The Permanent Militarization of America - Aaron B. O’Connell

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Permanent Militarization of America

By AARON B. O’CONNELL

The New York Times, November 4, 2012

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS

Annapolis, Md.

Related

• Romney’s Proposal for More Military Ships Draws Skepticism (October 21, 2012)

• Times Topic: Defense Budget

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhowerleft office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument.

In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause economic stagnation. He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and warmaking took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health.

The military-industrial complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953. Defense-related research has not produced an ossified garrison state; in fact, it has yielded a host of beneficial technologies, from the Internet to civilian nuclear power to GPS navigation. The United States has an enormous armaments industry, but it has not hampered employment and economic growth. In fact, Congress’s favorite argument against reducing defense spending is the job loss such cuts would entail.

Nor has the private sector infected foreign policy in the way that Eisenhower warned. Foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military solutions since World War II, but we are a long way from the Marines’ repeated occupations of Haiti, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century, when commercial interests influenced military action. Of all the criticisms of the 2003 Iraq war, the idea that it was done to somehow magically decrease the cost of oil is the least credible. Though it’s true that mercenaries and contractors have exploited the wars of the past decade, hard decisions about the use of military force are made today much as they were in Eisenhower’s day: by the president, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and then more or less rubber-stamped by Congress. Corporations do not get a vote, at least not yet.

But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.

Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its public image, but this is just one element of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are more vocal about “supporting our troops” than the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there are fewer veterans in Congress today than at any previous point since World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything else are just too high.

For proof of this phenomenon, one need look no further than the continuing furor over sequestration — the automatic cuts, evenly divided between Pentagon and nonsecurity spending, that will go into effect in January if a deal on the debt and deficits isn’t reached. As Bob Woodward’s latest book reveals, the Obama administration devised the measure last year to include across-the-board defense cuts because it believed that slashing defense was so unthinkable that it would make compromise inevitable.

But after a grand budget deal collapsed, in large part because of resistance from House Republicans, both parties reframed sequestration as an attack on the troops (even though it has provisions that would protect military pay). The fact that sequestration would also devastate education, health and programs for children has not had the same impact.

Eisenhower understood the trade-offs between guns and butter. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed,” he warned in 1953, early in his presidency. “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”

He also knew that Congress was a big part of the problem. (In earlier drafts, he referred to the “military-industrial-Congressional” complex, but decided against alienating the legislature in his last days in office.) Today, there are just a select few in public life who are willing to question the military or its spending, and those who do — from the libertarian Ron Paul to the leftist Dennis J. Kucinich — are dismissed as unrealistic.

The fact that both President Obama and Mitt Romney are calling for increases to the defense budget (in the latter case, above what the military has asked for) is further proof that the military is the true “third rail” of American politics. In this strange universe where those without military credentials can’t endorse defense cuts, it took a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen, to make the obvious point that the nation’s ballooning debt was the biggest threat to national security.

Uncritical support of all things martial is quickly becoming the new normal for our youth. Hardly any of my students at the Naval Academy remember a time when their nation wasn’t at war. Almost all think it ordinary to hear of drone strikes in Yemen or Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. The recent revelation of counterterrorism bases in Africa elicits no surprise in them, nor do the military ceremonies that are now regular features at sporting events. That which is left unexamined eventually becomes invisible, and as a result, few Americans today are giving sufficient consideration to the full range of violent activities the government undertakes in their names.

Were Eisenhower alive, he’d be aghast at our debt, deficits and still expanding military-industrial complex. And he would certainly be critical of the “insidious penetration of our minds” by video game companies and television networks, the news media and the partisan pundits. With so little knowledge of what Eisenhower called the “lingering sadness of war” and the “certain agony of the battlefield,” they have done as much as anyone to turn the hard work of national security into the crass business of politics and entertainment.

Aaron B. O’Connell, an assistant professor of history at the United States Naval Academy and a Marine reserve officer, is the author of “Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 5, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: The Permanent Militarization of America.

