If You're Feeling Rand-y ...

I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I've even read Anthem and I bet many of you have never even heard of that one. And I cannot figure out how some people took those books to mean "rich" = "maker" and "poor" = "taker." That is not at all what I took from Ayn Rand's novels.

I understand some of her articles, essays and interviews were more pointedly anti-welfare and anti-regulation. I really haven't paid a lot of attention to those. But I find her novels fascinating.

I read The Fountainhead on the recommendation of Professor Brooke Overby at Tulane Law School back in the day. She was a supporter of President Clinton (as was I). I had no idea that these rather preachy novels by an avowed atheist were the intellectual foundation on which the conservatives in this country were building a campaign against the poor. Moreover, being that Brooke was one of the smartest people I knew, and the professor I worked for as a research assistant, I went to the bookstore and bought the paperback.

I had already had my liberal awakening by the time I read The Fountainhead, and I read them feeling genuine anger at the rich, unworthy users taking advantage of Roark. (Though I have to say he became a lot less sympathetic when he raped a woman, but that's probably a topic for another blog entry.) Roark is an insightful, genius architect, highly educated, hard working, who designs brilliant structures based on modern engineering.  The industry is controlled by talentless sycophants who use modern materials to build structures that look like monstrous atrocities merging classic, gothic and other outdated styles. Everyone loves his buildings, but no one knows who designed them, the establishment will not let him succeed. Others take credit for what he does, and when he gets a contract, it gets sabotaged. It is infuriating to see Roark's talents being abused.

I read Atlas Shrugged later. Do you remember the scene in Dirty Dancing (the original one, the classic) when rich douchebag Robby is waiving around a copy of Atlas Shrugged at Baby? He says, referring to the book, "Some people matter, some people don't." I did not get that lesson from the book.

The lesson I got was, "the world is full of people looking to succeed by stepping on you on the way up." I remember people who wanted my notes in school because I did the work and they didn't. Brooke told me about her time clerking for a federal judge and the other clerk, a man, just started dumping his notes on her expecting her to type them for him because she had ovaries. As you're reading this, you are remembering people from your life who have tried to take advantage of you for their own advancement.

If you've read these books, you know the characters and plot-lines are rather extreme, like a comic book. In the real world, few people are completely worthless and few people earn everything they get. But in these books, that's what we get. Do you remember who the villains are? It's been years since I read the books, but I recall that the villains in both books are not slothful people on welfare, but wealthy, powerful people who have not earned what they have. 

How does one even extrapolate the Robby lesson? Are the people who get stepped on the ones who don't matter? Because if that is the lesson, then aren't the "takers" being made into heroes? Or flip it: are the people using the smart, talented others for their own advancement the ones who don't count? Because I think we all know the world does NOT work that way. Nor is this lesson the one being advocated by conservatives today.

In my opinion, a real-life example of a Rand villain would be someone like George W. Bush: the son of a former Senator, CIA chief, and President, who had mediocre grades, went AWOL for a year in the Air National Guard, had a drug habit during the 1980s, never owned a profitable business, and ascended to be a two-term President. Everything W has - his money, his resume, his influence - is the result of nepotism and money his family accumulated. He made nothing on his own, but rode the shoulders of others. This experience does not make him stupid or lazy or evil, but it does make him a "taker" in the truest sense of the word.

To be fair, no one makes it purely on his or her own. But when I see people like Paul Ryan - who was born into a family with a successful business, who used his father's social security death benefits to pay for college - rave about how the "takers" in our society are too big a burden, I alternatively roll my eyes and shake my fist at the TV. It is the definition of hypocrisy for him to vilify others for doing what he did. He didn't earn everything he has. Part of what he has was earned by his father, another part of what he has resulted from tax dollars, and he has worked to add to it.

The modern corruption of Ayn Rand used by people like Paul Ryan seems to be that if you are rich, you are deserving, and that if you are poor, you are undeserving. That is neither what Rand taught, nor rational. The GOP's version of Ayn Rand's lessons are not the lessons I learned. Nor are they the lesson I think she was trying to teach. The lesson I think she was trying to teach is that hard work, creativity, innovation, productivity should be rewarded, that people should be self-sufficient and not parasites on the productivity of others. 

My way of applying this lesson is to try to create a system where everyone (or as many people as possible) can be self-sufficient and productive. That means public schools, health care, and a fair marketplace are necessary so that people born in different circumstances have a chance to be "rugged individualists." In contrast, the GOP application of the lesson is to ignore people's circumstances - whether you are Donald Trump born to a multi-millionaire or a kid born to a poor family in a crime-ridden area of a big city - and pretend they both have the same chance of being self-reliant and productive. It's delusional to think this, and it is cruel to advocate policies based on this delusion.

