Will Atlas Shrug?

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, we are five days into the government partial shutdown.  The question I have is, “Will Atlas Shrug?”

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Are you referring to Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged?

Old Gadfly:  Yes.  In the novel, Atlas was the mythical giant (e.g., innovators, producers, entrepreneurs) who bore the weight of the world on his shoulders.  At one point in the novel, one of the characters asked what Atlas would do when the weight, that is government coerciveness, became too much for the giant to handle.  He answered his own question with “he shrugged.”  Let’s analyze the current political contest based on the theme and implications of Rand’s novel.  What was the central thesis?

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Rand described her central thesis as the role of man’s mind in existence.  Pondering the implications of this thesis, I can immediately appreciate the importance of this human capacity to create value, especially in relation to your concern about the growing population of Copernican drones and the dangers of modern grand inquisitors introduced in your conversation, Dry Parched Lips.

IM:  Rand’s novel also emphasized the failures of government coercion, which is the crux of the current gridlock between two political parties.  While willing to fund the rest of the government, one party wants to delay the Obamacare individual mandate for a year.  The other party refuses to agree to a one-year delay of government coercion.  Thus, by not compromising on this one provision, Obama and the progressive caucus have allowed the government to be shutdown.  Eight hundred thousand federal employees have become human instruments in service to a master (to paraphrase Mill’s observation from our last conversation).  In a way, the millions of Americans now confronted with the individual mandate also are human instruments to justify Obama’s epoch achievement—universal healthcare for America, assuming the outcome is better than the system that preceded it. 

Old Gadfly:  Ironically, agreeing to a one-year delay does not deprive individual Americans the freedom to sign up for healthcare insurance through the exchanges.  Apparently, the masses are not allowed to think for themselves; they must be coerced by uncompromising, ideologically-driven political elite.

AM:  The hypocrisy in this refusal to compromise is that other mandates in the law have already been delayed or exempted, in violation of the law, by the President.  So, what we see happening in regard to the shutdown is that one man, with the backing of his political party, is dictating policy.  Dictators dictate; they do not lead.  Leaders promote cooperation and seek win-win solutions.  Unfortunately, the Copernican drones in the progressive media amplify Obama’s bully pulpit dictation by saying:

·         The law is settled . . . even though Obama dictates modifications for selected winners;

·         The law was approved by both houses of Congress . . . even though not a single Republican voted for it;

·         The Supreme Court even supported it . . . by a one-vote majority that advised the individual mandate was constitutional IF it is regarded a tax . . . yet, even after the Supreme Court ruling, the Obama administration refused to acknowledge the mandate is a tax;

·         Obama was reelected so this means he has a mandate to continue to dictate the terms of how and when the “settled” law will be implemented; yet, Obama was reelected (a) with 7.6 million fewer votes than he received in 2008 and (b) by suppressing the vote among Republicans and independents with aggressive negative ads.

·         Obama and his swarm of Copernican drones refuse to acknowledge that Obamacare (and stimulus spending that significantly increased the cost of government) led to a major political shift in the House of Representatives by 64 Republican seats in 2010, notably inspired by Tea Party concerns and voices; yet, there is no progressive media interest in covering the IRS’s major illegal involvement in suppressing the Tea Party voice until it became apparent after the 2012 elections.  I cannot help but wonder how today’s political landscape would look had Americans been exposed to alternative views and arguments between 2010 and 2012.

IM:  These are major arguments, AM.  More people would be aware of them if major news sources attempted balanced reporting and objective analysis.  But, as we know from our own attempts to see how ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other large metropolitan newspapers spin the issues, they are far from balanced or objective.  Did you notice ABC’s approach yesterday?  When I watched the segment (starts on minute 7:20), I saw Alinky’s Rule # 13 in full play—“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”[1] 

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to Ayn Rand.  Provide some context for Rand’s thinking.  Did she simply imagine some of the evolving conditions described in Atlas Shrugged?

IM:  No.  Her thinking reflected personal experiences.  Rand was born in Russia.  Her father was a successful pharmacist, who actually built, owned, and operated his own pharmacy business in St. Petersburg until the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 when Lenin-led Bolshevicks confiscated the business.  Rand was 12 at the time.  She came to America eight years later in 1925.  While pursuing her literary dreams in America, Rand also closely observed the totalitarian developments in the land of her birth and childhood, and in Germany and Italy.  She obviously had a clear understanding of how these developments could and did take place.  In Atlas Shrugged, she wrestles with many of these ideas.

Old Gadfly:  Tell me what you think “Atlas” symbolizes in the story.

IM:  I think the mythical character represents a set of individuals characterized by a strong sense of personal responsibility and desire to produce.  The weight of the world represents a range of pursuits and corresponding burdens these individuals choose to endure, such as motherhood, fatherhood, neighbor, various professionals serving others in public service (as true public servants to the people) or producing value and wealth in the private sector, and so forth. 

Old Gadfly:  You described people who willingly take risks and commit their own capital.  They build and produce.  They make the villages and form institutions that promote and protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  They serve as presbyters in educating and training successive generations in how to advance real progress through individual liberty, not the imaginary idealism advanced by progressives and their ideology of collective liberty.

AM:  The notion of Atlas shrugging indicates to me that some of those burdens may exceed Atlas’s capacity to endure.  So, he gives up, whether for a while if those burdens become fewer or forever if not.

Old Gadfly:  In the current political contest, who would you say is Atlas?

IM:  I can think of three major groups.  First, Atlas symbolizes those who want the freedom to be personally responsible and to produce.  I include in this group many of the 8 million who have lost their jobs since 2007, when progressives took control of both houses of Congress and kept control of an obstructionist, progressive Senate ever since.  Second, Atlas symbolizes many business owners that want to grow and to hire people to further create wealth but are stifled by the burdens of Obamacare.  Third, Atlas symbolizes good Americans who want to express their views openly without being hatefully called by pejorative labels as racist (perhaps these days the equivalent of the N-word?), homophobe (perhaps these days the equivalent of the F-word?), extremist, terrorist, jihadist, suicide bomber, and so forth.

AM:  We can even put a face on Atlas.  Senator Ted Cruz voiced Atlas’s concerns. 

IM:  John Boehner, as the symbolic leader of the majority of people who have legitimate concerns about Obamacare, symbolizes Atlas, even though he has been labeled a coward by Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

Old Gadfly:  No doubt, many Americans support Obamacare.  They typically highlight keeping children on parents’ policies, coverage for preexisting conditions, no caps on benefits, coverage for millions who were previously uninsured, and so forth.  These are certainly good outcomes. 

AM:  Yet, these same people reject facts and arguments that address unintended consequences.  There is no free lunch in Obamacare. The creators take credit for dubious outcomes, yet, stand to bear absolutely none of the costs stemming from the adverse impacts.  As we have already discussed in the last couple of conversations, the adverse impact of Obamacare may significantly exceed the proclaimed benefits.

Old Gadfly:  Meanwhile, the people watch and wait, hoping for a happy ending.  Will Atlas shrug?

---

[1] Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1972), p. 131.