It isn’t all Ayn Rand’s fault. (Only part of it is.)

As always, this is how I see it. If you see it differently, let me know.

 

Rand’s view

 

The part that brands taxation for government social programs as thievery or sees worker protections as outrageous interference with ownership or views union bargaining as blackmail—all that you can pin on Ayn Rand. Her fictional villains were those who would be called liberals in today’s culture: What liberals see as progressive taxation she saw as stealing from productive members of society for the benefit of the lazy and undeserving.

 

 

What she didn’t see

 

Look a little closer, though. Her heroes are gifted, rebellious, independent capitalists who ask no favors or anyone! The cronyism and pay-to-play bootlicking demanded by the current administration in Washington is the behavior of her villains, not her heroes! 

 

She thought free market capitalists would be different. She was wrong.

 

 

Her background

 

Born Alissa Rosenbaum, the woman who reinvented herself as Ayn Rand was 12 years old when the Russian revolution exploded in St. Petersburg. Her family fled to the Crimea. Her father lost his business. She saw firsthand the sins of communism, and from those early impressions she extrapolated the evils to anything that smacked to her of what she called collectivism. Under Bolshevik collectivism, she saw cheating and corruption and a class of political elites lining their pockets while grinding down poor, hard-working citizens.

 

Again, She thought capitalists would be different. She was wrong.

 

 

Russia’s background

 

Russia, become the U.S.S.R., now Russia again – it’s a big, sprawling country, and top-heavy bureaucracy was not invented by Bolsheviks. Autocratic czars relied on a far-reaching network of bureaucrats to carry out their will. People’s representatives in government? Forget it! 

 

 

The American story has been different

 

Americans set up a different kind of government, based from the beginning on representation. The “people,” of course, were originally only white, property-owning males, but other groups gradually gained suffrage. But Americans also have a long history of being taken in by and being fearful of extremes. That is, we as a people tend to see the world in either/or terms, and politically this comes down to the (false) dilemma of completely unregulated free market capitalism vs. toiling for the state under a red flag. 

 

Two things have saved us over the years from the absurdity of either of the dismal extremes: 

 

First, we have had, historically, a strong two-party system.

 

Second, the two parties have, until very recently, worked together to reach legislative compromises and actually get things done. 

 

Because Americans are stuck in either/or thinking and because we have had two strong parties, government power has alternated between the two parties, and because of back-and-forth swings in power and because, generally speaking, civility reigned in Congress, bipartisanship worked.

 

 

Where we are now

 

The current president, however, said when on the campaign trail that if people voted for him, “You’ll never have to vote again.” Those in his party in Congress have acquiesced to his Cabinet nominations, however inappropriate or unqualified the nominees (until the most recent and most outrageously inappropriate, a man even Republicans could not stomach), and they have done everything to exclude and block Democrats, including withholding funds already appropriated to various agencies and programs.

  

Now there is the government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history. Senator Chuck Schumer, minority leader, on Friday, November 7, said the Democrats would vote to end the shutdown if Republicans would agree to a one-year extension of expiring ACA tax credits, without which many middle-class working Americans could see their monthly health insurance costs rise to unaffordable levels. Republicans say no, we open the government back up first, and then we negotiate. So, believe Mike Johnson? Why? Is he credible? Truthful? 

 

Republicans do not want to work with Democrats. They do not want bipartisanship. They want everything their way (which is the Project 2025 way), with no input from the other side of the aisle. Although Republicans are in pro forma session right now, and although they have earlier this year sworn in two other people while in pro forma session, they still refuse to swear in the Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva from Arizona. And as the president urges Republicans in Congress to get rid of the filibuster, he tells them there is no need to worry about future Democratic control because by getting rid of the filibuster, Republicans could pass legislation that would guarantee they would “never lose the midterms and we will never lose a general election” again.

 

What Republicans want is one-party rule. 

 

 

Drawing the wrong conclusion

 

Ayn Rand can be forgiven for believing at age 12 that free market capitalists would be all for freedom in general and not for cheating and greed and corruption, and young people in general can be forgiven for falling temporarily under the spell of her "romantic realism, with heroes larger than life and her villains considerably smaller and smarmier. Most young people want to believe in heroes, whether they are Superman, Spiderman, or John Galt. 

 

But for those willing to look dispassionately at American history, “experience has shown” (to quote from the Declaration of Independence) that completely unregulated, unrestrained capitalism is as destructive of life as collectivism, and a corporate “Big Brother” is every bit as much of an overpowering steamroller as a governmental “Big Brother.” Who wants to be enslaved by either one? 

 

What threatens us at this juncture in our history is an unholy alliance of the two--unbridled capitalism enabled and rewarded by a would-be autocrat at the head of the federal government, a head backed by “representatives” doing the bidding not of the people who elected them but that of corporate interests willing to offer big rewards for the legislation and contracts they want. 

