As I have read Rand’s magnum opus and discussed it in the cyber-public sphere, I have been struck by what seems to be shaping up as the argument de jure: can contemporary conservatives rationally claim to follow both Jesus Christ--who promoted altruism, self-sacrifice, and care of the vulnerable--and Ayn Rand, who saw altruism as a pathology and selfishness as the only real virtue?
A friend of mine, the inimitable Jana Reiss, recently wrote this excellent blog post asking precisely this question. She concludes that Rand’s objectivist philosophy is “starkly incompatible with the Christian faith” and that (as a writer she quotes puts it), “marrying Ayn Rand to Jesus Christ is like trying to interest Lady Gaga in Donny Osmond.”
Others, however, beg to differ, and in so begging, they invariably cite the difference between a good deed freely done and a supposedly good deed compelled by the state. “Doing otherwise good things, (like helping the poor) because of compulsion,” writes one commentator on Jana’s blog, “is no good thing at all.” According to this formulation, Ayn Rand is for public morality and Jesus is for private morality. People should help each other because they are good Christians, but the government shouldn't force anybody to be charitable because that is a naughty thing to do. With private and pubic morality thus separated by a firewall, we can, in some fashion, serve God and Mamyn.
This formulation, I think, makes two problematic assumptions. First, it assumes that the purpose of income redistribution is to compel people to do things that religions see as morally good. It is not. It is to compel people to do things that society sees as socially necessary. The purpose of assessing taxes to feed people who are hungry is to make sure that hungry people have food. It has nothing to do with trying to save the soul of the taxpayer through compelled obedience to a moral law. Clearly, paying a required tax does not constitute a morally beneficial act of charity; it is not supposed to. It is not a donation; it is rent. It is what you pay in exchange for
·
living in the richest country in the history of
the world
·
having a good portion of your infrastructure
(roads to transport your goods, schools to educate your workforce, airwaves to
use to advertise your product) subsidized by the state
·
allowing entire communities to accept a certain
amount of personal and financial risk for your enterprise
·
using and depleting common resources such as
clean air, fresh water, inexpensive fuel, and peace of mind
The second questionable assumption that Hannity & Co. make is much more insidious. They assume that the government is a “them”
doing bad things to “us.” This is a very common assumption on both
the left and the right, but it is a deeply problematic way to look at
civil authority in a self-governing republic.
As the Founding Fathers conceived it, the government belonged to the people who, through their representatives and through the Constitutional process, could set up any kind of society they saw fit. This does not mean that everybody is going to agree with the result. One of the hardest things about living in a democracy is recognizing the legitimacy of a majority vote that you really, really disagree with. Our forbearers called this “being a grown up.”
Self-government means that Americans are free to construct the kind of society that Ayn Rand envisioned: a society based on unrestrained capitalism, minimal taxation, and no institutional concern for the vulnerable. In fact, this pretty much does describe American society during the second half of the nineteenth century--and it sucked. It sucked so much that, in the early 20th century, the overwhelming majority of Americans decided to change in what we now call (some happily and others through clenched teeth) "the Progressive Era."
Like most other democracies, America decided, through its duly elected representatives, that it does not want people starving to death within its borders. We have also decided that the most vulnerable among us—children, the elderly, single mothers, and others—are entitled to a certain standard of living that can only be described as mere subsistence. Some of us have have come to this decision because we feel compelled to work, through the government that is us, to enact our religious understanding of compassion. Others, many of whom have no religious affiliation or belief, simply want to create the kind of society that they want to live in.
And many people disagree altogether. But these are the terms of our civil society. And, as Benjamin Franklin wrote to his friend Robert Morris, “He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
As the Founding Fathers conceived it, the government belonged to the people who, through their representatives and through the Constitutional process, could set up any kind of society they saw fit. This does not mean that everybody is going to agree with the result. One of the hardest things about living in a democracy is recognizing the legitimacy of a majority vote that you really, really disagree with. Our forbearers called this “being a grown up.”
Self-government means that Americans are free to construct the kind of society that Ayn Rand envisioned: a society based on unrestrained capitalism, minimal taxation, and no institutional concern for the vulnerable. In fact, this pretty much does describe American society during the second half of the nineteenth century--and it sucked. It sucked so much that, in the early 20th century, the overwhelming majority of Americans decided to change in what we now call (some happily and others through clenched teeth) "the Progressive Era."
Like most other democracies, America decided, through its duly elected representatives, that it does not want people starving to death within its borders. We have also decided that the most vulnerable among us—children, the elderly, single mothers, and others—are entitled to a certain standard of living that can only be described as mere subsistence. Some of us have have come to this decision because we feel compelled to work, through the government that is us, to enact our religious understanding of compassion. Others, many of whom have no religious affiliation or belief, simply want to create the kind of society that they want to live in.
And many people disagree altogether. But these are the terms of our civil society. And, as Benjamin Franklin wrote to his friend Robert Morris, “He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
