The above is an interesting point. While Rand is right that McCarthy was never proven guilty of the allegations, I suspect that he was. However, at the end of the day, it does not matter. Whether it was McCarthy or Congressman Dies, or someone else, is neither here nor there and the question only serves to cloud the issue. The victim of a hatchet job is not necessarily a saint. McCarthy was a foul fellow regardless.

But the nature of the smear is an interesting and important one. Because of his reputation, regardless of whether it was earned, it has become a stigma to have anything in common with the man. If McCarthy has said "the sun rises in the east", there are people who would be willing to deny proven astronomical data in order to avoid agreeing with a loathesome guy. Intellectually, this is a dubious set of priorities.

If McCarthy had been asking people if they had ever been members of the Nazi party, rather than the Communist party, I wonder if this stigma would be half so strong or as prevalent.

Hi Matthew & everyone.

In the late 1940’s, another newly coined term was shot into our cultural arteries: “McCarthyism.” Again, it was a derogatory term, suggesting some insidious evil, and without any clear definition. Its alleged meaning was: “Unjust accusations, persecutions, and character assassinations of innocent victims.” Its real meaning was: “Anti-communism.”

Senator McCarthy was never proved guilty of those allegations, but the effect of that term was to intimidate and silence public discussions. Any uncompromising denunciation of communism or communists was—and still is—smeared as “McCarthyism.” As a consequence, opposition to and exposés of communist penetration have all but vanished from our intellectual scene. (I must mention that I am not an admirer of Senator McCarthy, but not for the reasons implied in that smear.)

- “‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 176.

I get very concerned when people discuss the McCarthy era and mention "great artists whose careers were ruined because of jingoistic capitalism". It is even more worrisome now than it was ten years ago to discuss this because, today, you cannot take any view other than the conventional wisdom without some pop-liberal wag loudly comparing you to Anne Coulter.

While I am as sad as anyone about the browbeating that brought on the heart attack and untimely death of John Garfield, I think it's interesting that so many people are ready to assume that all victims are saints and that everyone targeted by HUAC (a corrupt committee to be sure) was innocent. In point of fact, a fair number of people who fell under the glare of HUAC's searchlight were receiving little more than a taste of their own medicine. People use the phrase "THE blacklist" as if there were only one.

Permit me to refer you to the article in the following link:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27732.ht...

I received this message on August 17, 2008:

"I've enjoyed some of the novels of Ayn Rand, which on the surface seem to be promoting themes I agree with. However, when I read her philosophy (The Virtue of Selfishness) and found out that she actively condemned many of her contemporaries as communists during the McCarthy witch hunts (great artists whose careers were ruined because of her jingoistic capitalism), I came to realize that "individualism" to her includes a corporation's right to decimate peoples and the earth in their freedom to make a profit.

I don't bring this up to "dis" on your values or affinity for Rand, just to wonder about how you reconcile her, to me, very ugly underlying ethics.

When I was in high school, I greatly enjoyed Anthem (admittedly turned on to it by the Rush song). I think there's a great message there. But, then again, I feel it's a trick message to lead readers to a more heinous version of individuality: objectivism, i.e. corporate capitalism.

Curious of your thoughts."

*
I replied:

Hello ____,

I stated this in my Goodreads profile: "I revere Ayn Rand" - I am immensely proud of it. The other group I formed, "To the Glory of Man", is in honor of:

1) the individual

2) You, dear visitor/member

3) Ayn Rand, who said in The Romantic Manifesto (pg. 172): "The motive and purpose of my writing can best be summed up by saying that if a dedication page were to precede the total of my work, it would read: To the glory of Man."

*
Before I give my full response, please answer the following:

1. What, to you, is Ayn Rand's ethics? Why do you find it very ugly?

[I have this topic in To the Glory of Man: The Virtue Of Selfishness]

2. Why do you think "objectivism, i.e. corporate capitalism", is heinous?

3. What is the non-heinous version of individuality?

4. What, to you, is individualism? Why do you think Ayn Rand's individualism includes a corporation's right to decimate peoples and the earth in their freedom to make a profit?

5. What, to you, is capitalism? What is jingoistic capitalism? How did Ayn ruin lives because of her advocacy of capitalism?

6. Where is it written that Ayn condemned many of her contemporaries as communists?

7. Have you read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"?

I would like to post this conversation in the "Philosophy in Everyday Life" topic - do you mind?