Fundo Soberano do Brasil: nao e' fundo, nem soberano e sequer do Brasil

Curioso essa troço: não é bem um fundo, pois o governo não dispõe de excedentes orçamentários, ou fiscais, e sequer de transações correntes; se houve endividamento adicional, inclusive externo, ele não é bem soberano, mas dependente de endividamento adicional; tampouco é do Brasil, pois pertence unicamente ao governo, que o administra sem qualquer controle público, menos ainda do Parlamento, totalmente alheio ao assunto. Seu valor patrimonial já diminuiu, inclusive, bastante, dado que esse governo colocou todos os recursos em ações da Petrobras, que tiveram seu valor reduzido, justamente pelo intervencionismo canhestro, caolho, equivocado do governo.
Deveria ser um escândalo, mas não é: nem imprensa, nem parlamento, nem autoridades de controle de gastos públicos monitoram seu funcionamento. Um dia o governo será denunciado por malversação de recursos públicos. Vai demorar, mas esse dia chega.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

O Fundo Soberano e a capitalização do BNDES

Editorial O Estado de S.Paulo, 4/11/2012  

Criado em 2008, o Fundo Soberano do Brasil (FSB) administra recursos do governo destinados a aplicações de interesse estratégico no Brasil e no exterior. Inspirou-se no modelo de instituições congêneres, como o da Noruega, Arábia Saudita, China, Hong Kong, Abu Dabi, Kuwait, Cingapura e Rússia, alguns com patrimônio superior a US$ 600 bilhões.

Mas, ao contrário dos demais - que se capitalizaram com recursos extraordinários, como da exploração de petróleo ou de vultosos saldos comerciais -, o FSB nasceu com apenas R$ 14 bilhões provenientes da venda de títulos públicos, mediante novo endividamento, portanto, não do superávit primário, como se previa originalmente. Era - e é - um dos menores entre os fundos do mesmo tipo acompanhados pela associação Sovereign Wealth Fund. O FSB tinha, em 2011, R$ 15,5 bilhões aplicados em ações da Petrobrás e do Banco do Brasil (R$ 3,2 bilhões menos do que em 2010, quando esses papéis valiam R$ 18,7 bilhões em Bolsa).

O objetivo de um fundo como o norueguês Government Pension Fund foi de criar recursos para financiar os cidadãos mais velhos, no futuro, quando já não houvesse a riqueza do petróleo. No Brasil, chegou-se a imaginar que os futuros recursos do pré-sal pudessem se destinar, entre outras coisas, a criar um fundo semelhante, para capitalizar os regimes de aposentadoria.

Mas, mesmo antes de o FSB se tornar um grande fundo, o Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES) pretende que parte dos ativos seja empregada na capitalização do banco, para permitir aumento dos empréstimos, segundo reportagem de Irany Teresa e Vinícius Nader, no Estado.

O presidente do BNDES, Luciano Coutinho, afirmou, na semana passada, que o banco está em "situação confortável" no tocante à capitalização. Nos últimos anos, o BNDES já recebeu R$ 270 bilhões em empréstimos do Tesouro e outros R$ 15 bilhões estão previstos. A vantagem de obter recursos do FSB é que eles entrariam como capital para o banco, ampliando os limites máximos que a instituição poderá conceder a um só cliente. Seria uma forma de obter recursos públicos sem pressionar o Tesouro, em apuros para não fugir muito da meta de superávit primário.

Todavia, o melhor mesmo seria capitalizar o BNDES com os lucros obtidos pelo banco, mas estes são transferidos ao Tesouro Nacional sob a forma de dividendos. No primeiro semestre, por exemplo, o BNDES pagou R$ 4,11 bilhões ao Tesouro e, em outubro, antecipou R$ 1,2 bilhão relativo aos lucros futuros.

Cooperacao entre ditaduras nos anos 1970: Brasil-Argentina (OESP)

DIREITOS HUMANOS

ONU registrou ação do País contra refugiados

O Estado de S.Paulo, 4 de novembro de 2012

Em cinco anos, o regime militar expulsou, com ajuda do Itamaraty, mais de mil argentinos, uruguaios e chilenos

No auge da repressão no Cone Sul, o Itamaraty e militares brasileiros devolveram opositores buscados pelos regimes nos países vizinhos, rejeitaram dezenas de pedidos da ONU para dar asilo a famílias ameaçadas e ainda forçaram a entidade a enviar esses refugiados para outros países.

Em cinco anos, o regime brasileiro expulsou mais de mil argentinos, uruguaios e chilenos, sempre com cooperação da diplomacia nacional. As informações fazem parte de centenas de telegramas, relatórios e cartas que estão guardadas nos arquivos da ONU em Genebra e que o Estado consultou com exclusividade. Elas constituem uma evidência de que a Operação Condor atuava, numa ação conjunta dos governos, contra os grupos de esquerda.

