Some Thoughts on Paul Ryan, and Ayn Rand

It was interesting to hear that Romney had selected Paul Ryan for his Vice Presidential running-mate. Interesting in that Ryan is an admitted fan of the philosopher or intellectual, Ayn Rand, suggesting or perhaps even requiring staff members to read Atlas Shrugged. He is found making reference to her and how important her philosophy and her morality is to the defense of capitalism as per various clips that can be found on YouTube. So in this light alone it is interesting.

It is interesting to me however, as I too was reading the same books and essays back in high school. It basically led me to get a degree in philosophy. So for me to hear that Paul Ryan, who has pushed to dramatically re-invent Medicare and push aggressive budget cutting plans, started from the same intellectual timber. It made me reflect on my own intellectual development.  

Rand is a controversial thinker in that she defends a pure Laissez-Faire capitalism, What that amounts to is that she was opposed to any government that redistributed wealth in any fashion. Whether it was Social Security, Medicare, or any other type of government support or subsidy; she was opposed to it.

Her philosophy also entailed a discussion of selfishness as the core of ethics, as opposed to any concern or awareness of others. Likewise her epistemology was very focused on reason and is largely a refutation of Kant and his limiting of reason in his Critiques. These positions led her to a complete abandonment of the Judeo-Christian tradition and really any type of religious faith.

Considering the above, I do wonder if Ayn Rand would have any use for Paul Ryan. His economics are perhaps more a mix of supply side theory, which she had no use for back in the 80s. More important though is that Ryan is a devout Catholic. I am not sure how one can reconcile her philosophy with Catholicism. So at first blush I would have to say I am not sure he really is a fan of Ayn Rand. She is a thinker that demands you either accept her basic principles or you do not. She required consistency, was not a fan of compromise, and had no use for either philosophical or political pragmatism. She probably would not have much to do with Paul Ryan.

I pause on the above as one of her disciples, back in the fifties, did later in life go on to become a Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I am not sure what she would have to say about Alan Greenspan today, but he also \pursued a career in the public sphere. In short that is a separate essay.

Aside from my questions on Ryan's sincerity or self-deception regarding Rand, I realize that I have moved so far away from her. Philosophically, I have come to embrace the principle of charity as a key tool in epistemology, a tool that dates back to Augustine, a Christian Saint. I do still have a libertarian streak in me and with that subscribe to some of her focus on the individual and selfishness.

Most important though is my realization that her philosophy is not adequate in describing the American economic engine - historically or today. The government simply has played a role in the economy since Lewis and Clarke, Manifest Destiny and the land grants that went with the first trans-continental railroads.

If you jump to science and technology, unless you focus only on Thomas Edison and the other great inventors of that period, you realize the debt our technology has to the basic research done by or funded by the US Government. From the Agriculture Colleges of the early twentieth century, to the Manhattan Project, to the fear of sputnik and the military-industrial complex, to DARPA and  the Internet-the US government has played a role in technological innovation and the economy..In short, if you attribute our economic success to technological savvy, you need to acknowledge the role of the government. 

If you step back from the role of government, to the role of the individual the history of science challenges Rand on that also. Again, it is not one individual but groups of individuals communicating back and forth that allowed the US to achieve the things it did. James Burke in his 1970's miniseries Connections illustrates this beautifully. Steve Jobs is not John Galt. He might also be compared to Stalin. I exaggerate but he did have a partner and multiple teams. Jobs may not have been able to code his devices, but he did have some marketing skills.

Going back to Ryan, I am not sure what to say. Do we take him at his word and factor in that he subscribed or does value this thinker? As he has been in the House for at least the last ten years, could he truly believe that all government involvement in the economy is wrong? Could he subscribe to her demand for consistency and and further her intolerance for compromise and still function in the US House or Representatives? Or do we simply acknowledge that he, like myself has evolved and adopted as required. Something that Rand could probably not accept.