Why is there no liberal Ayn Rand? Conservatives have a canon, why don't liberals?

[salvorhardin]

"Liberals, by contrast, have been moving in the other direction over the last half-century, abandoning the idea that ideas can be powerful political tools. ... Liberals have channeled their energies even more narrowly over the past half-century, tending to prefer policy tweaks and electoral mapping to big-picture thinking. When was the last time you saw a prominent liberal politician ascribe his or her passion and interest in politics to, of all things, a book? ... We have the political spectrum that we have, and liberals fail to take up the intellectual challenge at their peril. ... Nobody wants to return to an era in which politics and political ideas were dominated by a handful of white men, however thoughtful. Yet we rarely pause to consider what liberals have lost by neglecting a common intellectual heritage and by attempting to win political success without a political canon."

Full article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/08/paul_ryan_and_ayn_rand_why_don_t_america_liberals_have_their_own_canon_of_writers_and_thinkers_.single.html

[hifiguy]

1. Because you can't herd cats.

True conservatives, and to a much greater degree baggers, fundymentalpatient religious crazies and old fashioned hard-core authoritarian reichwingers tend to have a dualistic worldview: right/wrong, good/evil, moral/immoral, etc. This mindset relishes in, and actually requires, save for a few traditionalist conservatives like A. Sullivan and, increasingly, D. Frum, an absolute set of rules that must be followed in all cases. The authoritarian mind gets panicky when there are no absolutes. They are followers in the truest sense of the word. They NEED an Ayn Rand to validate their own prejudices. Their own insecurites and fears are projected onto people who do not conform to their (weird) norms.

Those of us on the left tend to be a lot fuzzier. Everyone from RFK and MLK to George McGovern to Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Norwegian Social Democrats and even the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers can comfortably congregate under the banner of liberalism and tolerance. We are, as a rule, not terribly bothered by ambiguity or uncertainty and don't feel any need to be followers of One True Guru. This is in direct opposition to the right-wing mindset. We seek to persuade by reason not to bludgeon into cowed submission. Lefty types usually have a "live-and-let-live as long as you're not ripping people off or harshing my mellow" attitude (I simplify, obviously). Such a worldview is anathema to authoritarian personalities.

[banned from Kos]

3. Ayn Rand hated conservatives. She fought Buckley and campaigned against Reagan.

They don't stick together at all.

She would hate the Tea Party too.

[nanabugg]

68. You have to remember, Ayn loved no one but herself! nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

59. I can agree with this.

We like to view things, and then critically assess what we see for ourselves. Forming our own conclusions about society,and how we fit into it, is the very thing which sets us apart from the Right. It's also the thing which makes us so difficult to herd.

The Right likes to have a concept placed neatly in a box which explains how they should feel, and why they should feel that way. Which is where figures like Ayn Rand come in.

[KansDem]

2. B. F. Skinner?

I read "Waldon Two" in college and was impressed with the ideas that (if memory serves me):

1) Everyone in the community took turns performing the work required to keep the community running properly;

2) Everyone in the community participated in the governance of the community.

(This was almost 40 years ago so please let me know if I'm not remembering correctly! )

[SoCalDem]

4. Because it's always easier to focus on what you think is WRONG

and you will usually find devotees who agree with you, and who are eager to hang on your every word.

Anger (even if imagined) is a powerful thing. Writers know how to manipulate people.

She also understood the power of propaganda, and the depth of ignorance in the general populace.

[NNN0LHI]

24. I was thinking about what you just said last few days

Few says ago someone was telling me how the homeless problem was all the fault of big gubmnet.

I said it was a societal problem. He said what do you mean?

I asked him how many homeless people has he invited into his house to live there?

His eyes glazed over.

Don

[Shankapotomus]

5. Noam Chomsky (nt)

[banned from Kos]

6. No - you have to write fiction that millions will read.

And be somewhat entertained.

I wrote a book that had a liberal version of John Galt as its hero - complete with the speech.

[Shankapotomus]

9. Ayn Rand also wrote non-fiction

and for the purpose of presenting a formal political philosophy, fiction isn't really required.

[banned from Kos]

12. True, but no one starts out reading her Objectivist manuals

They read Atlas or the Fountainhead first.

[Shankapotomus]

18. Well, one can say that first presenting her philosophy

in a fiction form was a great error for Ayn Rand. I personally wouldn't want to see a liberal political philosophy presented in a fiction form.

