Blowing up the American Economy

The Government shutdown is getting to a duration where it is assured to damage the American economy in major ways, so why is the Republican leadership of the House committed to avoiding an up-or-down vote on a government funding bill?

Atlas Shrugged has the answer, but I'm a little hazy on the details. Paul Ryan has declared that Ayn Rand is a personal hero and inspired him to seek public office. The pseudo-novelist and quasi-intellectual is the namesake of the junior Senator from Kentucky. The essence of the 2012 Presidential election hinged on themes from Atlas Shrugged. Mitt Romney's 47% world-view is an echo of Rand's laughable ideology that Big Men constitute an economy.

The government shutdown is a retreat from the American economy by those who can temporarily afford to protect their own interests: the Kochs, John Boehner, and the plutocrat class. Atlas Shrugged ends with broader destruction; the demolition of the American system. The threat to default on the nation's debt matches this catastrophic attack on the American people. If Ayn Rand's 'objectivist' narratives encompassed a broader view than her out-of-touch protagonists, maybe the Tea Partiers would sense that the destruction of the American state is a bad thing. Sadly, her followers are dragging us after her, into a selfish wilderness.

Harry Reid was exactly right to name the anarchist fringe that has captured the Republican House caucus. The members of the Tea Party caucus fervently endorse anti-state zealotry. Their membership in this anarchist syndicate is incompatible with their membership in the House of Representatives. The constitutional crisis and economic travesty the Tea Paty has inflicted on the United States proves that they are unfit to serve.

They should be expelled from the institution or renounce their allegiance to an anti-American fantasy.

Not to Argue with Megan McArdle

The reviews of "Atlas Shrgged" the movie are in. They're the same as reviews of "Atlas Shrugged" the book. It's boring, long-winded, and poorly written. And its audience loves it, or at least there are a bunch of people claiming to have loved who may have never seen it. According to Megan McArdle, it's not long-winded and preachy enough, so there is a little bit of controvesy in the reviews from critics. Here's the choice apology from the Rand fan:

The worst part is that the movie is a bad caricature of what people think that libertarians believe.

The truth is probably closer to:

Libertarianism is a bad caricature of what Ayn Rand believed.

It's clear from Ayn Rand's non-fictional work that she thinks living off of strangers' support is perfectly fine. In fact, she believed that accepting support from government for health care and social security was a definite good. The problem is that libertarians are allowing a novel to define their values, when they should look to the deeds of their heros for insight. As Ayn Rand is oft quoted:

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

The venerable fiction author wouldn't have sold out her basic beleifs by accepting social security and medicare benefits. Her readers probably are mischaracterizing her work, claiming it's a coherent political philosophy.

To be fair to libertarians, that's also what 'Christian Conservatives' have done with the Bible or Islamists have done with the Quran.