No total, 3.300 latino-americanos chegaram ao Brasil entre 1977 e 1982 em busca de asilo político, fugindo da perseguição em seus países. Mas o status de refugiado seria dado a apenas 1.380 e todos, sem exceção, seriam transferidos pela ONU a locais "seguros" a pedido do governo brasileiro. Quase 90% eram argentinos ou uruguaios.

Em vários telegramas trocados entre seus escritórios no Rio, em Buenos Aires e na sede, em Genebra, o Alto Comissariado da ONU para Refugiados (Acnur) alerta para a recusa do Itamaraty e do governo brasileiro em aceitar que os opositores permanecessem no País. "O governo continua a recusar dar asilo ou qualquer outro visto de residência permanente a nossos refugiados no Brasil", queixava-se em 25 de junho de 1979 Rolf Jenny, vice- representante regional do Acnur em Buenos Aires.

Pelo direito internacional, devolver a ditaduras pessoas perseguidas é considerado crime contra a humanidade. "O Brasil não aplica na prática a lei de asilo nacional para a esquerda ou não europeus", informava a ONU. Segundo o telegrama de 25 de junho, Jenny confirmava que a entidade operava em "posição extraoficial" no País, por exigência do próprio regime militar brasileiro e num acordo com o Itamaraty. Além do sigilo em suas atividades, outra condição imposta pelo regime era que a ONU "fizesse todo o possível" para dar destino aos refugiados - retirá-los do Brasil.

Em troca, o governo garantiria seis meses para esses refugiados permanecerem na condição de "pessoas em trânsito". Mais do que isso, os documentos revelam que o Itamaraty alertava que não haveria garantias de segurança. Para justificar sua recusa, o governo explicava à ONU que o Brasil "não era mais um país de imigração e que uma integração de refugiados era difícil". O argumento se repete em vários comunicados internos e reuniões entre diplomatas brasileiros e missões da ONU que por anos tentaram convencer o Brasil a mudar de posição.

Invasão. Já em 1984, num encontro entre a ONU e o então diretor do Departamento de Organismos Internacionais do Itamaraty, Marcos Azambuja, o diplomata voltaria a explicar que, diante da "circunstância econômica do País, o aumento do desemprego e o alto número de pessoas já ilegais no Brasil", o governo não considera adequado permitir estadia definitiva de refugiados diante de uma possível invasão".

A ONU não comprou o argumento -nem em 1984 nem na década de 1970. Para fazer desmoronar a explicação dada pelo Itamaraty, a entidade destacava como os portugueses que fugiam de Angola no processo de descolonização eram aceitos como imigrantes no País. "Deve ser notado, entretanto, que nos últimos anos dezenas de milhares de portugueses chegaram e é difícil admitir que não haja a possibilidade para outras poucas centenas de refugiados", alertaria a entidade em um telegrama de 1978.

Se nas salas do Itamaraty os diplomatas tentavam apresentar suas posições, documentos da entidade revelam que, nos bastidores, o Brasil ajudou de forma ativa na perseguição de refugiados de países vizinhos até o fim da década de 1970 e chegou a fechar acordos para ajudar militares argentinos a perseguir opositores ao regime de Buenos Aires que tivessem cruzado a fronteira para o Brasil.

Num telegrama de dia 28 de março de 1979, a ONU conta como dois refugiados argentinos alertaram que haviam sido perseguidos no Brasil ao tentar pedir asilo. Um deles havia reconhecido um dos agentes da inteligência argentina que os seguia. O representante do regime de Buenos Aires era o mesmo que esse militante havia encontrado meses antes numa prisão argentina.

"É óbvio que nossa colônia de refugiados em trânsito no Brasil está mais do que preocupada sobre os eventos", indicou a ONU. No mesmo telegrama, o Acnur relata como foi buscar de forma emergencial a ajuda da embaixada da Holanda no Brasil para aceitar dois argentinos, Horácio de la Paz e Laura de Carli, como refugiados em Amsterdã. Mas o depoimento desses argentinos ia além. Segundo a ONU, eles "foram informados de vários argentinos que foram sequestrados no Brasil e devolvidos a seu país de origem".