 

All along, it wasn’t collectivism that was the problem. It was unchecked, one-party rule. If you vote Republican, is this really what you want? Think hard!

My parents are rolling over in their graves.

Where are we going? Is that light up ahead growing dim?

A new standard operating procedure has emerged in the Republican Party: that of contesting results of what all know to have been legitimate political elections. If, that is, the Republican candidate fails to win. 

 

If a Democrat is elected to Congress, for instance, state election results are challenged, even where the sitting Governor and election officials are themselves Republicans. Lawsuits are filed, recounts demanded. No evidence of fraud is necessary. It is enough for a Republican to lose a political race for the party to spring into action, claiming suspicion of fraud, where said suspicion comes most often from baseless rumors claimants have themselves disseminated. (We all know the originator of this vicious practice, so there is no need to mention his name.) Indeed, such challenges are planned in advance of elections, contingent upon the results. 

 

Nor are partisan grievances confined to legal challenges. Ordinary voting citizens, stirred up by their party’s public statements and shenanigans, first mutter and then shout. Election officials receive threats, and across the country many of these honest, hard-working, experienced overseers of the democratic process are resigning. Some fear for their lives. Or fear a minor, innocent, technical error could result in crushing personal debt under new state laws. Others have simply had enough.

 

It’s hard not to see this loathesome practice as a long-range strategy aiming to put an end to free elections in the United States of America.

How anyone can remain loyal to a party behaving so reprehensibly and talk about its “principles” is way beyond me. My parents’ Republican party has turned away from principle, from conscience, from decency, and from the American way of life. If you couldn’t see it from the way the Speaker of the House treated President Obama, what do you say now, those of you who continue to call yourselves “conservative”? And please explain to me how undermining the democratic bedrock of our country – one citizen, one vote, all to be fairly counted – fits into any conservative agenda worthy of the name?

Moreover, hideous as this new political reality is, it doesn't stop at our shores. Would-be dictators and tyrants around the world are taking a tip from the new American playbook. Once again, we are leading the world -- this time, in a nightmare direction. Sometimes the light at the end of a tunnel is an oncoming, high-speed train.

Hearts Are Breaking All Around

Cloudy with slingshots

 I’m old enough to remember (though I was certainly not of voting age) the presidential race that pitted John Kennedy against Richard Nixon. Then as always, Americans on both sides of the political fence had strong feelings about their candidate and their candidate’s opponent. Remarks about opponents were not always generous or kind. There were some bad jokes and cartoons. But never in that time did I see signs in front yards that would, if featured in a movie today, have brought an “R” rating for language. 

 

Now, almost a year past the 2020 campaign, remaining signs and flags have become only more vile in their wording. What is it like, I ask myself, for young parents whose children have begun to read and ask the meaning of some of those loathsome words and proclamations?

 

Politics is never only politics, and the nastier it gets, the wider the ramifications. A neighbor and I can differ on fiscal policy or foreign policy or even what constitutes strong education, but when I drive past a house (none in my immediate neighborhood this nasty, thank heaven!) and meet with language that is like a middle finger raised in my face, my pleasure in beautiful natural surroundings is given a slap in the face.

 

Community. Neighborliness. Goodwill. Fair play. Graceful, gracious losing. How many of us have had our faith in those notions undermined in the past six years or more? What message are schoolchildren receiving when their parents protest against masks and at the same time scream that the answer to violence is more guns?

 

When death came to Thunder Rolling in the Mountains, or Chief Joseph, of the Nez Perce, in 1904, after the death of all his family and the loss of their homeland, the Colville Reservation physician reported that he had died of a broken heart. 

 

Philosopher Henri Bergson died on January 4, 1941, during the Nazi Occupation of much of France, including Paris, his health already poor, but you will never convince me that his death was due to anything other than a broken heart. 

 

These days Americans of all races and religions and political affiliations are going around with breaking hearts. Will there be an end to this in my lifetime?

If I Were Really, Really Paranoid

 

Ah, yes, paranoia. For something as serious as genuine paranoia is, we toss the word around pretty casually. "Did that guy give me a really weird look?" "Oh, don't be so paranoid!" I'm going in a different direction today, though....

To continue: I am not saying that conspiracies absolutely do not exist, just that they are rarer than theories of conspiracies and therefore usually not the best explanation but one we should resist until evidence becomes overwhelming. Think Occam's razor. A conspiracy is never a simple explanation (but the world is not always simple, is it?), if only because (1) it involves many people, and (2) it depends on their keeping their mouths shut. A ring of bank robbers may conspire to commit a crime, but if one is caught and offered a deal for informing on the others, chances are good he'll take the deal. A group of Wall Street crooks may conspire to game the system for their own advantage, but if even one of them discovers a conscience, they can all go tumbling down. And, of course, discovery after the fact is pretty common. 

