The chattering classes all along the political spectrum have been saying that the GOP is in an identity crisis, that they know they want to run from Bush 43, but haven’t yet figured out exactly what they’re running to.
The chattering classes are wrong — the GOP has definitively chosen a new identity: they may give lip service to Ronald Reagan, but they’re really kissing the behind of another dead person — Ayn Rand. They are all Randians now.
Nixon famously said we are all Keynesians now, and that was true. The Dems had a leftist take on Keynes, and the GOP had a rightist take on him, but everybody believed that when the economy was bad, as during a garden-variety recession let alone a Great Recession, the government should spend to make up for the lack of private sector demand. The difference was that when things were good and humming along, the Dems wanted more government spending than the GOP did. It was a difference of degree, not of fundamental ideology.
Ayn Rand is a different ideology. This is not the GOP of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, either Bush, or McCain.
Republicans, Independents, and the teeny, tiny sliver of Dems who are voting for Mitt need to think long and hard about this — are they really Randians? Is this what they believe? It’s not just that this isn’t your father’s GOP, this isn’t even the GOP of 2008. Reagan famously said that he didn’t leave the Democratic party, it left him. Well, now the Republican party has left him as well. Everyone who is voting for Mitt should stop and reflect if the party has left them as well.
Mitt himself isn’t really a Randian, he’s an empty vessel, but he picked Paul Ryan because Mitt recognizes that Rand has filled the vacuum Bush left, and Ryan is her deaf, dumb, blind disciple — Paul “Tommy” Ryan.
The “Other” threatening our country isn’t a fictional Kenyan Muslim Socialist, it’s a Russian atheist who wrote fiction.
They are only partial Randians. I have this conversation with them all the time. They only like Objectivism when applied to their wallet. The totally ignore the fact that she was a devout atheist who despised all religions. So she would never belong to a party dominated by religious extremist like the Republican Party. Also, her philosophy of individual freedom applies to marrying who you want, gay or straight, and would certainly support a women’s right to choose. I compare it to those who pick and choose what part of the Bible they like and then ignore the rest. It is a way to rationalize their own greed. But wait, isn’t greed one of the seven deadly sins? They are so confused.
She was a big abortion rights advocate also. I meant Randians economically.