Colaboração. Há outro relato de um refugiado argentino colhido pela ONU, mais um sinal da colaboração oferecida pelo Brasil aos militares argentinos. Jaime Ori, membro do conselho superior do Movimento Peronista Montonero, relataria que foi informado na prisão, ainda em seu país, sobre a "colaboração direta das autoridades brasileiras no sequestro de argentinos refugiados em território brasileiro". "Pude ver pastas com documentos e fotos facilitadas por autoridades militares brasileiras aos militares do 2.º Corpo do Exército, em Rosario", contou Ori à ONU.

Solidão virtuosa - Marcelo de Paiva Abreu

Solidão virtuosa

Marcelo de Paiva Abreu*

O Estado de São Paulo, segunda-feira, 29.10.2012

Difícil encontrar alguém que não tenha sido surpreendido pelas recentes decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Surpresa para os que estavam seguros de sua impunidade ou da impunidade de seus amigos. E, de outro lado, para os saudosos do STF da Terceira República, que terão tido orgulho do desempenho recente da Suprema Corte. Especialmente tendo em conta que as decisões alcançadas desmentiram a ideia de que ministros indicados por governos petistas tenderiam a demonstrar leniência com os réus envolvidos no "mensalão".

Houve fenômeno simétrico do que se registra nos EUA. Lá, indicações de juízes conservadores para a Corte Suprema por presidentes republicanos têm sido marcadas, em diversos casos, pelo abrandamento das posturas conservadoras dos indicados. Aqui, o que se viu é que diversos ministros indicados pelos presidentes Lula e Dilma demonstraram notável independência quando se tratou de julgar políticos do PT. Nunca a inamovibilidade dos magistrados pareceu tão essencial à defesa da democracia.

A pergunta que se coloca é se poderíamos esperar surpresa similar da parte dos demais Poderes da República. Por mais que se deseje que a postura de independência do STF influencie diretamente o Legislativo e o Executivo e, ao tornar mais arriscado o desafio às leis, dissuada práticas corruptas, são em princípio modestas as esperanças de que o salto qualitativo do STF seja imitado. Entretanto, o julgamento poderá afetar a coesão dos atuais partidos.

Tomando como marco de referência as experiências internacionais, em particular a britânica, fica claro que o começo do fim da corrupção sistemática - quando "a política corrompia a economia" pela via parlamentar - tem que ver com desenvolvimentos políticos que resultaram em ampliação de colégios eleitorais. A partir da década de 1830, o progressivo avanço das organizações sindicais e de partidos políticos que representavam os trabalhadores resultou em pressões que redundaram na neutralização da corrupção no âmago do sistema político, no quadro de um processo de amplas reformas com grande repercussão econômica.

A tragédia do PT, e em alguma medida do Brasil, é que exatamente as forças políticas que poderiam exercer papel preponderante para debelar a corrupção sistemática se envolveram em práticas corruptas que faziam parte da tradição brasileira.

Que impacto permanente terão as condenações da Ação Penal 470 sobre os partidos políticos? Constatado o "mensalão" em 2005, ao PT colocava-se clara opção. De um lado, autocrítica, expurgo dos corruptos e proposta de regeneração, em linha com a compungida reação inicial de Lula. De outro, a escolha que infelizmente prosperou: defesa intransigente das irregularidades detectadas, agasalhando-as com pretenso manto de legitimação partidária, na crença provável de que um STF com juízes majoritariamente indicados por governos petistas permitiria que tais crimes escapassem à justiça. Opção que agora se revela desastrada do ponto de vista estratégico e alimenta posições antidemocráticas de questionamento de decisões do STF.

É em parte melancólico, em parte revoltante, que esteja agora sendo esboçada a defesa de réus condenados pelo STF caracterizando-os como eventuais presos políticos. O ex-presidente Lula, em meio ao engajamento nas campanhas municipais, embora ainda não tenha endossado a tentativa de resgate de José Dirceu da condição de preso comum, tem demonstrado muita relutância em tomar distância em relação ao "mar de lama" partidário.

Será que uma vitória petista nas eleições municipais paulistanas poderá suprir argamassa suficiente para remendar a integridade partidária comprometida pelo "mensalão" condenado? Seria requerida de setores "autênticos" monumental capitulação à Realpolitik ancorada no mais rasteiro fisiologismo: "Afinal, é assim que se faz política no Brasil". E, para piorar as coisas, os "autênticos" têm ideias sobre a economia ainda mais arrevesadas do que os cultores do realismo fisiológico. A manutenção da unidade partidária do PT a qualquer custo poderá gerar uma aglomeração partidária semelhante ao PMDB, apenas com traços sindicalistas.

