Wednesday, August 8, 2012

PRIVATE LIVES AND PUBLIC FIGURES

AUGUST 8, 2012--VANCOUVER, WA--- SINCE BEFORE THE BLUE DRESS, MANY PONDERED how an official's private behavior reflected on their public duties.  Does private behavior have an impact?  What is the actual relationship between private and public behavior?  Should anybody be concerned about what public figures do in private at all? How much weight should the public give to the consideration of private behaviors?

                   There were     those that wondered if it was germane to even consider private behavior.  Others said that it did matter because naughty behaviors increased the risk of blackmail.  This column is about a different take on the matter. Before I can address the issue, you will need some context.

For  two years, I worked on a book on the private lives of many recognizable figures from the Republican and Libertarian parties.  Some of the names frequent the pages and screens of the "above ground" media; Others are strictly Internet fodder.  All have power.  Some exercise it behind the scenes.  Some exercise theirs in more public venues.   They all have the ability to impact your life and mine.  Some already have.

Take Ayn Rand. Some Libertarians see her as the mother of Libertarianism. Actually, there are two other women who truly deserve that title, but they have been eclipsed by the Randians in the Libertarian Party.  Ayn Rand was a mediocre writer of screenplays in Hollywood who penned an excoriating critique of communism that brought her to the attention of a bunch of bankster sociopaths.  Then she wrote the definition guide to being a sociopath: The Fountainhead.   She wrote another book that amplified the same themes which was Anthem.  These were followed by other books and articles including "In Defense of Selfishness" which is the only one that practiced "truth in labeling."

Rand  referred to her verbose apologias for selfishness collectively as The Philosophy of Objectivism.  Much like Scientology tomes, Rand's books are heavy on cliche's and phrases that have become jargon for those seeking a rationale for anti-social behavior.  When I first tried to read these books, I could not believe that any sane person would take them seriously.  The ramifications of everybody doing what they want, when they want seemed manifest to me.  The ultimate result would be utter chaos, destruction and misery for the vast majority and pain-free living for a minority.  That was clear to me even in my youth.  I dismissed Ayn Rand as a repulsive self-aggrandizing and self-indulgent woman.  Clearly, I was wrong.  Lots of people took her poorly-thought out ideas seriously.  They did not bother to extrapolate what applying these ideas on a grand scale meant.

What these ideas meant for the rest of us was spelled out in 2008 when banking took a swan dive off of the top of the biggest banks in New York.  Without getting into the particulars, let's just say that laissez faire is anything but fair and it is terribly destructive to let a country be run by people whose defining characteristic is greed.  It can only result in catastrophe for the majority and it has.  Nor does Alan Greenspan's apology for basing his economic policies on the ramblings of an economic illiterate like Ayn Rand really salve the wounds.

What business does an economist have basing his policies on the ramblings