bruce, Who cares what you THINK she MIGHT have done. Woman's been dead for 25 years.
On Jul 3, 3:19 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > Ayn Rand vs. Barack Obama on Iran Column by Erika Holzer - Jun 30, 2009 40 > ratings from readers > After Iran's recent clampdown on protesters, it took Barack Obama a full > week to denounce the regime's brutality. Ever wonder what Ayn Rand's > reaction to the same circumstances would have been? > > How would Ayn Rand’s response to the Iranian crisis have differed from > Obama’s? For many conservatives, libertarians, and even some Objectivists, > the answer is not self-evident. > > It depends on one’s definition of “self-interest.” > > An articulate critic of California’s spendthrift politicians recently > blasted away at a seemingly infinite list of special-interest groups > lobbying for government handouts — until he veered off track with a > wisecrack remark about “Randian self-interest” being in the same league with > the “self-interest” demands of teachers’ unions, civil service bureaucrats, > and the like. > > But anyone conversant with the philosophy of Objectivism and its > uncompromising defense of individual rights is acutely aware that when Rand > spoke of self-interest, it was with a crucial modifier in mind: > rationalself-interest. And to seek the > unearned, as the above-named special-interest groups do, is both patently > irrational and antithetical to the concept of individual rights. > > Bearing this in mind, what would be Ayn Rand’s take on the current Iranian > crisis? > > In “The Wreckage of the Consensus” Rand wrote about the “...need for a > foreign policy based on long-range principles, i.e., an ideology.” (Emphasis > Rand’s.) “But,” Rand stated emphatically, “a revision of our foreign policy, > from its basic premises on up, is what today’s anti-ideologists dare not > contemplate....” She went on to point out that “[a] proper solution would be > to elect statesmen — if such appeared — and with a radically different > foreign policy, a policy explicitly and proudly dedicated to the defense of > America’s rights and national self-interests…” (emphasis mine) (The > Objectivist, April 1967). > > In other words, unlike Obama, whose “foreign policy” is so fuzzy as to be > almost devoid of principles (not even short-range, let alone long-), Rand > would have advised a newly elected president to give high priority to a > clear-cut foreign policy as soon as he took office, thus eliminating the > possibility of being caught off-guard — as Obama was — five months into his > first term by the Iranian crisis. > > Nor is it hard to predict how Ayn Rand would have defined America’s > “self-interest” today in dealing with the likes of Ayatollah Khamenei or > Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if some talk show host were to interview her. All one > has to do is extrapolate from a revealing 1964 Playboy interview, > substituting Iran for Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Cuba. > > Playboy: What about force in foreign policy? You have said any free nation > had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.… > > Rand: Certainly. > > Playboy: ...And that any free nation today has the moral right — though not > the duty — to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” > (Emphasis mine.) Correct? > > Rand: Correct. A dictatorship — a country that violates the rights of its > own citizens — is an outlaw and can claim no rights. > > Playboy: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or > the Soviet Union? > > Rand: Not at present. I don’t think it’s necessary.... I would advocate a > blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of the Soviet Union; and you would > see both of those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American > life.... ” > > Rand also told her interviewer: “I do not believe that an individual should > cooperate with criminals, and for the same reason, I do not believe that > free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.” > > In other words, Ayn Rand would disagree with well-meaning conservatives and > Objectivists who think that we necessarily have a duty to intervene in Iran. > > Robert Tracinski, in his June 22, 2009 TIA Daily newsletter, writes that > “[w]e have the opportunity to encourage the collapse of the > longest-standing, most militant modern Islamic regime — a leading sponsor of > terrorism.” He also makes this understandable assumption: “The success of > the new Iranian revolution is, of course, vital to American’s interests.” > > But is it? > > Despite the heart-rending plight of literally millions of Iranians (many of > them young men and women whose “Death to Dictatorship” protests and brave > defiance of a monstrous regime have been met with bloody slaughter), from > Ayn Rand’s perspective whether our government should intervene — and if so, > how — rests on what is in America’s self-interest. > > That said, I think a strong case can be made that Ayn Rand would conclude it > is in America’s rational self-interest to intervene. > > On June 22, 2009, Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the late Shah of Iran — > who normally keeps a low profile — addressed a packed room of sobered > reporters at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. ten days after the > protest movement began. “If the popular uprising in Iran is crushed,” > Pahlavi warned, “this would not only threaten global stability but could > lead to nuclear war.... [F]anatical tyrants who know that the future is > against them may end their present course on their terms: a nuclear > holocaust.” > > Columnist Pat Buchanan recently noted that despite Obama’s efforts to > sweet-talk the ayatollahs into linking their nuclear program to energy > purposes, the regime has continued to engage in the process of enriching > uranium. > > Columnists Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are convinced that Iran is a “dire > threat to our national security.” That the president of the United State’s > “pathetic performance vis-à-vis Iran...cannot but send a message to all of > America’s enemies that his “transparent appeasement of Iran’s government and > it’s obvious lack of reciprocation” show him to be “a wimp” and sends a > clear signal to rogue nations that Obama is “clueless” about handling > foreign policy crises (emphasis mine). That “...[A]s North Korea prepares to > launch a missile on a Hail Mary pass aimed at Hawaii, Obama’s Democrats > slash 19 missile interceptors from the Defense Department budget.” > > To be a “wimp” under these circumstances is to be an appeaser, which is what > Barack Obama is. And in Ayn Rand’s view, rogue nations like Russia and Nazi > Germany (read Iran, North Korea, Putin’s Russia) “...like any bully, feed on > appeasement.” Such bully regimes, Rand stated, would “retreat placatingly at > the first sound of firm opposition” (emphasis mine) (Los Angeles Times, Nov. > 11, 1962). > > Obama has proved deaf to the arguments Ayn Rand would have made about how to > deal with the revolution in Iran. It took him one week of dithering with his > advisors before he saw fit, in the words of Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-large > of National Review Online, to give “a full-throated denunciation of the > regime’s clampdown and a statement of support for the protesters.” (And only > after Congress and the Europeans had beat him to it, Goldberg noted dryly). > “[I]f the clerical junta prevails,” Goldberg warned, “anyone who shakes > hands with Ahmadinejad will have a hard time washing the blood off his > own....” > > All things considered, I think that Ayn Rand would have quickly sized up the > Iranian crisis and weighed the threats to our country’s national security. > She’d have grasped that if the most powerful man in the world — the > president of the United States — did not confront the ayatollahs and > voice strong > unqualified support of the protesters, our country would risk nuclear > proliferation, not just in Iran, but in other rogue nations. That the > unthinkable — nuclear holocaust — was a real possibility. > > I think that, as Robert Tracinski correctly argued, “The success of the new > Iranian revolution is ... vital to America’s interests.” > > And I have no doubt that Ayn Rand would have written a scathing denunciation > of President Barack Obama for not recognizing and acting on his moral > dutyto — if not invade Iran — then at least to support the Iranian > revolution > with all the means at his disposal. > > Erika Holzer <http://www.theatlasphere.com/directory/profile.php?id=11740>’s > vigilante suspense thriller Eye for an > Eye<http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0595...>was > a Paramount feature film directed by John Schlesinger and starring > Kiefer Sutherland and Sally Field. For more about her other books, fiction > and non-fiction, and her most recent book, Ayn Rand: My Fiction-Writing > Teacher<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&tag=theatlas...>, > seewww.ErikaHolzer.com<http://www.erikaholzer.com/>. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
