Radical Individualism

Abraham Lincoln reminded us that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”.  Okay, so that was over 150 years ago. Did we forget it? That thought came to mind while I was listening to a political talk show.  Two callers in a row called in to complain about taxes.  One said he shouldn’t pay taxes that go to schools because he doesn’t have any children.  The other complained that a bridge in Kentucky should be paid for only by people who use it.

This mentality is a symptom of an illness that is sweeping the country.  The illness is radical individualism.  It’s main proponent was a woman named Ayn Rand, now deceased.  She called her philosophy Objectivism.  And her third major tenet was, “man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.” 

This philosophy taken to its natural conclusion proposes that any social concern is not only wasted energy but also morally unnecessary.  Ayn Rand’s writings serve as guideposts for a growing number of people on the political right in America today.

Paul Krugman said it best, “And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.” 

Mr. Krugman is being kind.  These are not conservatives.  Conservatives want to conserve the status quo.  They are, in fact, regressives.  Regressives want to take us back to another era.      

Let’s ignore the fact that the caller who didn’t want to pay taxes going to schools was probably educated in public schools.  And if he wasn’t, many of his teachers probably were.  Let’s ignore the fact that the caller who doesn’t want to pay for a bridge in Kentucky probably purchases products that would not be available without a highway system with bridges.  Let’s just think about the natural trajectory of this mentality.  How can a society exist if everyone is justified in refusing to contribute to anything that doesn’t benefit them?  Let’s hope that this ideology never gets entrenched in the minds of our military heroes.

“Retired Marine Dakota Meyer saved 36 lives on a battlefield in Afghanistan when he ran toward gunfire, pulling both Americans and Afghan soldiers to safety.” For that, he received the Medal of Honor – the nation’s highest award for bravery. However, he won’t celebrate this award because all of his team mates didn’t make it back.

These actions of a brave Marine are on the opposite end of the spectrum.  I’ll call it radical altruism. 

While radical individualism is the right’s direction, it’s the wrong direction for this, or any other country.  If you don’t believe me, check out Somalia. 

What bothers me most: the extreme right’s use of religion to pander to people whose faith should tell them social justice is central to Judeo-Christian theology.  And they seem to be successful at it.  Radical individualism and social justice are at opposite extremes.

So how can people claim to believe in both?  The only way I can think of is they don’t think.  They believe.  We can easily confuse believing with thinking.  And many of us do.       

If the core value in our society was truly radical individualism, we wouldn’t have heroes like Marine Dakota Meyer.  America is great because our society holds itself together by the efforts of the many.  Our first name is “United”.  It’s not “me”.

Robert DeFilippis