So just to be clear, I'm not launching any conspiracy theories here. I'm only saying that if I were really, really paranoid I would think, for example, that all these protests and lawsuits against masks in schools to prevent the spread of COVID-19 were really a conspiracy to drive school teachers out of the profession, scare parents into pulling their kids out of school, and destroy public education. 

For another example, if I were really, really paranoid I would think that all these election recounts and recalls (like the one in California) are not expressions of doubt in the process at all but merely an underground campaign -- a conspiracy -- to bankrupt state coffers and destroy government by the people. 

But here's the thing: we don't need organized groups of conspirators to bring about these consequences. There doesn't have to be any kind of conspiracy at all. It only takes enough people taking action without thinking about likely unintended consequences. Sometimes (and this is scary) the very action people take to prevent a certain outcome increases the odds that it will happen. 

Is there a right-wing conspiracy to destroy public education and government by the people (or only the U.S. postal service)? Or is it just that those very real dangers would be "side effects" rather than the "cure" they hope to achieve?

One Step Back

Let frustration get the upper hand, and you could soon be up to your eyebrows in regret.

It could have been much worse for me this week, however, which goes to show once more that many decisions are better for having been postponed. My last post here on this blog was an expression of frustration – frustration widely shared, apparently, because more than one person suggested, even requested, that I edit that piece down for publication in our county’s weekly newspaper or the daily paper in Traverse City. One request was especially fervent. What to do?

I was reluctant. I’d said what I had to say and was not looking for a wider audience. Would anything be gained?

“At least think about it! And would you call me back and let me know what you’ve decided?”

I spent the remainder of the evening paring down an original thousand words plus to a manageable three hundred. (I recommend this exercise, by the way. For a real wake-up call, edit yourself ruthlessly to a word limit. Can you say it in 800 words? 600? 400? Whole paragraphs reveal themselves as self-indulgent, unnecessary and/or redundant, while sentences purged of clutter emerge taut and clear.)

Finally more or less satisfied with the result, I pulled up an old letter I’d had published in a Traverse City weekly last year for comparison. The subject of the earlier letter was affordable housing, and I’d expressed myself to my satisfaction in 300 words.

But I was struck by the glaring contrast between the two pieces.

My older letter, a response to a previously published opinion article, focused on one particular issue and analyzed problems with the opinion writer’s statements. Our differences had to do with a situation and how to deal with it, and while he was clearly conservative and I obviously liberal on this issue, the disagreement was pragmatic rather than blindly partisan. The tone of my letter was – and not by accident -- reasoned, calm, and dispassionate.

The newer 300 words were entirely different. They contained no analysis and no new facts. The whole thing was nothing but finger-pointing.

Important question: What is the point of writing a letter to an editor or, if you’re the editor, writing an editorial? What is the point of writing an opinion piece? Why wade into those shark-infested waters at all unless you hope to open a few eyes and minds to a new way of seeing shared terrain?

Partisan finger-pointing, even absent name-calling (which I always try to avoid), will never change anyone’s mind. It is not reasoned argument and not presentation of new facts. Those who already agree with you will nod and cheer, while those on the other side turn away in self-righteous anger. Everything, unless made worse, remains as it was.

Many people in our country today do see politics as a war. True believers raise their voices ever louder in a kind of locker room hysteria – finger-jabbing, shouting, name-calling, metaphorically shoving and trampling their opponents. But to join in that fray, on that level, if this is what we oppose, is to become the enemy, to give up principles, to hand over victory.

I’m not saying I don’t still believe what I wrote about party politics at the county, state, and national level. What I’m saying is that saying it did no one any good. Putting my words “out there” temporarily relieved my unhappiness and gave a few others a brief sensation of solidarity. I expressed my frustration. But really, who cares? I gave in to basically useless self-expression. That’s all. Everything remains as it was. Not a single mind was changed or opened to change.

Instead of becoming more and more partisan, what we have to do in our county is to focus calmly on issues. Where facts are distorted, those distortions must be cleared away in a workmanlike manner. Where facts are absent, they must be brought forth. And as much as we talk, we all need to listen, especially where we disagree, because no one’s mind will be opened by being hectored or lectured or treated like an ignorant, willful child. Wouldn’t your blood pressure shoot through the roof if someone treated you like that?

So now, in the aftermath of my online outburst, I want to say that I think all the more highly of those in politics who can remain undistracted by frustration, who do not give in to it but keep their focus instead on the work at hand. You know who you are. Thank you for the work you do!

There is no way toward a civil discourse other than by adhering to civility. The next ten months will be a trying time, but that can be a good thing. Rising to challenges can be good for us all. I know all this. But how easily what we know can be forgotten in the heat of the moment!

Postscript: I was tempted to take down the previous post but am leaving it up, my moment of weakness exposed, as an example to others and reminder to myself of what is not worth doing.