'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

[Bigjake]

My general claim is threefold:


3.It's completely irrelevant to the discussion how good he is at the political process – both because he is just an example of the kind of guy that would be a good President, and because that if he (or someone like him) were to run, they could become agents of change just by becoming a major party's candidate, and because if he or someone like him were to be elected, they would have a giant toolbox at their disposal that they could use even without the cooperation of Congress. As I said – like hitting 88 miles per hour.

No, that's not the case.

Ron Paul could have every friggin tool in the box at his disposal and and still make George W Bush look like the most effective Pres since Ronaldus Magnus.

My money would be on Paul being the FASTED impeached president ever.

It might suck, and He might have had lots of tools and ideals at his fingertips, but the guy has all of the charisma of Dennis the Menace.

As Headless said, He doesn't know how to wield said tools.

[MicroBalrog]

There's no 'how-to' to wielding the veto pen, the Presidential pardon power, or the bully pulpit of the Presidency and the executive order. Though these are not magical and all-encompassing, they are very useful, especially with the shape modern government had taken

[Balog]

Being a policritter is about communicating and advertising. RP does neither of those things well enough to be competitive.

[MicroBalrog]

Being a policritter is about communicating and advertising. RP does neither of those things well enough to be competitive.

Again. And again. RP is not going to be running again. I hope you understand. Someone like him is bound to run, though.

To execute the kind of changes that are needed, the policritter in question needs to be a bit wacky to be that radical.

The question is only, what do you care about more, the wackiness or the issues?

In my view, the issues are more important.

[Bigjake]

Again. And again. RP is not going to be running again. I hope you understand. Someone like him is bound to run, though.

To execute the kind of changes that are needed, the policritter in question needs to be a bit wacky to be that radical.

The question is only, what do you care about more, the wackiness or the issues?

In my view, the issues are more important.

And if the next guy is that inept, freedom's better points will suffer crushing defeat yet again.

[MicroBalrog]

And if the next guy is that inept, freedom's better points will suffer crushing defeat yet again.

See, I'd buy your point if the guy who ended up being nominated was a lesser conservative than Ron Paul - a Fred Thompson or a Huckabee. A third-rate fireman, so to speak. Except what people end up doing  - and this is not the first time - is nominating another arsonist.

Does it not strike you as bizarre that the party that had once wanted to abolish the DoE and repeal the graduated income tax had summarily rejected - time after time - every politician who wanted to do that? Does it not strike you as bizarre that people keep nominating the worst candidates?

People will not get their freedom back until they're ready to value freedom OVER things like conventionality or electability.

[Bigjake]

People will not get their freedom back until they're ready to value freedom OVER things like conventionality or electability.

That I could agree with.

Which means folks are likely just going to have to suffer a bit, before they wake up.

[Bogie]

My prediction: We're going to have some internal scandals, they're going to try to push a "tax the rich and powerful" thing to make up for it, and then we're going to see Obama get tested from abroad. At which point, we'll get mediabombed about how Hillary has things under control. That will remain the general situation until the next election, at which point she'll run against him, and win.
 

[Lee]

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Oh give me a break.  Twenty of the last 28 years we've has Republicans in office (with the one Dem being fairly fiscally conservative and a welfare reformer)...yet, Atlas shrugged is 'reborn' now when a liberal Democrat APPROACHES the office. Paul might have been good...but only considering that all the other absolutely sucked.

[MicroBalrog]

Those Republicans were'nt necessarily very Republican Republicans, if you know what I mean (excluding RR of course).

[Lee]

I agree 100%.  But BOTH parties landed us in this fine mess, and created the conditions for just about anything to happen now. There is almost enough rope for both....would be enough if the Republicans weren't so afraid of hemp and so unaware of everything else.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Even if he's only nominated and doesn't win. The benefits would be worth losing one election.

We're about to get schooled in what happens when we lose elections.  Pay attention, then come back and tell me how the benefits are worth it.

[MicroBalrog]

We're about to get schooled in what happens when we lose elections.  Pay attention, then come back and tell me how the benefits are worth it.

My scenario had already occured once in the past. There would be no Reagan without Goldwater. Goldwater's run was worth it.

Of course what happened this election is that people were so afraid of the Left they sabotaged themselves and nominated a mewling moderate to be their candidates, in hopes he'd be more electable. It turned out John McCain was quite as electable as Ron Paul - not at all, that is.

[slugcatcher]

Of course what happened this election is that people were so afraid of the Left they sabotaged themselves and nominated a mewling moderate to be their candidates, in hopes he'd be more electable. It turned out John McCain was quite as electable as Ron Paul - not at all, that is.

The media picked McCain. Not the people. If you watched the Republican debates and the media coverage during this time you would have seen who of the conservative pool got more airtime. It wasn't the more conservative candidates. It was the moderates. The media praised McCain during this time.

[Jocassee]

we'll get mediabombed

Good phrase.

[Bogie]

Remember too that we're going to see a bunch of judges, not just in the supreme court, who are going to be leaning toward the side of awarding megabucks for spilled coffee...
 

[roo_ster]

My scenario had already occured once in the past. There would be no Reagan without Goldwater. Goldwater's run was worth it.

Maybeso. 

But don't forget that after LBJ gave AuH2O a shellacking was the criminally corrupt Richard Nixon.  Then Gerald Ford, the bumbler.  Followed by Jimmy Carter the fool. 

