Standing against big government and for the people!
There are very few people in the Tea Party movement who would not claim some connection to
Jesus Christ--either through religious belief or through personal admiration. Oddly, many of these
also claim to be followers of Ayn Rand.
I say "oddly," because the principles taught by Ayn Rand and the principles taught by Jesus
are mutually contradictory. One cannot be, simultaneouisly, a Christian and a Randist
Now, I will grant that there is a cultish sort of sophism that attempts to reconcile "objectivism"
and Christianity, but in order to do so they necessarily ignore huge chunks of one or the other or
both. At the end of the day, a Christian cannot be a serious Randist, and a Randist
cannot be a serious Christian, in any other sense than declaring: "I can be whatever I say I am,
and you seriously better not disagree with me."
Now, there are those who assert, "You just don't know what she really meant!" Rand herself
would have considered this approach unacceptably weak and whiny. She knew she was not
a Christian, she did not seek the approval of Christians and in fact despised the entire Christian
enterprise, with its notions of sacrificing oneself for others and being one's brother's keeper, as
Make no mistake about it: the essence of the Christian Faith is self-sacrificial love. Randism
specifically denies not only the value of this, but the existence of it.
Randism maintains that self-interest is the only motivator, and that we only do things because we
get, or feel we will get, something out of it. So, if I wish to define personal success in terms of
Having successfully lifted the other fellow up, I'm entitled. However, if I wish to define personal
success as having successfully defeated and exploited the other fellow, that's okay too.
Randism sees these things only as two sides of the same coin (self-interest) and sees no moral
conflict between the two.
In fact, Randism is not big on morality, period, seeing it as the weapon the strong use against the
weak. According to Rand, we are all absolute free agents, entitled to whatever prizes we can win.
Cries of, "no fair!" are just whining,
It is at this point that "objectivism" begins to trip over itself. After all, are "the weak" not absolute
free agents? Are they not therefore entitled to defeat and exploit whom they will? If the "strong"
are made vulnerable by the moral approach, and are defeatable by it, does the moralist not then
become the strong person, and moralism the strong approach? Is objecting, "That's not how I'm
defining strong" not, now, simply the whining of the defeated?
Of course, any rational explanation of anything can be defeated by simply declaring, "That's
not how I see it," and fleeing from the discussion. This will not change the fact that, like
Liberalism, Randism is simply another form of secular utopianism that does not and cannot
work. It is also a particularly distasteful form, because it denies the fundamental social character
of man, exalting what all history has regarded as his "worst" inclinations and despising what has,
by the highest philosophiesof all ages, been regarded as his "best."