For some strange reason, I follow American politics....
hang on..
That's not true - I know the exact reason - It's a great show! and superbly packaged (which brings up the reason why I don't follow Indian politics closely - I don't find it entertaining enough)
My sources - the :
hang on..
That's not true - I know the exact reason - It's a great show! and superbly packaged (which brings up the reason why I don't follow Indian politics closely - I don't find it entertaining enough)
My sources - the :
- The NPR - It's All Politics Podcast!
- Fareed Zakaria's GPS &
- Harvard Historian Niall Ferguson's & Nobel Laureate Economist Paul Krugman's ongoing slug fest
So this year, we are made to understand is a tight race between a somewhat aristocratic, not so conservative, uber rich, mormon republican and the incumbent, first African American President, great speech maker democrat who's feeling the heat of a lackadaisical economic performance..
As if that set up wasn't partisan enough - Mitt Romney added a certain Paul Ryan to the mix as the vice presidential candidate. I first heard of Paul Ryan when Professor Ferguson talked him and up and Krugman talked him down on Fareed's show.
But here's what takes the biscuit - Ryan is apparently a Randian, seriously - A Howard Roark wannabe or something like that..
Krugman says here :
"For those who somehow missed it when growing up, “Atlas Shrugged” is a fantasy in which the world’s productive people — the “job creators,” if you like — withdraw their services from an ungrateful society. The novel’s centerpiece is a 64-page speech by John Galt, the angry elite’s ringleader; even Friedrich Hayek admitted that he never made it through that part. Yet the book is a perennial favorite among adolescent boys. Most boys eventually outgrow it. Some, however, remain devotees for life.
And Mr. Ryan is one of those devotees."
Reading the piece got me reflecting on my own Ayn Rand association. I read the Fountain Head when I was in my early to mid 20's - not quite adolescent - yet impressionable nevertheless and was floored. Let's face it - when someone makes such a compelling case for something like 'the virtue of selfishness' - it's bound to appeal. It still does when I live within my head, but when I step onto anything that is remotely associated with the physical world - I find it and how do I put this succinctly - stupid!
My take on Rand is that she took a fledgling thought that was justified by the circumstances she was raised and extrapolated it into the "be all and end all" virtue across all contexts. The thoughts seeded in Communist Russia took wing in her writings and appealed to an American populace that in all likelihood was looking for an alternative philosophy. However despite all the book sales and the cult status of her work - it remains little more than a popular fad.
Former Fed. chairman Alan Greenspan was another fan and consequently a true believer of the free market. And as we know the worst financial crisis happened under his watch...!
There's something inherently dangerous about casting policy around a philosophy because one gets implicitly tied to the context that the philosophy was conceived under. So if America was anything like the Proletariat worshiping Russia of the early 90's - then yeah maybe Randian'ism would have worked out, but it isn't. There is a good reason that Howard Roark is a fictional character and has no precedence in history..
It's all nice and dandy for a philosophy to stay with the realms of a best seller, but it should never 'consume' a policy maker - The operative word being consume, I'm sure that there may be several aspects of the Randian philosophy that a policy maker could use as a guidance for certain circumstances, but little else....That's my take!
Getting back to the elections :
Therefore the contest is between a liberal who's been labelled as a socialist on one corner and a mermom who's convictions no one knows about and a sidekick Rand fan boy on the other! (with all due respects to Joe Biden - but there's no scoop on the man!).
Interesting...I will continue to watch closely...
Disclosure 1 : My insight into Rand is only from her books - The Fountainhead, a bit of Atlas Shrugged and We the Living. In fact the only thing that is likely to remain common between the great economist Fredrick Hayek and myself is that the both of us haven't got through Atlas Shrugged
Disclosure 2 : I am not a US resident and have no political affiliations whatsoever in my country of residence or visit.
1 comment:
I read the books in the wrong order - Atlas Shrugged, then Fountainhead and then We the living.
For one - the characters in Atlas Shrugged were all individual businesspeople who created and grew their companies from scratch. None of their companies seemed to be publicly owned either, unlike the case today where CEOs just come from outside and have no associated history with the company.
The second thing that Rand misses - nobody grew these companies in a vacuum. A company is still a part of society and it needs the people to be its customers, so this 'virtue of selfishness' is utter malarkey. Note to these people - Move to a desert island, create a multibillion dollar company without any people to sell to and then we'll talk!
Post a Comment