So, given your analogy, we would (if we had run a kamikazi Paul Rep nomination) have had to wade through Obama, a criminally corrupt Republican, a dumb-as-a-box-of-hammers Republican, and then a monumentally foolish and mendacious Democrat to get to our next Reagan.

Pardon me if I am NOT encouraged by all that.

[Balog]

You draw the Goldwater---->Reagen comparison a lot Micro, but I don't see it. Carter----->Reagen, yeah.

[MicroBalrog]

You draw the Goldwater---->Reagen comparison a lot Micro, but I don't see it. Carter----->Reagen, yeah.

It's not an invention of my insane mind. I recommend two books, one by a liberal - “Before the Storm:Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus” and the other by a conservative - “A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative Movement.”

It wasn't just that Goldwater reanimated the conservatives by giving them a new ideology and new leadership – it's that his staff created a network of volunteer activists that was later built upon to promote Conservatism. In essence they've taken the short-term organization of the campaign and its supporting groups and turned them into a long-term relationship.

So, given your analogy, we would (if we had run a kamikazi Paul Rep nomination) have had to wade through Obama, a criminally corrupt Republican, a dumb-as-a-box-of-hammers Republican, and then a monumentally foolish and mendacious Democrat to get to our next Reagan.

For one, I never said it was a 100% Kamikaze process. Some guy with the charisma and face of, say, B. J. Lawson, if somehow propelled to this level of contest, could win.

But the problem is, what IS your alternative? The view many people seem to be taking is that big government is not going away, we must just find guys that will manage it 'conservatively'. This has given America four years of Bush, followed by eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush, and now followed by Obama. Quite possibly it'll be followed by some McCain clone.

What precisely is your alternative?

Do you have a strategy that doesn't take six decades at best?

[Balog]

Two books? Well, it MUST be true! 

The leftists have achieved all they have incrementally. We need to do it the same way. It took a lot of years to screw us over this bad, it's not realistic to expect to dramatically reverse like 130 years of stupidity. Sorry if that's not fast enough for you, but that's reality. I wish I could get rich in a couple weeks, and it is theoretically possible. But planning on a life time of saving and investing is far more realistic.

[MicroBalrog]

Two books? Well, it MUST be true!  rolleyes

Never claimed the two books make it true. However, as I pointed out, it's not just some dumbass idea of mine, it's a rather widely accepted interpretation.

It took a lot of years to screw us over this bad, it's not realistic to expect to dramatically reverse like 130 years of stupidity.

So your argument is that we're supposed to 'adjust' to living under a Welfare State for the rest of our natural lives?

[Balog]

Never claimed the two books make it true. However, as I pointed out, it's not just some dumbass idea of mine, it's a rather widely accepted interpretation.

I never said you were making it up, I said I didn't agree with it. Not entirely anyway.

So your argument is that we're supposed to 'adjust' to living under a Welfare State for the rest of our natural lives?

Adjust? We already live in one. I'm saying that the only realistic way to change is gradually.

Look, can we admit that things are going to be moving in either a pro- or anti- freedom direction no matter what? I'd prefer that things drift towards more freedom. Insisting on "all or nothing" fails. And when it fails, you lose freedom. Your methods are counterproductive. I'm approaching this from a pragmatic viewpoint. I wish we could just reverese every bad law ever passed all at once. But we can't, and bitching about it will do no good. We can play the game, or we can refuse to play and lose by default. Your choice.

[MicroBalrog]

Insisting on "all or nothing" fails.

I never insisted on all or nothing. But I do have a problem with gradualism because all too often it ends up enabling guys like McCain who have no intent altogether of working as a fireman, whose difference from guys like Obama is that they're a third-rate, rather than a first-rate, arsonist.

We need to say out loud that what we have right now is immoral and oppressive, because that's what it is. We need to get from point A to point B as soon as we can, it's a moral imperative, if not for our own sake, but for the sake of the people who are suffering from it from a more direct fashion than we are.

[doczinn]

Oh give me a break.  Twenty of the last 28 years we've has Republicans in office (with the one Dem being fairly fiscally conservative and a welfare reformer)...yet, Atlas shrugged is 'reborn' now when a liberal Democrat APPROACHES the office.

if you read closely, you'll notice that the piece is talking about what is happening now and in the recent past, under Republicans.

Look, can we admit that things are going to be moving in either a pro- or anti- freedom direction no matter what?

Sure, if you can admit that things under the current crop of politicians are only going to drift in an anti-freedom direction, at a fast or slow pace.

[Balog]

I never insisted on all or nothing. But I do have a problem with gradualism because all too often it ends up enabling guys like McCain who have no intent altogether of working as a fireman, whose difference from guys like Obama is that they're a third-rate, rather than a first-rate, arsonist.

We need to say out loud that what we have right now is immoral and oppressive, because that's what it is. We need to get from point A to point B as soon as we can, it's a moral imperative, if not for our own sake, but for the sake of the people who are suffering from it from a more direct fashion than we are.

Absolutely untrue. MacDaddy illustrates that the R's are idiots who are incapable of understanding gradualism. He is it's anti-thesis, not it's apogee.

Sure, if you can admit that things under the current crop of politicians are only going to drift in an anti-freedom direction, at a fast or slow pace.

And what we are discussing is how to stop that.