Liberalism's Objection to Objectivism

Why are the ideological positions of Ayn Rand’s objectivism anathema to those committed to progressive/liberal ideological positions?

Objectivism is based on these kinds of beliefs (taken from a definition by Ms. Rand):

• Each person’s purpose in life is to achieve his own happiness.
• Each person is to be respected to the extent that he is individually productive.
• “Reasoning” is the only acceptable means of thinking, drawing conclusions, and making decisions. (fn 1)

Rand’s fiction elaborates on these convictions and extends them to implications for the inferiority of those who don’t have the capacity or inclination to achieve sophisticated levels of reasoning and/or high individual productivity. These inferior individuals are not worthy of the efforts of people who are the paradigm for objectivism, even if we ignore the imperative for each person to be totally responsible for their own well-being. Note, however, that most Objectivists judge individual productivity relative to what the individual has the potential to produce. The open issue is how one defines “potential.”

If you read Rand’s essays, you will see an irony: She was not a very accomplished rhetorician nor was she particularly competent at developing soundly reasoned arguments. I find her fiction to be far more articulate, with clearer questioning of the challenges of implementing objectivism in the larger society.

Progressive ideological positions that parallel the primary positions in objectivism could be stated this way:

• One important purpose in life is to contribute constructively to the collective good of the society.
• Each person is to be respected. Higher degrees of respect are to be afforded to those with an admirable quality of character: honesty, respect for others, compassion, humility, fairness, ….
• People should balance head and heart in understanding sociopolitical issues and other people. They should make decisions in the context of verified facts and logical deductions, but also in the context of compassion for others and categorical fairness. The latter are seen as fundamental— not needing logical arguments to justify their importance.

With the (passionate) progressive value of improving the collective good of people in a society, it’s easy to see why an ideology that prioritizes individual happiness over societal well-being would not be well received. There is a progressive corollary that improving the collective good is of ultimate benefit to us all, but that is not used as a rationale for valuing the improvement of the collective good.

The objectivist position that individual productivity is the measure of a man is insufficiently nuanced, if not outright wrong, to suit progressive thinking. For Progressives, many factors determine one’s productivity, and an individual’s contribution to collective productivity might need to be measured differently from the way that productivity would be measured for individually-produced results by a person who cares about nothing but his own happiness. Here is where the question of individual “potential” has a different interpretation than the objectivist/libertarian interpretation of the term.

Progressives make allowances for those who have had the cards stacked against them-- those with few if any options that would enable them to make more substantial contributions to society and to their own socioeconomic improvement. In other words, their realistic potential is hampered by circumstances that, practically speaking, are beyond their existing ability to change on their own. For Progressives, one responsibility of government and individuals is to assist those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged so that they can overcome their obstacles to equal opportunity. Objectivism makes no such allowances. 

Compassion and other sensibilities that are not in the purview of strict reasoning are fundamental to progressive positions. Reasoning in the absence of those sensibilities is vacuous.

---

(fn 1) The metaphysical rationale for this tenet involves propositions about the existence of “reality,” the meaning of knowledge, and related metaphysical considerations. Since this is not where the opposition to objectivism focuses, there’s no need to elucidate further.

How Do Progressives Proceed with Respect for the Republican President?

The key for Progressives with the coming Republican White House is to respect the office of the president. There are certain things that simply should not be said by congressional representatives; for example, they should not call future-President Trump a liar when he addresses a joint session— an unfortunate incident that President Obama did experience. It means congressional Democrats do not boo during Trump’s addresses to the Congress. Taking the high road means that Senate Democrats participate in hearings for Trump’s Supreme Court justice nominations, even if they ultimately find the candidates poorly matched to the job. It means that House Democrats on the budget committee do not hold the government hostage just because the proposed budget came from the Republican White House. It means that when changes to the Affordable Care Act are proposed, congressional Democrats participate in the discussion and are open-minded about how to improve the ACA, even though the suggestions might be coming from the Republican White House. Should congressional Democrats want to stage a sit-in to protest policy decisions, that seems quite acceptable. That is not demeaning the president or fellow congressional representatives; it’s focused on the policy decisions they believe are wrong-headed.

All that said, I can’t imagine how to have respect for any person who is a misogynist, racist, religious/ethnic bigot, or an arrogant person who “doesn’t like to read” (quote directly from Mr. Trump)— especially when that person claims he wants to be the president of “all Americans.” That last part, I simply resent. Stating facts as facts (read the definition of a bigot and you’ll see it describes Trump’s statements and behaviors) isn’t in the same league as the recent comment by a Republican voter that First Lady Michelle Obama is “an ape in heels.” That was so far beyond disrespectful that I don’t have a term for it other than “extreme racism.” Anyone who makes derogatory comments about Melania Trump’s immigrant origins is out of line.

The issue of respect by Progressives (whether Democrat or Independent) is whether they can recognize their own bigotries and stereotyping and discipline themselves to stop immediately. Calling Trump supporters “bigots” is just not acceptable. Many people (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) voted for Trump in spite of his bigotries, but that does not make them bigots themselves. Calling “white people” racists (as if all white people fit into a single category) is not acceptable. Calling blue-collar workers and less formally educated people “stupid” is not acceptable. This is not a matter of showing respect for Mr. Trump; it is a matter of showing respect for fellow Americans. Any Progressive who thinks their own bigotry and stereotyping is okay is the ultimate hypocrite.