A menos de dois anos das próximas eleições presidenciais, não são animadores os prognósticos quanto à eleição de presidente que tenha compromisso com o controle da corrupção sistemática, idealmente como parte de estratégia que faça sentido do ponto de vista político e econômico.

O PT, ou suas facções organizadas em partido ou não, estará imerso nas dificuldades de enfrentar as tensões associadas à necessária autocrítica e combinar posições razoáveis quanto à corrupção e a um projeto estratégico que faça sentido. Com base na história recente, não há indícios de que o PSB, nova força política a ser levada em conta, tenha particular repugnância a arranjos fisiológicos, embora, em meio a um deserto de ideias, possa até ser capaz de formular projeto estratégico coerente. O PSDB, mirrado e inapetente, parece ainda dividido sobre o que de fato pretende.

Vamos ter de esperar mais tempo para comemorar que o Executivo ou o Legislativo seguiram o bom exemplo do Supremo.

*Doutor em Economia pela Universidade de Cambridge, é professor titular no Departamento de Economia da PUC-Rio.

Ayn Rand: a deusa do conservadorismo americano, 2

Globalist Perspective > Global PoliticsAyn Rand: The Siren of U.S. Conservatism (Part II)   By Brent Ranalli | Saturday, November 03, 2012   Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency, may not view himself as an acolyte of Ayn Rand. But his adulation of the wealthiest Americans as job creators and his contempt for those who earn too little to pay income taxes is certainly Randian in nature. Brent Ranalli examines Rand's influence on the economic and political thinking inside today's Republican Party.

