Shrug Off the Fountainhead
Why Ayn Rand was just plain wrong.
Conservatism is not about perpetuating tradition. It is not about returning things to the way they once were. It is simply about preserving the power of the fortunate.
To be conservative is to be an egotist. Ayn Rand said as much – she called it rational egoism.
Self-interest is easy enough to understand.
But what does rational mean? To be rational is to derive conclusions consistently based on available information.
And consistent?
As a card-carrying conservative Ayn Rand opposed social security. However, when she was incapacitated by lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking, she had no problem claiming social security benefits – behavior entirely inconsistent with her principles (though not with her egotism).
Rand was evidently aware of her own hypocrisy: she sent Evva Pryror, a social worker, to collect the benefits on her behalf.
Yes of course; conservatives will say the story is apocryphal; but even as anecdote it would remain a valid illustration of inconsistency.
The trouble with conservatism goes much deeper. “Rational self-interest” is not rational.
Recently on twitter, Rob Lowe (the actor) asked “Can someone explain the vitriol whenever Ayn Rand comes up? ” MacHead84, a respondent to an article on Lowe’s question had this to say: “The vitriol comes from liberals who hate the fact that Americans can rise up to the highest levels of success without the governments (sic) help.”
The key phrase is “without the government’s help“.
If conservatives seek to protect privilege then its reasonable to assume they’re already privileged or aspire to a level of privilege they believe themselves capable of achieving.
Consider two examples, both leaders of Britain’s Conservative Party: Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron. Both read at Oxford, both graduated. Both would, no doubt, claim they owed their academic achievement to their own hard work, discipline and perseverance. They would both be right.
And they would both be wrong. Their argument is inconsistent with two scientific principles: call one “the bell curve” and the other “the fundamental attribution error“.
The bell curve proves that human characteristics and abilities are evenly spread across the human population (regardless of age or generation). In other words, a predictable percentage of the population will always be tall; or of average height; or short. Similarly, a given percentage of people will be high academic achievers; or average academically; or academically poor.
Both height and academic performance are most strongly influenced by genetic inheritance and by the influence of the environment. The contribution of free will is low.
Thatcher and Cameron inherited their academic potential and received the right encouragement from their families, parents, and schools. Other than choosing their subjects and universities they were “preordained” to be academic achievers .
That’s not to say they were automatons. They made choices; they had agency; but the ceiling of their academic achievement was not theirs to choose.
The second scientific fact, the fundamental attribution error, shows that when people are asked why they succeed, they’re most likely to credit themselves or things within their control. When asked why they fail they’re most likely to blame forces beyond their control.
It gets more interesting.
When asked the same questions about others they reverse their answers. I succeed because I worked hard. You succeed because of family connections/your money/etc. I fail because there wasn’t enough time/I was forced to concentrate on other things; you fail because you didn’t prepare well enough.
The basic predicate of conservatism – that effort is the sole cause of success – is inconsistent with two basic, widely accepted facts about human nature.
Rational self-interest is not rational. It is inconsistent with available information.
Ayn Rand was many things: Russian, American, interesting, controversial, a bestselling author and a friend of Alan Greenspan. But when it comes to the core of her philosophy, she was just plain ignorant.
