A shift in right-wingism?

[Gadianton]

It occurred to me today on my walk that the right wing has experienced a shift in fundamental ideology. In previous years, we'd look to folks like Droopy to teach us about the free market and pies that get bigger, and the hero of that day was the entrepreneur. I suppose John Galt of Ayn Rand's fiction world personified nature's sacrosanct apex predator and if you're Christian, then you believe in what's basically John Galt but he's God's crowing creation and Christian.

But the ground has shifted underneath the right wing. The entrepreneur isn't the go-to hero, it's the exerciser of free speech. Our unhinged participants here are one thing, but we do have a sometimes-participant who is generally measured, conservative, and drove this point home to me in a way an unhinged person wouldn't have when giving Rush Limbaugh a free pass, because he was an American openly expressing his opinion, and that's our fundamental sacrosanct duty as Americans, so how can anyone say he was bad? Speaking freely and loudly is even more important as an American than even owning a gun.

There is a difference in entrepreneur worship and free-speech worship. As I recall, the most noble attribute of the entrepreneur was risk-taking. Big rewards came to those with big visions and climbed the mountain themselves. If you didn't have what it takes, then at least in theory, you got weeded out. The bull moose that looses the battle for the herd feels the pain and slinks off cold and alone to die. As an American, you have the right to start a business and carve out your living. But at least in theory, nobody owes you a success. You've got to claw your way to the top, and if you fail, tough.

Free speech, in contrast, is worshipped as sacred in itself. Whatever you say, there are no consequences, because just saying it is by default good. There's no risk, and a free American speaking loudly and controversially should be admired just for being loud and controversial, not for being right or able to show evidence. And so when ideas are rejected or persons skewered for failing to make their case, today's right-winger goes on an unhinged rant about free speech. Anyone who disagrees with them or holds them responsible for what they say is an enemy to free speech. That's the go-to rebuttal. While the critic brings facts or problems to the table, the right-winger tries less to defend the position, and more to complain about being cancelled.

The equivalent in the entrepreneur world would be John Galt's backwater cousin who designs a bridge that collapses, but there's no accountability because building and inventing are goods in themselves.

[Atlanticmike]

I'm impressed!! You posted without mentioning one of your "right wing friends" .

[Some Schmo]

Agreed, although another way of saying that is that right-wingers have become too lazy to make their case (probably because they intuit they don't have one), and have decided that whining about free-speech (or outright lying) is a reasonable substitute for an argument.

[Moksha]

And so when ideas are rejected or persons skewered for failing to make their case, today's right-winger goes on an unhinged rant about free speech.

Galt Island now floats on the sea of an alternative reality, impervious to truth and virtue as it existed in the time of William F. Buckley.

[huckelberry]

There is an advantage to preaching and believing lies. It unhooks your image from any reality which would create arguments against belief. I think telling lies is a power and manipulation move. People have seen a door open to these powers and are experimenting with what it can do. Can we lie our way into taking control of election results? Lie our way into taking control of the government?

Gadianton, I realize your images were intended to be views from a certain vantage which I do not share. Still I was shocked by the possibility that Galt would be a Christian ideal. Ayn would be shocked as well . But I could note that Galt is a seriously moral image compared to Trump. I am pretty sure Ayn Rand would not agree with the idea risk taking as a highest value. She focused upon the hard work of making things that work . Its a dishonest salesman who wants you to put risk taking as top value..(in order to take advantage of you)

[canpakes]

Huckleberry, with regard to some Christians possibly finding the Galt character to be admirable and Christian in nature, you may find this short article interesting:

https://www.christianpost.com/amp/ayn-r ... rgues.html

[Res Ipsa]

Earlier in my life, the distinction between liberal and conservative was one of economics. Republicans changed the distinction to culture. It was an advantageous move for the wealthy of any political affiliation, as the peasants fight over culture while the wealthy suck up all the money.

[huckelberry]

Huckleberry, with regard to some Christians possibly finding the Galt character to be admirable and Christian in nature, you may find this short article interesting:

https://www.christianpost.com/amp/ayn-r ... rgues.html

Canpakes, thanks for pointing this viewpoint out.
I reacted first to Gadiantons characterization of Galt as apex predator. I really do not think that is what Ayn Rand intended at all. She sees fundamental moral character in productivity invention and organization. In that sense Galt is a saint compared to apex predators or wanabes like Trump. I remember thinking upon reading the book that there was a bit too much aping of Jesus as savior in the Galt story. I found that overdone and offputting but the book had more than a couple of fantastical and overblown aspects.

I do not think the Galt character is without character I think in Ayn Rand obsession with being non Christian a human dimension of care for others and respect for others despite failures is amputated for Galt and the crew of fantasy superpeople he collected.

[Physics Guy]

Maybe there has been a change in cultural attitude, but maybe there has also been—perhaps there has only been—a change in economics.

Shouting your opinion can be monetized nowadays. It’s an easy line of work to get into, a business you can start with just a dime in your pocket (and a credit card). It’s the new frontier where a homestead is free to the first comer and you just have to stake out a good spot and work hard (at shouting) in order to live the good life.

The old conservative heroes, the entrepreneur and the settler, aren’t gone. They’ve just moved into media.

[MeDotOrg]

Maybe there has been a change in cultural attitude, but maybe there has also been—perhaps there has only been—a change in economics.

Shouting your opinion can be monetized nowadays. It’s an easy line of work to get into, a business you can start with just a dime in your pocket (and a credit card). It’s the new frontier where a homestead is free to the first comer and you just have to stake out a good spot and work hard (at shouting) in order to live the good life.

The old conservative heroes, the entrepreneur and the settler, aren’t gone. They’ve just moved into media.

Good point. We need to step back and look at the transition between the industrial age and the information age. Understand the difference between data, noise and facts. The internet democratizes the transmission of information, which is both good and bad. The good news is that everyone gets access. The bad news is there is virtually no verification. In a blizzard of data, a lot of people don't have the skills to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff. If you don't have those skills, you substitute narrative for facts.

I think the values of entrepreneurship are still there, but they are drowned out by the noise at the bottom of the barrel. As a society, we are still learning the dangers of the internet. The GOP seems to be fracturing more than the Democrats, because paranoia really sells right now.