|
Our Response:
Ayn Rand begins her critique of Conservatism by saying that both Liberals and Conservatives want to save the world from Communism. She is incorrect in this initial assumption. Liberals are out to make the world safe for a watered down version of communism (socialism), and Conservatives are out to prevent the world from being coerced by totalitarian governments, (the most prevalent form at the time she wrote espoused communism).
A conservative does not really care if someone chooses to practice a communal life, he only wishes to remain free to ignore that way of life himself. A liberal would impose the socialist ideology upon the wide world.
What Rand objects to about Conservatism as a philosophy is the fact that Conservatives do not fully embrace capitalism. Rand seems to ignore the fact that Conservatives are a major proponent of Capitalism. She does not brook any manipulation of the economy by the state. Here Conservatives surely agree. Disruption of the economy can have a crippling effect on economic advancement in particular and human happiness in general.
Most Conservatives would agree with the assumption that the state is too big and meddles far too much in the lives of individuals. The fact is that modern Conservatism has adopted many Randian principles, but stops short of extreme Libertarianism or Objectivism. Libertarianism is the complete withering away of the government, while Objectivism takes the ideology one step further and brings it to a personal level. For Rand the best thing that you can do for someone else is to love yourself.
All of the economic philosophies of the right derive generally from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" published in 1776. He formulated the idea (and image) of the "invisible hand". It is the idea that, left alone, the economy will take care of itself as well as everyone who is a part of it. Supply and Demand work best when left alone.
Where the philosophies of the right depart is in the implementation of the Smithian ideal. Conservatives opt for a Republican form of government that defends freedom with a strong military, laws against corruption in business, a police force capable of defending individuals against crime, and laws that defend the innocence and productivity of our population (such as legislation limiting access to pornography and drugs). Libertarians and Randian Objectivists would simply take an eraser to a few of the policies supported by conservatives. The fact is that we are all on the same side in this fight to defend individual freedom and capitalism from the encroachments made by Liberals and Socialists.
Though Rand was a great warrior on the side of truth and right. Her essay against Conservatism was rather like a religious purist attempting to root out heresy. She finds items to pick at that are as obscure and even as inconsequential as the Christian struggle over Transubstantiation.
In the end, what Rand really objects to is that Conservatives do not make capitalism a form of government. This is how she puts it: "If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man's individual rights; if one upholds man's individual rights, one must uphold his rights to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness - which means; one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights - which means; the politico-economic system of capitalism."
Rand sees the grand struggle of our age as a battle between capitalism and statism. In the larger context, no true conservative would disagree with this notion. But Rand goes further and blasts away at conservative tactics in the war against statism. She says that we as conservatives adopt ineffective arguments against statism by falling back on religion and altruism.
In the larger sense, her argument has merit in that individual Conservatives frequently are co-opted by the leftist agenda, afraid to speak out the truth, because the truth is sometimes bitter medicine in the short run and not easy to swallow. For example the economic truth that the welfare state creates dependence and degradation among many members of society is not palatable and sounds cruel in the short term. Yet in the long run taking away the dole, ennobles and strengthens those who are seemingly deprived of a "safety net". Some "compassionate" conservatives even support policies that are simply a half step toward the statism that Rand abhors and the leftists love.
She decries the fact that "Capitalism is perishing for lack of a moral base and of a full philosophical defense." Interestingly enough it was Rand's Objectivism that helped provide that philosophic defense and with which many Conservatives daily attempt to educate the world. National Review magazine, writers such a George Will, politicians such as Steve Largent, justices such as Clarence Thomas all adamantly and altruistically defend the capitalist system in the government and in the press - sometimes using her arguments.
Her final criticism of Conservatism is that it looks back. She asks, "back to what?" Conservatism is emphatically NOT a backward looking philosophy. It is a forward looking philosophy that relies on the past to make judgements about the future. Edmund Burke first formulated the idea of conservatism in the 1760s. He basically said that institutions and ideas that have been accepted and have worked for hundreds of years have merit simply because they have worked for so long. He did not blindly advocate their continuance. Nevertheless, he said that they should only be changed a piece at a time to preserve continuity and to take advantage of their time tested benefits. A complete overthrow of a working idea was a mistake because of the havoc it would surely create. Thus conservatism is a model for dealing with the future with tried and true methods of the past, with necessary modifications for dealing with the present. In a sense, it is the ultimate application of the Scientific Method as a applied to society and to politics.
Perhaps Rand's criticisms had more force in the 1960s when they were first published. Perhaps conservatism has moved in her direction partly due to her influence. Perhaps the energy expended in the internecine struggle among Conservatives, Libertarians and Objectivists would be better expended if it were directed against the statist left.
W.J. Rayment
|