n its purest form, Ayn Rand's philosophy is startlingly radical and of dubious moral value, and in any case makes apparently impossible demands on human nature. (Part I of this article is here.) An observer of Republican politics would have to conclude that the 2012 campaign season has been the season of Ayn Rand. Yet Rand has enjoyed a wide following. Who looks up to Rand, and what have they absorbed from her writing? How is Rand's influence felt in today's political culture? Rand's first hard-core disciples, her inner circle in what was called, with irony, the "Collective," were overwhelmingly Jews of Eastern European heritage, like herself, who hailed from Canada and the United States. They were secular Jews but unassimilated — people who didn't quite "fit in" in their communities. It would appear that in Rand's circle they found a place to belong, one that affirmed their undoubtedly great intelligence and permitted them a feeling of superiority. It was by all accounts an oppressive environment, and some have compared it to a mini-Stalinist society, complete with periodic purges. Members of the Collective strove for super-human individualism on the basis of cold rationality. They managed to produce a stifling conformity (since there is only one most rational answer to any question) in matters great and small — politics, dress, musical and artistic taste. Rand's influence on the wider world of American politics was first felt in the fledgling libertarian movement. Rand herself refused any association with the libertarians, and called them plagiarists and worse. But her writings helped galvanize the movement. Over the decades, as the libertarians have grown in stature and influence within the conservative "big tent," Randian ideas have become more mainstream. Individual Rand devotees have occasionally achieved positions of power and been able to shape policy. The most prominent of these was Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. As the libertarians have grown in stature and influence within the conservative "big tent," Randian ideas have become more mainstream. Greenspan was among the few early disciples who remained on good terms with Rand to the end of her life. As many commentators have noted, Greenspan's policy career provides a cautionary tale about putting Rand's ideas into practice. Greenspan wrote articles for Rand's publications espousing an ideology of extreme deregulation, looking forward to a world in which even building codes were abolished. Such requirements simply set low expectations, he thought. "If building codes set minimum standards of construction," Greenspan wrote in an essay he contributed to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, "a builder does not get very much competitive advantage by exceeding those standards and, accordingly, he tends to meet only the minimum." Why not take away all codes and let builders figure out for themselves how safe they need to make their buildings? When he was in a position of power inside the Beltway, Greenspan was able to conduct the experiment on a supreme scale: he presided over and lent support to a systematic dismantling of financial regulations designed to provide minimum protection to creditors. And he got his answer: when minimum standards are taken away, you get chaos, disaster. For deregulation does not mean eliminating standards, it means lowering them. When the minimum consumer protection expected of a builder or a banker is zero, he does not get very much competitive advantage by exceeding those standards. Accordingly, he tends to meet only the minimum — zero — and the consumer suffers the consequences. The conventional journalistic account of the Greenspan story ends in 2008 with his acknowledging to Congress that he recognized a "flaw" in the economic ideology that had guided him for decades. The Randian policy program of extreme deregulation was dead, it seemed — refuted by events and repudiated by its great architect. Sales of Rand's books have skyrocketed since the financial crisis. Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in 2011 than it did in 1957. But that is not how the story ends. Greenspan hasbacktracked from his statement on numerous occasions and reaffirmed his Randian convictions. And in the culture at large, proponents of extreme anti-regulatory ideology are still heard. Indeed, the Republican Party is leaning ever more heavily in the direction of Rand-influenced libertarianism. Reductions in regulation and taxation, always front and center in the Party's platform, are increasingly discussed not merely as purported means to economic prosperity but as moral imperatives. At the same time, the incoming president of the Cato Institute, the libertarians' flagship think tank, has declared an intention to adhere even more strictly to a Randian orthodoxy. Sales of Rand's books have skyrocketed since the financial crisis. According to the Ayn Rand Institute,Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in 2011 than it did when it was a best seller in 1957. While some see the economic crisis as proof of the bankruptcy of Randian policies, other see the government's struggle to response to the crisis as a replay of the slow societal meltdown depicted in Atlas Shrugged. They are convinced that we are on a path marked out prophetically by Rand. The Republicans' Randian moment An observer of Republican politics familiar with Rand's ideas would have to conclude that the 2012 campaign season has been the season of Ayn Rand. The selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate is the most obvious signpost. For political reasons, Ryan has tried to distance himself from Rand. But his affinity is well known. He has addressed crowds at organizations dedicated to promoting Rand's thinking. In a 2005 speech at the Atlas Society, then-Congressman Ryan described the profound influence Rand has had on his thinking. He has distributed Rand's writings to his staff. It is hardly necessary that the rest of us share Rand's paranoia. No one needs to be burdened with the idea that a health care bill is the moral equivalent of a pogrom. The Randian mood of the Romney campaign, though, consists of far more than Ryan's private views. It is pervasive, in discussions of taxes and regulations as moral issues. Perhaps most glaringly, it has been visible in Romney's comments about the 47% of American who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax. Ayn Rand taught that "ideas matter." Given that we are living in a peculiarly Randian Republican moment, a good way to analyze some of the current presidential campaign propaganda is to strip it down to its Randian essentials.   