I just remembered another big left thinker: Jeremy Rifkin. I bought his masterwork Empathic Civilization, started reading it, but haven't really gotten back to it and not because it lacked intriguing content. I just haven't had the time. I think he might be a very suitable candidate for what the OP is seeking. This is his website:

http://empathiccivilization.com/

However, I think it's good to not get stuck on any one author or book as representative of progressivism because it can become dogmatic. The thing about ideas is they get old or become obsolete or were just never right to begin with and I don't think it serves humanity well to become obsessed and subservient to any ideas that don't move with Time but get stuck in the past. We always have to be updating our software.

[banned from Kos]

19. I must disagree. People learn the Gospels and turn to the philosophy of Christ

a STORY is much more compelling than a treatise.

I am an existentialist - by reading the novels of Kafka and Camus and not their manuals/philosophy.

[stevenleser]

10. Yeah, him and about 3000000 others. Slate and Beverly Gage didnt do a lot of research here.

Unless their point is that they are looking for one great Liberal God of Philosophy. Liberals and other members of the Left don't do that. It's probably the same reason that TV hosts and radio personalities dont do as well on the Liberal side.

[Shankapotomus]

32. Another one I think who is slowly coming up the ranks is

Jeremy Rifkin. What he seems to be trying to do with his, Empathic Civilization, (at least as a secondary consequence) is to solidly tie policies of cooperation and empathy (instead of competition) as being in our nature. This strikes me as a strong embracing or reinforcement of liberal and progressive political thought and a rejection of conservative policies and ideology.

http://empathiccivilization.com/

Edit: just checked out his credentials on wiki and they seem to be really, really solid. Vietnam war protestor, peace activist, climate change proponent, etc.

[marmar]

11. D'accord.....Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

nt

[white_wolf]

46. I wouldn't consider Chomsky a liberal, though.

He's an anarchist.

[cali]

7. they do. first of all, most great literature is liberal. Ever read any EM Forster?

Liberal ideas on virtually every page of his novels, not to mention his essays on politics and more in "Two Cheers for Democracy". Still wonderful, still vivid and pertinent. Secondly, lots of liberal politicians credit multiple books with being important to their philosophies.

this is an awful, inaccurate bullshit piece. someone just needed something to write about and made up a bunch of shit on the fly.

[Chiyo-chichi]

44. I agree with you that most great lit is liberal. Steinbeck and Orwell also come to mind.

[FSogol]

72. True: "most great literature is liberal." The reason is...

to fully understand others you have to be empathic, that is, you must be able to put yourself in their shoes. Conservatives, thanks to their innate selfishness are unable to understand or care about others unless it benefits themselves. That is why liberals outnumber conservatives in the arts and literature.

[NightWatcher]

8. Jesus

fed the hungry
healed the sick (without a copay)

wore sandals
had long hair

[DCKit]

66. +1 How much more obvious could it be? nt

[freshwest]

86. +1

[reformist2]

13. Pragmatism/doing what what works >>>> Rigid ideology

[whatchamacallit]

33. This is it.

The Democratic Party is (used to be anyway) comprised of flexible minds.

[Quantess]

14. I think Ayn Rand is close to satanic.

I know she was atheist, but, her atheism does not explain her ruthless callousness. She would be cheering on the Marquis DeSade, and claim that he was morally just.

[Tom Ripley]

53. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings”

Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey

[freshwest]

87. +1

[Tom Ripley]

89. I agree with you, but even DeSade was a better writer than Rand (n/t)

[Quantess]

90. Oh, hell yes he was a better writer.

No contest.

[msongs]

15. because repubs welcome conservatives & dems do not welcome liberals these days? nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. the same reason there is no liberal Rush Limbaugh...

Liberals by our nature don't look for a voice of authority to shore up our beliefs - while conservatives can't function without one.

[SheilaT]

23. Excellent!

I was going to say something about liberals don't feel inclined to force their beliefs on others the way conservatives do. And the more extreme the conservative, the more eager he or she is to force those beliefs on others.

Your explanation is wondrously succinct.

[Paladin]

26. Well Put. (nt)

[DLine]

27. Donnie shut the fu.....

That was a great and simple explanation for why there are so many right wing propaganda talking heads.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. nicely stated.

Except I think the original post's premises are wrong.

