What "Atlas Shrugged" Can Teach the Non-Conservative

As a long-time political junkie, I have been trying to pay attention to the "leading indicators" on both the political and economic fronts. Trying to see where both Washington and Wall Street is going has been an interesting pursuit--partially because I want to test some theories about the behaviors of our leaders, and partly because I want to understand where the US is going, and somehow get there first.

With that in mind, most of my articles are really a means for thinking out what is happening, and how that translates into the world we will see 6, 12, and 24 months out. This whole effort is by no means scientific, and does not/cannot take into account shocks to the system like a "9/11" attack. However, it does help me to see why things like the Stress Tests and the auto bailouts would be a total failure, and why someone like Arlen Specter would switch polticial parties.

Earlier this year, when Fox News was reporting on Michelle Malkin and others professing to the people of the world to "go Galt", I was curious what that meant. It turns out it was a reference to the Ayn Rand novel "Atlas Shrugged", which has been an enduring story of individualism and a call to arms for the capitalists among us. Although the book was written over 50 years ago, its foundation for the indomitable spirit of free enterprise, survival of the fittest, and limited government intervention are especially relevant in today's realm of government stimulus packages, auto company bailouts, and "TARP" fundings.

I went to the library and checked the book out (on CD. I knew Rand would be enough of a challenge to get through without having to read it, and I had a bunch of lengthy car trips upcoming at that point). I was expecting yet another Conservative Screed in the form of Mark Levin or Bill O'Reilly. What I found was something quite different. In fact, this was one of the few books I have ever read that has knocked me back a few steps in my political and philosophical thinking. In some respects, I have been looking at the world a little differently over the past couple of days, as a result of this book.

For Conservatives, what's great about this book is its great case for limited government and individualism (in the form of low taxes, limited regulation, and a desire to take responsibility for ones own actions), in a story that plays out the trends of today's governmental policies (nationalization of banks, intervention in GM) to a logical conclusion. In Rand's socialist end state, we all live in a collective society, no one takes responsibility for ANYTHING anymore ("each according to his own need"), and government bureaucrats setting all policies, according to kick backs, favors, and personal interest. Rand refers to these people as "the looters". In the end, "the looters" are so desperate for the industrialists to save them from their inert economy and bankruptcy, that when John Galt makes himself known to the public, they capture him, and torture him to try to force him to save their system of government.

Unfortunately, Rand also makes the points that today's Conservatives wouldn't like so much--notably the scene in which the great military industrial complex is brought into question. The American Government, seemingly uninterested in making its people's economic lives better, is only interested in creating weapons so powerful as to discourage others from ever attacking America. The world renowned Physicist in the novel is aghast at the notion that it was HIS work that had led to the development of "Project X" which developed such a tool. He asks why America would develop such a tool. When he is told that it is to discourage other countries from ever attacking America, he asks Why would anyone attack America, when they are starving and [we] are starving?

So, after listening to the book, I walked away with a new found understanding for the Conservative concern about a march towards Socialism, and a desire to "go Galt". Unfortunately, though, Rand's novel is just that--a novel. It does not take into account the realities of today--from the Internet to terrorism to Global Warming--and should be only another influence on one's thinking.

But I do admit that the book definitely made me look at the news and political landscape in a whole new way. We'll have to see what changes in my thinking it will lead to, but I think I have a better understanding of the fear in the Conservative dogma around government intervention, whether it can ever be as helpful to society as it initially intends to be.