Quick Roundup 92

The Secular Right

Robert Tracinski's interesting article, "The Secular Right", appears in this morning's edition of RealClear Politics. He begins by challenging the conventional wisdom that the left is the political home for the rational -- and by citing an ongoing debate at National Review Online about the role of religion on the right.

If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told -- by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told -- again, by both sides -- that his natural home is with the religious right.

But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right -- but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God?

...

This is not the first time the right has had to search its soul on this issue--and it's high time they did so again, because now, more than ever, we need to discover what it would mean to have a secular right.

And after examining and handily disposing of that myth -- long held by the left and some on the right for different reasons -- Tracinski offers his alternative:

The lessons of history reveal the basic requirements set by man's nature for his survival, success, and happiness here on earth. That is the secular foundation for morality.

Today's academic philosophers -- steeped in the subjectivist dogmas of the left--have not been up to the job of grasping and explaining these lessons. But astute readers may recognize which philosopher I think was up to the job. My own defense of the secular right is based on the ideas of Ayn Rand, the novelist, philosopher, and famous defender of capitalism who originated a secular philosophy she called Objectivism. Ayn Rand's ideas are hardly a secret -- her novels still sell briskly, fifty years on--and the strangest part of the current debate about secularism and the right is that no one has yet seen fit to mention her.

The right needs to have a long, open, honest debate about the role of religion. We need it now more than ever because we are in the middle of a war with an enemy that is defined by his religious fervor and by his attempt to make his religion dominate the "public square," to borrow a catchphrase from the religious right. If we don't understand the real nature and value of Western, Enlightenment secularism, then we can't fully understand what is at stake in this clash of civilizations, and in the long run, we won't know how to win it.

It will be interesting to see what reaction this gets from the conservative movement: Even a deafening silence will count as a reaction, although it will perhaps bode worst for the state of the American public debate. On the bright side, it is already a coup on Tracinski's part just to have been able to discuss the issue of religion as a foundation for morality and politics so openly in such a broad forum.

One thing about the article may give some Objectivists pause: Tracinski casts himself part of the "secular right", which might seem to be an endorsement of conservatism or, worse, Libertarianism. But I think Tracinski makes it clear that his use of the term "secular right" refers to his support of secular, Enlightenment ideas. Furthermore, his explicit endoresement of the philosophy of Ayn Rand sets him apart from the Libertarian movement, which completely evades the necessity of an intellectual foundation for its stated goal of promoting "liberty". I would also point out that in the context of the demise of the left as a viable political alternative, the term "right" nearly stands as shorthand for "open to debate" anyway.

I think that the article is an excellent invitation to the brightest and best in the secular part of the political right to consider learning about and embracing a solid intellectual defense -- Ayn Rand's -- for their political values, and a long-overdue challenge from within its ranks to the dominance of the religious right over the only portion -- the left is dead -- of the body politic still open to intellectual debate.

Ayn Rand at Townhall.com

And through the HBL, I got wind of this article at the conservative site, Townhall.com on "Witchdoctors and Thugs", in which Alan Reynolds draws imperfectly upon Ayn Rand's somewhat famous duo of Attila and the Witch Doctor. For the curious, I excerpt from the origin of this phrase, the title essay in Ayn Rand's For the New Intellectual.

Thus the Attila and the Witch Doctor form an alliance and divide their respective domains. Attila rules the realm of men's physical existence -- the Witch Doctor rules the realm of men's consciousness. Attila herds men into armies -- the Witch Doctor sets the armies' goals. Attila conquers empires -- the Witch Doctor writes their laws. Attila loots and plunders -- the Witch Doctor exhorts the victims to surpass their selfish concern with material property. Attila slaughters -- the Witch Doctor proclaims to the survivors that scourges are a retribution for their sins. Attila rules by means of fear, by keeping men under a constant threat of destruction -- the Witch Doctor rules by means of guilt, by keeping men convinced of their innate depravity, impotence and insignificance. Attila turns men's life on earth into a living hell -- the Witch Doctor tells them that it could not be otherwise. [bold added] (pp. 19-20)

Two favorable mentions of Ayn Rand at widely-read political web sites within a week! It may not seem like much, but of such apparently small gains is progress measured on the intellectual front in the battle for freedom.

Ayn Rand in USA Today

Via Objectivism Online, I learned that in 2002, Ayn Rand featured prominently and positively in an article in USA Today, although the article incorrectly cites the Atlas Society (rather than the Ayn Rand Institute) as a go-to site for information on Ayn Rand's ideas.

What's Wrong with the Left

Andrew Dalton nails it.

Here we have real religion, medieval in both its scope and intensity, a religion whose adherents vow to dominate the world by unlimited force if necessary. This is a seriousness of religion that, in a medieval Christian context, likely would have caused the current Pope to be labeled a dangerous backslider and liberal. And what has been the Left's response to this threat?

Suddenly, this band of 7th Century savages has become the misunderstood and oppressed "Other" -- in need of "understanding" and appeasement in order to atone for the sins that we, the West, have allegedly committed. ("Understanding" in this context is a weasel-word for non-judgmental acceptance; that is, a blanking out of real cognition, and a surrender to politically correct dogma.) But the leftists want to eat their cake and have it, too: Muslims are merely venting their rage at their racist colonial oppressors; but the American religious conservatives (who are devoutly religious only by a contemporary European, not historical, standard) are both sincere and somehow the most dangerous thing in the world since Hitler's tanks rolled into Paris.

This is a perfect example of what I meant a moment ago when I said, "[T]he left is dead".

A Year Ago Today

Katrina struck New Orleans. Of all the recent commentary about this event, what led up to it, and its aftermath, I like Mike's the best. This comes from a review of the documentary Surviving Katrina, which he recently viewed.

All in all, the documentary shows that all three levels of government failed at the task of disaster prepardness, and relief. I was a little disappointed though, that the question "Should the government be in the business of disaster prepardness and relief?" was never asked. It is just assumed that such is the government's natural role. But Charity Hospital had lost power and for several days staff were hand ventilating some of the critical patients. When it became clear that the government-at any level- wasn't going to transfer them to another hospital, they appealed to CNN who did a report. Seeing the report a private air-lift ambulance company volunteered its services and quickly transported the patients to other hospitals. To me, the the utter incompetence of government compared to the efficiency of private enterprise was glaringly obvious. Yet it is the government we are told to depend on. It makes no sense. [bold added]

I have not seen that question asked anywhere but in Objectivist circles, and yet it it the very question that needs asking the most.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected references to the USA Today article, which is from 2002.