There are plenty of heroes out there, too many to mention here. From people like Mark Twain to Noam Chomsky. From painters and artists, to computer geeks and wild-eyed thinkers. From Tom Paine to Ben Franklin, in terms of what the purpose of our country was at its ugly, dirty, bloody beginning.

There is a vast reservoir of talent, ideas, and progressive ideals that guide many of us. Do we need one particular hero to guide each and every thought and idea? Do we want to be so limited in scope and vision that we can only rely on one source? What if, as in the case of Ayn Rand, that sole source is horribly, terribly, and unabashedly incorrect in:

a) her facts
b) her theories
c) her application of her facts to her theories

If we choose one person, and there is the slightest error in any of their analysis or facts, the whole argument gets thrown out. Unless you are a libertarian, or an batty ultra-conservative like Ayn Rand, who would be almost proud of the TeaBagger crowd (except their religious problems)

[hifiguy]

34. You said it far more economically than I did.

[DemocracyInaction]

17. Money and coporate America

I'm 67. We were spouting all sorts of liberal gods back in the day. Then the money (aka, the power) came after us and made sure we were snuffed. You will not see many politicians spewing forth liberal ideas nor voting for them because those ideas don't bring in money. That's why Jesus has no pull, baby.....but his filthy organized religious leaders do.

[sibelian]

20. Thinking that attempts a broader unifying picture of the Left

is almost always automatically shredded by the opinionated, particularly on this site.

[banned from Kos]

21. 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn.

Life changing for me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. You mean why isn't there a psychopathic liberal writer who demands a cult like following?

I dunno.

Perhaps because liberals don't care for psycopathic writers who demand cult like followings.

[salvorhardin]

39. Apparently

Not even when you excerpt the main point of the article

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Your excerpt does seem to boil down to 'liberals don't read'

so I can't quite tell why you chose to respond to this one reply with a snarky remark, and just one other one-liner, when all you've done is highlight that one paragraph.

Maybe you should talk to those who disagree with you, even if you think they've missed your (or the article's) point.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Thats what Star Trek is for

[RadiationTherapy]

28. One knows they are searching and thinks; the other thinks they know and is finished searching.

[Speck Tater]

29. Find two DU members who agree.

Once you give up on that hopeless task, you'll understand why liberals have no leaders.

[yawnmaster]

36. I suspect even the same person with two different usernames won't agree with himself. eom

[Speck Tater]

45. ROFL. The left hand sock puppet knows not what the right hand sock puppet believes. nt

[randr]

30. Liberal canons are rapidly branded as "radical"

by the so called "liberal press". Ideas outside the beltway, unless they are batshit crazy right wing ideology, are suspect.

[Motown_Johnny]

35. Does Bob Dylan count?

[Tabasco_Dave]

42. Liberals are more musical!

Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Rage Against The Machine.

[Iggo]

37. We don't want one.

Ayn Rand is for people who can't think for themselves.

[salvorhardin]

38. So nice to see so many commenters illustrating the author's point

[madinmaryland]

40. Because liberals do not believe in fantasy bullshit when it comes to running the government.

[NickB79]

41. You mean a liberal who advocates extreme altruism, helping the poor and sick?

Giving the very shirt off your back to cloth them, forgiving them of all their failures and welcoming them with open arms no matter how evil their past behaviors were?

His name is Jesus.

[joshcryer]

48. Haha! Nice one.

[upi402]

51. Jesus Christ - socialist

They may all burn in hell.
But it sure would be nice if the money-changers got their tables overturned in the meantime.

[Zalatix]

61. +100,000! And Ayn Rand hates Him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. Because "liberalism" was the default position for most of the last century

Randian libertarianism and conservatism on the other hand had an air of intellectual insurgency and challenging the established order. The "liberal canon", if there is one, is not so much found in books (although there are plenty of those) as in policies and actions; the abolition of slavery, thePure Food and Drug Act, child labour laws, Social Security, minimum wage, maximum hours, collective bargaining agreements, health and safety regulation, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Medicare, equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws, and so on. All of these things are the result of the steady onward march of liberalism; the recognition that government has an active role to play in providing equal protection under the law of the rights of citizens, and in providing things like pensions and tax-funded medical care. The "liberal" postion, unlike the conservative one, is not a "cause" so much as it is the steady and incremental recognition of various social changes by government. The conservative position is a rejection of those social changes and a desire to tear down the whole edifice.

