Document:LP News 1973 November-December 17: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 144: Line 144:
This statement is incredible enough in itself; Senator Jackson is not only "not exactly a conservative"--he is one of the most rabidly pro-interventionists, both domestically and in his foreign policy views, in the Senate.  IN the first [[Royce Report]] ratings (see story, page 6) he came in 99th out of 100 Senators.  It would be hard to find a public figure who is less committed to the idea of individual freedom, and more committed to the idea of government controls and meddling.  But that's only half of the story. Rand continued "But today, George Meany, is the most reliable defender of capitalism, not in principle, but at least in fact [?!].  I would say that these two [Jackson and Meany] as public leaders are quite worthwhile."
This statement is incredible enough in itself; Senator Jackson is not only "not exactly a conservative"--he is one of the most rabidly pro-interventionists, both domestically and in his foreign policy views, in the Senate.  IN the first [[Royce Report]] ratings (see story, page 6) he came in 99th out of 100 Senators.  It would be hard to find a public figure who is less committed to the idea of individual freedom, and more committed to the idea of government controls and meddling.  But that's only half of the story. Rand continued "But today, George Meany, is the most reliable defender of capitalism, not in principle, but at least in fact [?!].  I would say that these two [Jackson and Meany] as public leaders are quite worthwhile."


If George Meany is a defender of capitalism, so was Karl Marx. George's idea of free enterprise is to have his friends in Congress (like Henry Jackson) hold the gun while labor rips off the businessman. The only rationalization for supporting either of these two men would be as a desperation measure--and the  
If George Meany is a defender of capitalism, so was Karl Marx. George's idea of free enterprise is to have his friends in Congress (like Henry Jackson) hold the gun while labor rips off the businessman. The only rationalization for supporting either of these two men would be as a desperation measure--and the alternative would have to be Adolf Hitler, to make Jackson and Meany look good by comparison.  Even then, support for a Henry Jackson would involve a serious compromise of principles.  The Libertarian Party does not compromise its principles.  And if this is what Rand is advocating (and it certainly appears that it is), then it is a striking reversal of her earlier position: "There can be no compromise on moral principles..." (Objectivist Newsletter, Vol, 1, No. 7).  "Since the Democrats are more consistently committed to the growth of government power, the Republicans are reduced to helpless me-tooing, to inept plagiarism of any program initiated by the Democrats, and to the disgraceful confession implied in their claim that they seek to achieve 'the same ends' as the Democrats, but by different means.  It is precisely these ends that ought to be rejected.  But, if neither party chooses to do it, the logic of the events created by their common basic principles will keep dragging them both further and further to the left... Whenever evil wins, it is only be default: the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."  (Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1).
 
Strange words coming from a woman whose political endorsements have included Richard Nixon and Wendell Willkie--and now, Henry Jackson.
 
"...and in the full modern context close to immoral."
 
HOw sad that [[Ayn Rand should use the word immoral to describe a movement she disapproves of--even though she cannot or will not cite any errors in its philosophy--simply because she does not have control over it.
 
[[Edward H Crane III]]
(as edited by DFN)


<hr />
<hr />

Navigation menu