Montana Headlines on Palin and Rand

Montana Headlines, one of the more thoughtful blogs, has not been posting for quite a while. I hope he’s just busy and that he gets back in the game. As Steve demonstrates below in post #1000, blogging is vewy, vewy important.

Headlines last two entries are off-kilter, coming as they do from a man of considerable depth. He offers praise to Sarah Palin, but is less impressed with Ayn Rand. There could not be a more stark juxtaposition – a deep and thoughtful woman whose philosophical meanderings might possibly have changed the world for the worse, and Ayn Rand.

First, Palin:

The question, rather, is whether Gov. Palin is the right person to spearhead the GOP’s comeback 4 to 8 years from now. We must confess that since we are so steeped in the conservative movement’s not inconsiderable intellectual heritage, our main question about Gov. Palin is whether she has the intellectual chops to make it happen. We unreservedly reject the condescending, haughty put-downs directed at her from her betters (after all, we heard the same sort of panicked attacks about Goldwater, Reagan, Thatcher, and Gingrich during their ascendencies, all of whom had intellectual chops far exceeding what they were then given credit for.)

But saying that the caricatures of elitist snobs (or of that even lower form of life, the elitist snob manqué) are grossly unfair is not quite the same thing as saying that Gov. Palin should be handed the Goldwater/Reagan/Thatcher/Gingrich mantle, post-haste.

In this vein, one of our favorite conservative writers, John O’Sullivan, has written a nice piece in which he comes to her defense:

Inevitably, Lloyd Bentsen’s famous put-down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate is resurrected, such as by Paul Waugh (in the London Evening Standard) and Marie Cocco (in the Washington Post): “Newsflash! Governor, You’re No Maggie Thatcher,” sneered Mr. Waugh. Added Ms. Coco, “now we know Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher — and no Dan Quayle either!”

Jolly, rib-tickling stuff. But, as it happens, I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common.

It’s a trick! Don’t fall for it. The comparison is apt, but not in the way Headlines imagines. Margaret Thatcher brought Reaganism to Great Britain, and the presumption on the right is, just as with Reagan, that she is indisputably a great leader. But she was not. She surely had an adequate mind and a strong sense of purpose, but she also led Britain down the road we are now on in the U.S. … collapse. Unregulated capitalism always brings about collapse – that she could not see this is her own blind spot. That Reagan could not see it was part of an overall intellectual deficit that Thatcher had spotted when she said of him:

Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears.

To bring Sarah Palin into this mix is both appropriate, in the Reagan sense, and inappropriate in the Thatcher sense. Any fool can plainly see that Palin is a second-rate intellect, perhaps third-rate. She ought to be an embarrassment to Republicans, but instead some of them are touting her for president. That’s comical.

Just one example of Palin’s qualifications: it’s part of a policy speech she gave on October 24, 2008:

Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

Fruit flies are used by scientists to help them understand, and maybe fix, human disorders like autism and other disabilities. Sarah, who wants to be president, doesn’t get this. I kid you not.

Concerning Rand, Headlines is a little more circumspect. There’s a rift between conservatives, libertarians and objectivists, though the overlap in their philosophies is probably over 90%. All three are immutably opposed to government intervention in society beyond a few basic functions, like military defense and courts. All see failure in systems all around them, and blame government. All are blind to the unworkability of unrestrained capitalism.

Here’s Headlines on Rand:

Traditional conservatism has a mixed relationship with Rand. On the one hand, her novels cut to the heart of socialism, collectivism, and government regulation in their various forms in a way that is readable and indeed gripping. A page-turner like Atlas Shrugged probably did more than the writings of a dozen prominent economists ever could, creating a healthy suspicion of “managed” economies and helping ordinary readers to understand the inextricable connection between the loss of economic liberty and the loss of all liberties.

Think of them as being similar to the recent, grittier movie adaptations of super-hero comic books such as the (quite impressive) Christian Bale Batman movies.

On the other hand, her hostility to traditional religion and her lack of any respect for tradition in general caused most thoughtful conservative thinkers, in the end, to reject her ideas as being just as flawed and potentially dangerous as were the communist and socialist ideologies she was mercilessly flaying in her writings.

That’s astute, except for the “page-turner” part. Rand was as hostile to religion as she was to non-smokers, and in fact was in total contempt of humanity. The cardboard characters she constructed in Atlas Shrugged were robots, purely analytical about even our frail emotions and romantic love. Her economic system was as devoid of color as her perverted love life. She constructed an Alice-in-Wonderland system of trickle-down benefits for the unworthy, provided by a few good men. It has as much bearing on how our system really works, how we really live and love, as Scientology.

Headlines seems to think the rift between conservatives and objectivists is merely about contempt for religion. He seems to be with her all the way on her off-the-wall economic system. I hope it is not so. I hope that Rand is soon relegated to the dust bin of failed philosophies, along with Mr. Marx.

And I hope he soon understands that Sarah Palin has not read AtlasShrugged, never will, and not much else either, and that she has far more in common with Ronald Reagan than Maggie Thatcher.