Exhibit 1: Preoccupation with the notion of "socialism" The current obsession of conservative pundits in the United States with the threat of "socialism" and "communism" is, on its surface, difficult to fathom. A recent political ad by Thomas Peterffy, the billionaire founder of a stock brokerage, has brought the message to viewers in major television markets, conjuring up images of the dark days of totalitarian communism in Peterffy's native Hungary. But the Soviet empire is long gone, and international Marxism is a dead letter. U.S. socialist political parties are even more marginal than the Greens. The Democratic Party is a centrist party by international standards. Why, in the 21st century, the hysteria about socialism? The answer lies, at least in part, in Rand's ideological paranoia about Soviet communism. Rand's younger sister Nora, who grew up in Russia, when finally reunited with Rand in New York in later years could not shake the fear that Rand's chauffeur and cook were U.S. government spies. Rand too — understandably, given the trauma of her adolescent years — had similarly magnified ideas of the menace of communism. In her black-and-white way, she equated Soviet tyranny and collectivist ideology with each other and with governmental activity of every sort. She saw the threat of international communism in every shadow, and resisted it with every fiber. Mitt Romney's derision of the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged. The immorality of nearly every aspect of government was a central theme of Rand's ideology. Rand's system of belief also gave us the notion that there is a perfectly transparent slippery slope from almost any sort of government coercion to Soviet-style despotism, and from almost any sort of government service to helpless dependency. Rand's paranoia was entirely understandable. It is hardly necessary that the rest of us share it. No one needs to be burdened with the idea that a health care bill is the moral equivalent of a pogrom.   Exhibit 2: Worshiping the wealthy Both left and right have been playing at class welfare this election cycle. The way the right is going about it has a peculiarly Randian imprimatur. Consider Mitt Romney's derision of the 47% of Americans who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax. (He ignored the fact this group pays other federal, state, and local taxes, many of which are regressive.) Romney accused these citizens — half of the nation — of lacking in personal responsibility, being dependent on government, and having an entitlement mentality. The speech could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged. Romney may not be a Rand follower himself, but he has clearly absorbed the talking points, whether consciously or merely from digesting the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. In Rand's literary imagination there were two kinds of people: the productive and the parasites. The productive, an elite minority, create and amass wealth. Meanwhile, the masses of parasites use their numbers and the power of government to extract that wealth. The less well-off are derided for their "victim mentality," while the wealthy elite are seen as the true victims. Rand lived in a simple, polarized world. She exhibited little curiosity about the lives of others, especially those she deemed "degenerate," whether individuals or groups (e.g., Native Americans, Arabs). This lack of curiosity and empathy was her own personal limitation and failing. Seizing on Ayn Rand's simple story of virtue and vice focuses energy on nonexistent threats rather than real, pressing, complex problems. That in the fantasy world of Atlas Shrugged, she should paint the masses with a broad brush as entitlement-minded and lacking in personal responsibility is an acceptable if dubious literary conceit. That a candidate for the U.S. presidency should spout these generalizations as if they applied to the real 47% in all its diversity — students and the elderly, educators and military personnel, the working poor and the middle class, lifelong Republicans and Democrats — is merely inane. As for the wealthy: In the current campaign, we see the Randian moral double standard applied on a class basis by some conservative commentators. The poor are chastised for accepting government assistance, but no stigma attaches to the wealthy who (like Romney at Bain Capital) accept government subsidies. The poor are scolded for not contributing enough in taxes, but Romney's relatively low tax rate (low by middle-class standards, because based on capital gains rather than earned income) is justified and defended.   Exhibit 3: Individualism The central positive message of Rand was individual responsibility and individual initiative. These themes are at the center of the Romney's campaign, and the guiding sentiment behind the adoption of the "We Built This" slogan. Despite the mileage Romney got out of the slogan, one of the great ironies of the campaign has been that there is really not all that much difference between his views and those originally articulated by President Obama. Romney talks about the supportive environment of family, church and community that enables the individual entrepreneur to thrive. Obama spoke of the inspiring teacher, the previous generations of entrepreneurs and workers on whose shoulders we stand. It is only through Randian glasses that Obama's views can be interpreted as "collectivist" and Romney's as radically individualist. That this debate has become a flashpoint in the campaign speaks to the pervasiveness of the Randian perspective. Capitalism, not democracy Ayn Rand is a peculiar figure in the history of American political consciousness. She stood for classic American values like hard work, individual responsibility and free enterprise. Asked what the best sort of political system was, Rand spoke unhesitatingly in favor of American capitalism, not American democracy. But as they passed through the prism of her tortured Russian mind into her romantic novels, they refracted into grotesque caricatures of themselves. Hers is a black-and-white world in which reason, wealth, virtue and free enterprise are pitted against unreason, squalor, mediocrity and collectivism, in an apocalyptic drama painted right across the body of the American public. Asked by an interviewer what she thought the best sort of political system was, Rand pronounced unhesitatingly in favor of the system in her adopted homeland — but her response was not "democracy," it was "capitalism." And she did not stop to correct herself, but elaborated on the notion of capitalism as a political system. The thought of democracy, or of a republic, did not appear to enter her mind. This episode epitomizes the depth of her naiveté about American traditions and values, of being caught up in her own system of political thought, forged by her experience under czarist autocracy and totalitarian communism. The Republican Party is facing an identity crisis. In recent decades, it has been the bastion of the Protestant white male — now, increasingly, a demographically endangered species. To survive, the party must adapt. Seizing on Ayn Rand's simple story of virtue and vice, heroes and villains, "socialism" and radical individualism, is a strategy that must seem particularly tempting. But it is both unwise and dangerous. It divides rather than unites. It focuses energy on nonexistent threats (socialism) rather than real, pressing, complex problems. It demands an adherence to a black-and-white worldview and discourages curiosity about the messiness of reality and the legitimate perspectives of other people. And it is pierced through with a dangerous and anti-democratic Nietzschean quality, a moral double-standard for the "right sort of people" — the wealthy and the self-styled virtuous, the heroes of the Randian drama in their head. Part I of this article is here.

Print this page Facebook Twitter Email updates Find more of The Globalist's coverage on these topics: Economy U.S. politics Also by Brent Ranalli: The Conservative Case for a Proactive Climate Policy The Terrorism Endgame: Lessons from the War on Anarchy (A Two-Part Series) Vulnerable China and the Trade Surplus (A Three-Part Series)

Join the discussion of this article on our Facebook page.

Follow The Globalist on Twitter.