Best wishes,
Ilyn

*
Reply:

Hello.

I will try to answer your questions, but I'll have to wait until I have a bit more time. Busy these days setting up my new home. I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion, though.

Best,
____

Thanks for the complete answer, Carl.

No, I wouldn't be surprised at how much Christians differ in their opinions on their religion. Two of my best friends, a married couple, are both very much in to their religion, attend the same church & can get into some pretty heavy discussions - arguments actually - over various points. They will read different versions of the Bible sometimes, too.

Jim

Roughly true, if you take "original sin" as being the seeking of morality for the purpose of earthly power and the breaking of the bond of love between Man and God. Christ re-establishes that bond by taking on the judgment that comes from morality.

As some sort of inherited sin, I reject unequivocally the Roman Catholic conception of "original sin". Children are born pure.

I should add that my view of sin is radically at odds with the Wikipedia description, being closest to the "Eastern Christianity" description, with some Bahai thrown in. That is, "sin" is what separates someone from Love, i.e. God. Moralism and its attendant self-righteousness is, in my reading of the Garden of Eden story, the "original sin". By His statement of "The Greatest Commandment", Christ Jesus showed that He viewed sin in the same way: not as an infraction of a moral code, but as a breaking of the bonds of love.

Despite all of theological arguments over the centuries, I have found much agreement among fellow Christians with the idea that love, not morality, is the central message and spirit of Christianity. You would be surprised at how much Christians differ in opinion from their theologians or simply ignore them.

You are very welcome,
Carl Peter

Hello Jim & Carl Peter. Hi everyone.

Aside from the freedom of speech, one should say anything that does not infringe on anyone's rights even if some might not like it because others might find it worthy to ponder on.

Dr. Peikoff is not against the freedom to have or not have a religion; he is against theocracy. A free man is free to be an atheist or to believe in a particular religion and persuade others. What is evil is to force others. Groups that do not want to engage in the free market of ideas but want to impose their beliefs by force lust after political power.

Carl Peter, would you mind explaining, "Christianity is about the triumph of Love over Morality."

I don't get it. Is it that Christ took away 'original sin' by dying for his people? Is that the 'love' over the 'morals'? Or is there something else?

Send me a message on the side, if you'd prefer not to answer in here. I'm just curious.

Thanks in advance,
Jim

It would be nice if politics & religion were separate, but they can't be kept completely apart. Politicians are supposed to represent their people & most people get their concept of morality from their religion. Since politicians tend to represent those that grease or pressure them the most, 'their people' is not necessarily their actual constituency, of course.

Humans arguing over the concept of 'god' makes about as much sense as two fleas arguing over what the dog's human will do for a living, but they still do it constantly. Logic left the building, though.

While I don't like conservative's stance on abortion or stem cell research, I like the liberal's ideas of giving away more of my tax money & bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator less. In actuality, I don't think there's much difference between them when all is said & done. Our society is pretty massive & it has a lot of momentum. Swaying its course is tough.

So far as the presidential election goes, it's silly for us to argue about it unless you happen to be one of the few whose vote actually counts - the popular vote doesn't for the president. We should spend more time trying to figure out who is a decent local politician & try talking them into following our 'rational' advice. If we all did that, we might have better leaders.

I won't go into detail right now, but I absolutely need to clear up a major confusion that exists in modern culture, particularly television, regarding the term "evangelical". Evangelism simply means spreading the message of the Christian faith. Most Christians who actually worship with fellow Christians and show God's Love in the world regard the circus sideshows of the so-called "televangelists" as a mockery of their faith. This has made it extremely difficult to spread the Good News because the very word traditionally used to describe those efforts, "evangelism", has been co-opted by the better publicized Elmer Gantry's of this world.

For the record, I have never had a problem with my religion with regards to thinking for myself. I have had, however, considerable trouble with regards to politics in doing the same. That is why I take particular exception to people trying to browbeat me into voting one way or another.

One more thing, Christianity is about the triumph of Love over Morality.

Catch you later,
Carl Peter

Dr. Peikoff is exercising his freedom of speech, a cornerstone of liberty.

Two very intelligent and successful heroes in Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart, did not understand the actions of the other heroes until the final events of the novel --- so, I don’t interpret this as an attack on one’s intelligence: “In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life — which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism…”

If one is an intellectual slave, it is his own choice. It is no one else’s responsibility.

