Tuesday, November 17, 2009

National Review's Most Recent Take on Rand

Peter Wehner over at nationalreview.com has written a brief blog post explaining why Rand's philosophy is not compatible with conservatism. Wehner's post is, to tell the truth, not that good—more rhetorical than substantive. He contrasts Objectivism with "social" conservatism, emphazing Rand's apparent indifference to "family values," her lack of "transcendence," and her "incongruity of tone." While Wehner is well within his rights to emphasize the differences between Rand and conservatism, he makes a poor case for his position, as he fails to the point out the most important convergences between the two conflicting visions of the human condition. The most important differences between Objectivism and conservatism involve contrasting views of human nature and cognition.

Conflicting visions of human nature constitute the most important difference between conservatism and Objectivism. It is odd that Wehner never even mentions this issue. As I have pointed out numerous times on this blog, Rand held that there are no innate tendencies of character, that man is a "being of self-made soul," and a man's character is simply the manifestation of his premises, particularly his philosophical premises. For centuries the conservative view was embalmed in the myths and exaggerations of traditional religion; but today it receives its best expression from science. As David Brooks put it:

Over the past 30 years or so [the] belief in natural goodness [of man] has been discarded. It began to lose favor because of the failure of just about every social program that was inspired by it, from the communes to progressive education on up. But the big blow came at the hands of science.

From the content of our genes, the nature of our neurons and the lessons of evolutionary biology, it has become clear that nature is filled with competition and conflicts of interest. Humanity did not come before status contests. Status contests came before humanity, and are embedded deep in human relations. People in hunter-gatherer societies were deadly warriors, not sexually liberated pacifists. As Steven Pinker has put it, Hobbes was more right than Rousseau.

Moreover, human beings are not as pliable as the social engineers [or Ayn Rand] imagined. Human beings operate according to preset epigenetic rules, which dispose people to act in certain ways. We strive for dominance and undermine radical egalitarian dreams. We’re tribal and divide the world into in-groups and out-groups.

This darker if more realistic view of human nature has led to a rediscovery of different moral codes and different political assumptions. Most people today share what Thomas Sowell calls the Constrained Vision, what Pinker calls the Tragic Vision and what E. O. Wilson calls Existential Conservatism. This is based on the idea that there is a universal human nature; that it has nasty, competitive elements; that we don’t understand much about it; and that the conventions and institutions that have evolved to keep us from slitting each other’s throats are valuable and are altered at great peril.

The other important area of convergence involves cognition, or how human beings acquire knowledge. Conservatives distrust any conclusions based on broad, extremely abstract, "metaphysical" principles. Social and political reality is too complex to be adequately conveyed by these abstract principles. To achieve wisdom about politics, society, and the human condition requires the development of a very wide and deep experiential database. In other words, there's no substitute for experience: a statesman who has spent 40 years in government will likely evince far better judgment about politics than an intellectual who gets his knowledge from newspapers and polemical works or a philosopher like Rand who tries to deduce political knowledge from the ethical and metaphysical principles of a philosophy. From the conservative point of view, Objectivism is a species of uncritical rationalism: for its proponents are too often guilty of trying to determine matters of fact by means of logical, moral or rhetorical constructions; and no complex fact is likely to be discovered by such exercises in verbalism.

10 comments:

Mark Plus said...

I've noticed this sort of uncritical rationalism coming from "Austrian economists," who seem invested in dooming the American economy to a hyperinflationary collapse for not following their policies, despite the economy's resiliency since the Great Depression. You could view Atlas Shrugged as Austrianist disaster porn from the 1950's, for example.

Apparently the ruling elite in this country doesn't find Austrianist scholasticism useful. Would a financier who had made a lot of money in our current system and has spent decades in elite financial or central banking circles display better judgment about how the economy works than an impecunious fellow who thinks he understands the economy from reading self-referential Austrianist libertarian literature?

gregnyquist said...

Mark: "I've noticed this sort of uncritical rationalism coming from "Austrian economists..."

Yes, there is a problem with rationalism among those Austrians who follow Mises and Rothbard. Miseian "a priorism" is extremely rationalistic; and it became more so under Rothbard and his followers. There is a variant of Austrianism that is not rationalistic in the disparaging sense of the term. Hayek was a great critic of this form of rationalism, as was Roepke.

"Would a financier who had made a lot of money in our current system and has spent decades in elite financial or central banking circles display better judgment about how the economy works than an impecunious fellow who thinks he understands the economy from reading self-referential Austrianist libertarian literature?"

The trouble is that a lot of financier's are also influenced by some of the uncritical rationalist (and reductivist) theories coming out of econometrics. Financeers (particularly those in financial trouble) also have a vested interest in getting government assistance, so they tend be more accepting of economic theories that would favor bailouts and the like. But it is true that businessmen often understand the economy better than economists, even Austrian economists.

Damien said...

Greg,

I agree, Ayn Rand despite what ever she may have said, or even thought, never really was a true realist.

Xtra Laj said...

I'm not sure David Brooks is the best exponent of evolutionary conservatism, but I guess the devil is in the details.

Anonymous said...

"Peter Wehner over at nationalreview.com has written a brief blog post explaining why Rand's philosophy is not compatible with conservatism."

It's not compatible with living in the real world. Though, joking aside, it Rand's philosophy isn't compatible with anything. I mean, you do things her way, exactly how she told you or else. Though these days you do it Peikoff's way.

Anonymous said...

Now, I'd have thought Whittaker Chambers back in '57 had done enough damage to Ayn Rand (have you ever read a finer book review?). I mean, that essay probably killed Objectivism, I mean, I understand that they went on to form the NBI but that essay surely played a bit part in ensuring that objectivism was little more than a cult. The national review has done it's bit on that score!

Anonymous said...

Progressive education


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education

Was not that the brainchild of the conservatives to?

Xtra Laj said...

Not sure if this takedown in GQ has received any mention here.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead

gregnyquist said...

Xtra Laj: "Not sure if this takedown in GQ has received any mention here."

No, it has been mentioned here. It's not the sort of thing I particularly care for. It strikes me as rather tasteless, vulgar, juvenile. Of course, Rand offers a rather wide target, so even as sophmoric attack as this is bound to get a few palpable hits in.

Xtra Laj said...

No, it has been mentioned here. It's not the sort of thing I particularly care for. It strikes me as rather tasteless, vulgar, juvenile. Of course, Rand offers a rather wide target, so even as sophmoric attack as this is bound to get a few palpable hits in.

Agreed. I also get the sense that it is deliberately so. But the medium is a fairly prominent one which was why I raised it.