from the lowest level to the highest, then amazing things are theoretically possible.  I think the most amazing thing about what is happening these days is that underhanded thieves have taken the reigns of our fine land and screwed many people out of their just due.

I note right now, with some irony, that I sound here like one of the disagreeable, spineless lesser men of Rand’s book.  I may have only a very rudimentary sense of what Objectivism means.  I admit this.  I’ll need to think on it some more, I suppose, but the feeling of “jiltedness” that I see everywhere these days, and the mild tongue-in-cheek irony that I note in every mouth suggest that we all know something is up but we feel powerless to act on our knowledge.  A close reading of Ayn Rand suggests that this is not in fact the case.

Enough!  Maybe there will be a twist in the end and everything will turn out right.  Only 23,245 pages to go!