By definition, an Objectivist is an independent thinker. This is in Atlas Shrugged: "If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."

*
Regarding C.P.’s: “In point of fact, politics has killed far more people than religion and even those ascribed to religion are really to the politics of religious leaders.”

Dr. Peikoff said: “… the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.”

The Founding Fathers were deists. They were of firm conviction that religion backed by political power is incompatible with Liberty. History is replete with evidence:

• Galileo was convicted of heresy because of his heliocentric concept
• The Inquisition
• The crusades
• The oppression of the Philippines by the Spanish regime
• Conflicts between Catholics and Protestants

Other evils of blind faith:

• The power loom was considered vicious; anesthesia was considered sinful
• The use of birth control other than the rhythm method is deemed a sin
• 9-11

Hi C. P. - thanks for joining us. Welcome to "To the Glory of Man".

Hi everyone.

This is quite a curious argument, first blaming religion for the woes of the world and then adopting the worst tactics of some religious leaders to browbeat agreement with his conclusions.

In point of fact, politics has killed far more people than religion and even those ascribed to religion are really to the politics of religious leaders. With far more rationality, I could propose that partisan politics has been rapidly gaining control and that we would be far better off consistently voting against someone supported by George Soros/MoveOn.org or Jerry Falwell's successors/Moral Majority. In the presidential race, Obama is fully under Soros' control, while McCain is not controlled by Moral Majority or any portion of the "Religious Right", which regards him with suspicion. Therefore, McCain gets my vote. He is the Henry Clay of this very Clay vs. Jackson type of presidential election.

That is the way that I see it. I would not, however, attack the intelligence or understanding of those who disagree simply because they come up with a different conclusion. Doing so would be an attempt to intellectually enslave anyone who reads my words. Yet this is precisely what Dr. Peikoff is doing, directly contrary to the ideals of liberty and rationality.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon - “Conservatives” vs. “Liberals”

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/co...

Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.

The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.

The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”

This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.

“Censorship: Local and Express,” Philosophy: Who Needs It

The Ayn Rand Lexicon - Conservatives

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/co...

Excerpts:

What are the “conservatives”? What is it that they are seeking to “conserve”?

It is generally understood that those who support the “conservatives,” expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of “the American way of life.” The moral treason of the “conservative” leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined—and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.

If the “conservatives” do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the “conservatives” dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.

- “Conservatism: An Obituary,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

*

What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

These are the “conservatives”—or most of their intellectual spokesmen.

- “Conservatism: An Obituary,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

*
There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the “conservatives” concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists’ irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits . . . .

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word “conservative” into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a “conservative” means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old . . . .

The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.

This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.

- “Conservatism: An Obituary,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The Ayn Rand Lexicon - Objectivism from A to Z:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com

Hello Arminius. Hi everyone.

I will post Ayn Rand's exact words on Arminius' question when I find them. This is my understanding:

Ayn based her judgments on fundamentals. A politician/person can’t be truthful or can’t have integrity if:

- he says he supports freedom, individual rights, capitalism, but rejects reason
- he says he supports freedom, but is against individual rights
- he says he supports capitalism, but regards its virtue as evil.

Ayn Rand had hopes in Senator Barry Goldwater and President Gerald Ford. She did not like President Ronald Reagan because he was against abortion.

Communism was the greatest threat to the US during the presidency of President Ronald Reagan. He led the country in defeating it; consequently, many countries were freed from tyranny – millions of people became free. I think any patriotic American president at the time would have done his best to defeat communism.

Ayn Rand on abortion (from The Ayn Rand Lexicon) - excerpts:

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living takes precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). …

One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. … Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. …

For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such horror. … Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life”.

By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

*** end of excerpts

Ayn Rand thought President Reagan was no respecter of man’s rights, based on his stand on abortion.

Observe that the religious right has become very powerful, courtesy, I believe, of President Reagan. Republican candidates always pander to this group; Governor Huckabee won many states in the Republican Primary elections .

The intellectual heir of Ayn Rand, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, said the following (http://www.peikoff.com):

“How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.”

She was certainly a brilliant woman. She was anti-Communist and a laissez-faire capitalist yet she is said to despise two of the greatest anti-communist presidents and one of the few laissez-faire capitalist presidents in her life time. Why is this?