MSNBC Guest: Liking Ayn Rand Means You Endorse Terrorism, or Something
Do you read Ayn Rand? Do you enjoy her novels? You do? Well then, you're clearly a proponent of - or at the very least sympathize with - domestic terrorism. That, at least, is the logic put forth by Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston on last night's "Ed Show," in what may be the most absurd, laughable attempt to demonize Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to date.
Johnston insisted that Ryan, by requiring his staff to read Ayn Rand novels - a claim itself divorced from reality - was essentially endorsing terrorism by "hold[ing] out as a model people who commit felonies like blowing up buildings," a reference to Howard Roark, the main character of Rand's novel "The Fountainhead" (video below the break, via former NBer Jeff Poor).
I don't think their plan will pass, but it's important to understand what they're proposing, and Congressman Ryan requires his staff to read Ayn Rand, whose fictional hero, Howard Roark, is a man who blew up a building because it wasn't built exactly to his specifications as the architect.
I mean, that's the kind of society we want, where our leaders say not only are we gonna take from the sick and poor, but we’re going to hold out as a model people who commit felonies like blowing up buildings? We really need to dig into understanding the kind of people who would put forth these ideas."
Of all the ridiculous attacks on Paul Ryan by MSNBC personalities and their guests over the past couple weeks, this one takes the cake.
As Ben Domenech points out, Ryan does not actually require his staff to read Ayn Rand, though many of them, like millions of other Americans, have read and enjoy her work. Nor has Ryan, to the best of my knowledge "held out" Roark as an example of anything. Admiring a political philosophy is, needless to say (or so one would think), far different from endorsing every action of a fictional character used as a literary device to expound on that philosophy.
Amazingly, this sort of logic makes its way onto the cable news airwaves via Pulitzer winners, yet the litany of lefties actually calling for political figures to be killed somehow escape mention. No mention of lefty radio host Mike Malloy claiming that Republicans, those "evil sons-of-bitches," in his phrasing, "need to be murdered." No mention of Montel Williams begging Michele Bachmann to cut her own throat.
Schultz himself has wished death on former Vice President Dick Cheney on multiple occasions, as the MRC's "Real Radio Hatemongers" report noted.
Yet all of this violent rhetoric somehow escaped mention in a discussion of supposed endorsements of political violence. Go figure.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yeah, Rand is a wussie.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:35am.
"whose fictional hero, Howard Roark, is a man who blew up a building"
Howard Roark is make believe, while our coooool president, Barry, has a BFF, Billy Ayers, who ACTUALLY blew up real buildings. Killed people, too! That's way cooler, yo?
Now if Bambi could just get the "cool phone" for his big old office so he could call his buddy, Bill!!
I'll take Howard Roarke anyday
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:39pm.
"was essentially endorsing terrorism by "hold[ing] out as a model people who commit felonies like blowing up buildings,"
Hm. David Cay Johnston sounds very much like his role model, Ellsworth M. Toohey.
What does he think if you read the Bible?
Submitted by richb313 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:47am.
In the Bible there are stories where entire cities are put to the sword. There is violence of every sort. I guess, by his standards, if you read the Bible you are a proponent of genocide.
You should know the answer, Rich.
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:54am.
He thinks you'd be a bitter, clinger if you did that.
I know
Submitted by richb313 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:59am.
I know, I was just saying.
Blowing up building?
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:09am.
Isn't that william ayers's favorite pasttime? And isn't he BO's buddy and ghost writer?
hb-
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 12:01pm.
you took the words right off my keyboard!
Just one more example of the old adage, if you want to know what the left is doing, listen to what they're accusing the right of doing.
What's the term - "red meat"
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 12:58pm.
What's the term - "red meat"
Ronald Reagan
If reading Rand equals domestic terrorism...
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 1:45pm.
Well, what would they think of ME? What I would do is (for starters) make it a REQUIREMENT that every declared Presidential candidate MUST read, cover to cover, Atlas Shrugged. At the end of which they must write a 10,000 word (minimum) essay on how they will apply the lessons learned from the book to governance.
The fun part is, say, if this were done next year, His Majesty The Shahinshah would read it, and be completely confused by page 50.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
On Rand
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 3:57pm.
You do realize that Ayn was an atheist and was pro-choice on the subject of abortion and would have been indifferent on the subject of gay' marriage. None of which would sit well with several members here and at least a couple of the editors.
On mandrake
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 6:53pm.
You do realize that I, like Ayn Rand, do not believe in God?