I'm not suggesting that Ayn Rand would agree with my application of her writings. In fact, I concede that she might not since she was ardently against all public programs. But the fact that she signed up for and took Medicare and Social Security in her old age illustrates how truly irrational and cruel her lessons are when taken to the extreme.

Upon These Unions, We Built Our Middle Class

The Gilded Age (the 1880s and 1890s - which ended with a huge depression from 1893-1897) saw great wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few and gave way to the Progressive Era (1890s - 1920s). The obscene concentration of wealth that occurred in the Gilded Age resulted in both great beneficial charitable foundations and also vast corruption, and fueled the anti-trust movement and other Progressive policies.

The Progressive Era saw journalists (Muckrakers) outing corrupt politicians and sweeping reform in how government would run, applying science, technology, and expertise to the way things were done. It also saw the rise of the women's suffrage movement, prohibition, and many other significant changes in American society and government.

There was good and bad in both. Some of the ideas we kept (anti-trust laws) and some we abandoned (prohibition).

Unions have been around since the 1800s. But the first really impactful strikes did not occur until the early 20th century.

Unions really suffered in the 1920s because of great economic prosperity. But the Great Depression changed that.

In the 1930s, the federal government passed laws helping and protecting unions.

Union membership and influence continued to grow through the 20th century, arguably peaking in the late 1960s or 1970s.

The 1980s marked a the beginning of the decline in both union membership and influence. And since that time, look at what has happened to the distribution of wealth and income in the US.

"[F]rom 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes, an outcome that left many economists scratching their heads."

From The United States of Inequality, http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026.

Well, you know what? Stop scratching your heads. The answer is obvious. And it's not like I want a war on rich people. I want to be "rich people" (just like everyone). What I do want is (1) less poverty and (2) a stronger, richer middle class. And the only way I see those things happening is with stronger unions.

When a business negotiates wages with workers, it wants to pay as little as possible to maximize profits. Is that wealth re-distribution? You betcha! Here's why: The labor performed to produce a marketable product adds value to the product greater than the sum of its parts. That additional value in part pays wages and overhead, and in part makes a profit for the business. And there has to be some profit for the business to survive, I get that. I work for a private business that advises other private businesses how to make more profit. My objections arise when I hear whining about decreased profits while paying CEOs and executive obscene salaries and bonuses (which has been going on pretty regularly for the past 30 years).

When the profits are sufficient to create a national shift in wealth distribution to such concentrations as we are experiencing, then, my friends, there are simply too many profits, too many dividends, and not enough wages and benefits paid to workers. And the best way to change that, IMO, is stronger unions negotiating better contracts. (The other way is tax redistribution. We know how popular that is.)

Have you heard this? "My grandfather raised a family of 5 with a factory job. They bought a house, a car, and sent their kids to college." You know why that happened? Unions. You know why that doesn't happen now? Weak, crappy unions combined with a decline in factory jobs.

Unions have been maligned - called commies, Bolsheviks, unAmerican, lazy, greedy - since their inception. But they are really just organizations that permit workers to have real power in a negotiation. Corporations and governments speak with one voice. Why can't labor?

If you want to start solving some of these serious problem - wealth and income inequality, high unemployment, stagnant economy, lack of manufacturing jobs, etc. - here's what you do:

(1) Raise taxes on the top 2% of income earners about 5% and use it to try and balance the budget and reduce the deficit.

(2) Keep the other tax brackets where they are (for now). When we start to see a decline in unemployment, we need to raise taxes on people making $100,000 and above per year about 4%.

(3) Medicare for everyone. This takes the cost of health care off of American businesses and health insurance negotiations out of collective bargaining. Also, we are the only democratic republic in the world that does not provide health care for all of its citizens. It's embarrassing.

(4) Stop bashing and breaking unions. I am not advocating a labor-takeover of everything. Any organization or group can become too powerful. And there are laws and regulations in place to try and avoid that. But the corporations in this country are WAY too powerful.

(5) Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act.

(6) Invest in (and reward investment in) alternative energy sources (not ethanol). In the last several centuries, great economic powers have been built on energy sources. When coal was the leading source, England ran the world. When it switched to oil, the US capitalized and grew to be an economic superpower. As oil dries up, we must be the leader of new energy sources or we will flail and drift.

(7) Repair and replace dangerously obsolete infrastructure - railroads, bridges, highways, tunnels, levees, airports, etc. When you update your house, it is both more enjoyable and increases in value. When we update our infrastructure, we are safer, happier, and better able to engage in reliable channels of commerce. This creates jobs in the short term and prepares us for better commerce long term.

(8) Everyone needs to put down the Ayn Rand (Stop bitching about poor people!) and read Indispensable By Monday (do your job better, bring more value to your company than you cost). Yes, it was written by my boss. I suppose I am pimping it a bit (to all 8 of you who read this). But if you take a look, you will see what I mean.