[YoungDemCA]

49. Good post

nt

[Tom Ripley]

55. Excellent post (n/t)

[Major Nikon]

50. Why would we want a shitty novelist and pseudo-philosopher?

Just askin'

[Tom Ripley]

52. Because we have read more than ONE book?

[pscot]

54. Fear

Liberals with a cannon end up testifying before the HUAC.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. FDR (except 1937)? Jesus Christ?

Both were Liberals in good standing.

[JFN1]

57. We find truth to be a continuously unfolding process, rather than an instantaneous single point.

And we don't have just one voice, we have an entire chorus which comprises about 90% of humanity's greatest minds, both historically and currently.

[JCMach1]

58. We don't think in canon

And that is a good thing.

[limpyhobbler]

60. Charles Dickens maybe?

If you're looking for a novelist.

Or maybe John Steinbeck.

In nonfiction maybe John Dewey or Bertrand Russell.

[LuvNewcastle]

64. Steinbeck was the first one I thought of.

When I first read "The Grapes of Wrath" in school, it made a big impression on me. That book probably influenced my political beliefs more than any other I've read.

[LiberalAndProud]

69. Exactly. Steinbeck said everything that to needs be said, eloquently.

Although F. Scott Fitzgerald's social commentary should not be overlooked. Nick and Mitt are probably related.

[LuvNewcastle]

70. Sinclair Lewis is another one.

The Republicans made Babbitt and Elmer Gantry their role models.

[Major Nikon]

75. Mark Twain is the one I'd pick

Simply because he was a great novelist and a great philosopher.

[LuvNewcastle]

81. I agree.

Just about any American writer you can think of has probably been influenced by Twain.

[lapfog_1]

62. From the same era as Ayn Rand (textbook sociopath)

President John F. Kennedy on being a liberal...
"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

[David__77]

63. Modern "left" is mainly not leftist at all.

You have self-postured "post-ideologues" who dominate the post-Cold War "left." There is no soul or passion there at all. It's technocracy to the hilt, and class issues are thrown out the window. Who could not be cynical in the face of this? How can there be leadership and heroism?

[McDiggy]

65. David Simon, "The Wire."

Shocked nobody had said it yet. Pretty much the most important TV series ever filmed. A damning critique of what America has become. Covers everything from the failed drug war to the creation of two Americas, totally isolated from reach other, to the abandonment of the working class and loss of dignified work. It is the depiction of the death of a modern empire.

It is our generation's "Oliver Twist". Not many people have seen it . But The Wire is it...or should be, anyway.

[BumRushDaShow]

71. Steinem, Baldwin, Carson

Just 3 (of many) powerful voices (via their writings and appearances) that helped define the left across multiple subjects.

[FSogol]

73. Dickens, Twain, Steinbeck, Vonnegut

[1-Old-Man]

74. Now we don't, its because Democrats think for themselves and don't submit to dogma

We take our ideas from many writers; many novelists, many poets. and even those who speak but don't write. We take our ideas from our neighbors and from life's experiences themselves. What we do not do is read a single book, the thoughts of a single author, and call it the final word, the height of human thought, the guiding light of our lives.

[Jennicut]

76. Exactly. Repubs can't seem to function without listening to one source.

Like Limbaugh. My father is a conservative and must listen to him everyday. It really is sad.

[BOG PERSON]

77. ayn rand was a liberal

liberal to the bone. liberal in your face. a "smash your idols, destroy all traditions, the world is your personal oyster" type of liberal.

[Dirty Socialist]

80. The Right Claims Her Now

Take Ayn Rand...please?

[BOG PERSON]

84. then it's time to ask:

what, exactly, are the right-wing the wing of? the right-wing in relation to what?

[Dirty Socialist]

78. Stanley Milgram

[WilliamPitt]

79. FDR

[freshwest]

88. And his VP, Henry Wallace:

"The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.

His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.

Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

-- U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace, quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944

[BOG PERSON]

82. ayn rand embodied the spirit of the 60s

of youthful rebellion . overcoming every obstacle to the penetration of the market into your personal life.

[Boxcar Willie]

83. What about Jack London

or Upton Sinclair? I recently read "The Jungle" for the first time all I can say is "Organize! Organize! Organize!"

[Shankapotomus]

85. Don't London's novels

advance social darwinism?