You do further realize that the only human being on earth who 100% agrees with me is that dude I see in the mirror every time I shave?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well then, give him a big
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:00pm.
Well then, give him a big kiss..and congratulate yourself on ignorning the point.
Unfortunately, I did in fact get your point precisely
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:14pm.
I understood the point exactly. We are to become Happy Little Socialists like you and become looters (just as you are a looter who demands that everyone else live for you) because some facets of Ayn Rand's philosophy do not exactly mirror those of conservatives in the United States.
(If by some chance that was not your point - fat chance - maybe you ought to become reacquainted with the English language and make an effort to become a better, clearer writer.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I don't think so..eh Where
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:22pm.
I don't think so..eh Where did I suggest that anyone become a looter eh? I hope I am clear because my English is not so good eh?
Sorry, Mandrake, you'll never live down
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:33pm.
the watermelon incident.
Hear the mandrake scream again
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:36pm.
Here's the thing, mandrake.
Just like you tried to do with Mr. Limbaugh on one of the most crap-tacular forum posts of all time, you are trying to convince the reader that Ayn Rand is the devil because she didn't support various aspects of social conservatism. What I find amazing is that you managed to get all of that from her writing. Now, it's no secret she was an atheist - which is why she's not a bigger name in this country, IMHO - but in 1982, gay marriage wasn't a big issue, among other things.
Why did I cite 1982? Because on the 6th of March that year, Rand won the death pool.
Which means you have either extreme, immeasuarable arrogance, or you have successfully held a seance with Rand and thus determined how she feels on issues not even Leftists cared about when she entered The Sleep of No Dreaming.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane my old friend
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 8:00am.
No i did not hold a seance..but I have read all Ayn Rand's works..including the Objectivist Newsletter. So I think I have a pretty good understanding of her philosophy..
BTW..on an unrelated topic I note there are very few blue signs in my riding. Looks like Harper has written us off. My neighbourhood has been Liberal forever, except for the one time we sent a conservative to parliament during the Mulroney years. So it looks like my vote won't mean much, but I will anyway.
Rand
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 1:30am.
I am looking right at my copies of Anthem, We The Living, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as I type. So you are speaking with a conservative who is not at all bothered by her religious views.
Harper may have written your riding off, but I don't think he has written off GTA. Not if what I have seen on CBC can be believed. I think Ignatieff's change of strategy mid-campaign is an indicator that he is in trouble, someway, somehow. From my distant reading of the tea leaves, I think Canada will get back what it tried to ditch back in March - a minority Conservative government.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Mandrake
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 4:57am.
You do realize that most conservatives have a libertarian bent. None that I know of want to force religion on anybody, and most, think abortion and gay marriage are a state's rights issue.
How exactly does this diminish Rand's message?
ETA: Unlike Unsane, I am a Christian, and find her atheism to be a non-issue. How does that square with you straw man?
Remember, remember, the Fifth of November
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 3:45pm.
"hold[ing] out as a model people who commit felonies like blowing up buildings"
You mean like the main character in V for Vendetta?
Humm, where was Mr. Johnston's concern about that terrorist character? Try as I might, I can't find a single statement from Mr. Johnston about that.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
all this talk about the "rich," its' handy to recall when
Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 6:43pm.
With all this talk about the "rich," its' handy to recall when this big shift actually took place - and no one should know better than David Kay Johnston. After all in June of 2005, Johnston's earth (sarc in full blown mode) shattering analysis in the NY Times, Richest are leaving even the rich behind, filled the liberals and our national MSM (right, that's the same as liberals) full of all that they would need to attack Bush and Republicans for a decade to come. In fact, Obama, Biden, and many others would run with the theme.
Only one problem - this big shift in the fortunes of the rich, and the earnings of the top 1%, occurred during the Clinton era - not so much in the Bush era. In fact, the pretty little graph that Johnston included with the article, Not since the 20's roared, is clear as a bell; Johnston's analysis at this time, ended with 2001.
Take a look at the chart. Note the income gains of the top 1% and the top 0.1% of income earners - the biggest rise, especially for the top 0.1% (the graph calls it both 0.1 and 0.01 - the 0.01 is a typo) is in the dot.com bubble years, from 1995 thru 2000. Then boom - the crash.
Under Clinton the income of the top 1% grew at a much faster rate then it did under Bush.
I asked David Kay about this a few years ago (2007), and in his response he was quite frustrated with the careless way in which the media misuses such data - in particular about how the media doesn't repeat those findings that he reports which they don't like. He then listed several of his pet peeves, including..
I've been saving it:
Is today the rainy day?
(;~> gary