(9) Finally, we need to stop seeing everyone we disagree with as our mortal enemies. Labor needs corporations to be healthy and profitable to have jobs. And corporations need a good labor force to produce - and buy - its products.

I could go on. There are more things we could do. But if we did these things, I think we would be on the right track.

Who Is John Gault? Really!

Some of you who are more conservative than I am might have read my Bio and then some of my blogs and thought I was making that Ayn Rand thing up. Nope. I understand her POV (I think) and it definitely changed how I view the world. But I think a lot of other people don't really understand very well at all.

That first paragraph sounds kind of obnoxious. Let me re-phrase. This is how I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

(1) The world of her novels is extreme and unrealistic. The world is not divided into a small percentage of capable "makers" and faceless mobs of parasitic "takers." It just isn't. Most of us are willing to work for what we get even if we do carry with us a sense of entitlement that others may not agree with.

(2) The books are not about campaigning to deprive those we think of an "undeserving." In fact, the protagonists in the books simply work around the "takers" to accomplish what they are driven to pursue. Their disdain may be apparent, but our heroes do not leave industry to undertake politics in order to make sure people they think are undeserving do not receive any benefit. They do their work and reap their rewards. The welfare of the "takers" is simply not their concern. Indeed, in Atlas Shrugged, they just leave the "takers" behind and form their own community. (Oops! Spoiler alert!)

(3) Not all "takers" are lazy and unproductive. If the books teach us one thing, it is that some of the most parasitic people are the ones that have high titles and much claimed accomplishment. And unless you are following them closely and know their secrets, you cannot know the truth of this in the real world.

(4) Not all "makers" are successful and wealthy. In the Rand-world, I refer to Roark. It's hard to name real world example because they are unknown. But don't we all think they exist?

(5) Ayn Rand suffered from a little self-loathing if she thinks a woman in her right mind will fall in love with the man who raped her.

When I read these books, they gave me a way to put context around the way I view myself and the way I view others. But I don't view people as "makers" and "takers." I try to see people not as what they have done, but as what they are capable of doing. Admittedly, I put the books through my own filter. But don't we all? It's just that to me, the thing that separates a maker from a taker, a self-sufficient, deserving person from a parasitic, undeserving person, is not what the person accomplishes, but what the person accomplishes with the tools and opportunities available to him (or her).

Someone who grows up in abject poverty and who spends his or her childhood dodging bullets in the streets simply may not be capable of getting into and graduating from Harvard business school without some help, no matter how smart. Does that help make that person a "parasite?" Or more to the point, do we just give up on that person ever being more than a statistic unless he or she is able to overcome such humble beginnings? Not to me. IMO, that person - every person - should get a little assistance to help him or her achieve full potential.

On the flip side, someone who grows up well off, goes to the best private schools, and ends up masterminding a massive Ponzi scheme, bilking people out of millions of dollars is the ultimate "taker" because he has simply ignored what he is capable of doing - through honest, real work - and stolen from people.

It's not a double standard. If the person who gets help to reach his potential runs Ponzi schemes, he is a thieving taker too. And if that wealthy privileged person works and does honest business, he is our Rand hero.

But is goes further than obeying the law, doesn't it? Consider Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is not a thief or a crook as far as I know, but he has used Bankruptcy with numerous of his companies to build his empire. When he would overextend on a project, he would bankrupt that project, to protect his other successful ones, and just keep going. But what about the creditors who lost millions because he didn't pay them back? He could have. He has the money. But he had a legal way to avoid paying his way, so he did. TAKER, not MAKER. That is not what any Rand hero would do.

Lots of liberal don't like Ayn Rand because of how her philosophy has been used to support a war on the poor. And it definitely has: eliminate the minimum wage, no more unemployment benefits, end medicare, etc. But these class warriors leaning on Ayn Rand have completely missed the point: A Rand hero will always pay workers what they are actually worth, because to not do so would be to take something undeserved. A Rand hero will not lie, cheat, or steal to make a profit, because that would render the gain undeserved. A Rand hero would not dump pollutants in rivers and release poisons into the air because that is stealing as well. Unless and until American industries start behaving like Rand heros - doing their part honestly and only taking what they deserve - it is simply hypocrisy run amuck to ask and expect the working (or unemployed) poor to buck up and be the perfect Randian soldiers.

Bottom line: Rand's books are compelling and interesting. They sure make us think. But her novels no more reflect the real world than Alice in Wonderland or the Harry Potter stories. It's fun to discuss and argue about, even take away some lessons. But we really should not pretend that any group or person in this country exemplifies the traits of the "maker" hero. I've never seen it. And neither have you.