4 ms·

I think the biggest draw for Ayn Rand and her works is that there are very few "role models" for fiscal conservatives in today's political environment. Most Rep

I think the biggest draw for Ayn Rand and her works is that there are very few "role models" for fiscal conservatives in today's political environment. Most Republicans are neo-conservative warhawks that only pay lip-service to fiscal conservatism. Very few of them represent the older, Eisenhower traditional-Republicanism, who feared the Military-Industrial complex and understood fiscal conservatism. Even the "tea party" conservatives are mostly anti-intellectual, anti-tax, social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives are usually intellectuals who have a wide range of social beliefs and do not fit in with that crowd. Ayn Rand's Objectivism aligns well with fiscal conservatives and capitalists in a way that is hard to find elsewhere. I have met a lot of people who are pro-capitalism fiscal conservatives and they seem to have fallen through the political cracks. I see very few politicians or public-figure role models who appeal to Capitalists.

digisign 12y ago
Agreed, in America the Goldwaters, Buckleys, and other intelligent conservatives died out in favor of the fox contingent. A shame really.
- api 12y ago
  One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage, and politics is (sadly) mostly about competing over unfair advantage. The goal of a political campaign is to exercise your power over someone else (e.g. theocrats, PC fanatics), slant the law in your favor (regulatory capture), or directly access the treasury. The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. When a recession hits, real fiscal conservatives lose big. Democrats know this and play to it explicitly. Republicans also know it, and are masters at politically weaponized Keynesianism. They espouse fiscally conservative rhetoric while being ardent Keynesians in practice, usually through military spending and financial bubble-blowing.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    > One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage... I disagree. Fiscal conservatism means that I get to keep more of my money, instead of having the government take it. That's certainly an advantage to me. But I think you meant "it's not an advantage of one person over another", which is true. And by extension, I think you meant "therefore it doesn't help one candidate get elected over another", which I think is false. Telling people that you're going to let them keep more of their money shouldn't be a very hard sell. (Now, true, most conservative candidates don't seem to be able to articulate such a message, but I think that's because most "conservative" candidates aren't fiscal conservatives at all.)
  - glenra 12y ago
    > The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. Krugman has managed to make the Keynesian premise completely unfalsifiable using a tall podium and a variety of rhetorical techniques. Krugman believes his own press, rarely reads opposing views and mischaracterizes opponents such that to read his column, you'd think everyone who disagrees with him must be a moron. According to Krugman: If the economy isn't doing well, it's because we need to pass a stimulus package. If the economy STILL isn't doing well, it's because we need a BIGGER stimulus package or ANOTHER stimulus package. (repeat this assertion until things get better, which they are likely to eventually even if it's despite rather than due to all this stimulus.) If the recovery is surprisingly slow, it's because we didn't listen to him when he said we need a bigger stimulus package. If the recovery is surprisingly fast, it's because we DID listen to him about the need for the ORIGINAL stimulus package. Thus there is no real-world outcome which he can't explain in terms of the need for government to spend more. (Constructing a similar argument for the need to spend less in all these circumstances is left as an exercise for the reader)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

digisign 12y ago

Agreed, in America the Goldwaters, Buckleys, and other intelligent conservatives died out in favor of the fox contingent. A shame really.

api 12y ago
One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage, and politics is (sadly) mostly about competing over unfair advantage. The goal of a political campaign is to exercise your power over someone else (e.g. theocrats, PC fanatics), slant the law in your favor (regulatory capture), or directly access the treasury. The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. When a recession hits, real fiscal conservatives lose big. Democrats know this and play to it explicitly. Republicans also know it, and are masters at politically weaponized Keynesianism. They espouse fiscally conservative rhetoric while being ardent Keynesians in practice, usually through military spending and financial bubble-blowing.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  > One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage... I disagree. Fiscal conservatism means that I get to keep more of my money, instead of having the government take it. That's certainly an advantage to me. But I think you meant "it's not an advantage of one person over another", which is true. And by extension, I think you meant "therefore it doesn't help one candidate get elected over another", which I think is false. Telling people that you're going to let them keep more of their money shouldn't be a very hard sell. (Now, true, most conservative candidates don't seem to be able to articulate such a message, but I think that's because most "conservative" candidates aren't fiscal conservatives at all.)
- glenra 12y ago
  > The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. Krugman has managed to make the Keynesian premise completely unfalsifiable using a tall podium and a variety of rhetorical techniques. Krugman believes his own press, rarely reads opposing views and mischaracterizes opponents such that to read his column, you'd think everyone who disagrees with him must be a moron. According to Krugman: If the economy isn't doing well, it's because we need to pass a stimulus package. If the economy STILL isn't doing well, it's because we need a BIGGER stimulus package or ANOTHER stimulus package. (repeat this assertion until things get better, which they are likely to eventually even if it's despite rather than due to all this stimulus.) If the recovery is surprisingly slow, it's because we didn't listen to him when he said we need a bigger stimulus package. If the recovery is surprisingly fast, it's because we DID listen to him about the need for the ORIGINAL stimulus package. Thus there is no real-world outcome which he can't explain in terms of the need for government to spend more. (Constructing a similar argument for the need to spend less in all these circumstances is left as an exercise for the reader)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]