« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Atlas Shrugged is Dreary and Why This Should Worry Conservatives

By: quill67 (Diary)  |  April 16th, 2011 at 02:04 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The purpose of what I write here is not a movie review. It is a warning.

First, I am a big fan of Atlas Shrugged—the book. The movie? Well, let me say that I really like the actors, and the director was clever using high gas prices rational for why railroads are so important; however, Atlas Shrugged-the movie is devoid of passion or emotion. The one exception is a really good scene where a parts supplier begs for forgiveness for abandoning the movie’s heroine because he must protect his family from threats and intimidation.

In the book, I felt frustrated as power hungry government agencies and poverty pimps kept putting road blocks in front people striving to achieve. I felt anger as incompetent producers used political connections to create laws preventing competitors with better products from winning. I felt despair as, at every turn, there seemed to be yet another attempt to punish the successful for the benefit of the lazy and corrupt.

The movie failed to envoke these emotions. No one will be compelled to the conservative view by this movie.

This made me worry.

No, I’m not worried that Atlas Shrugged not being a great movie will harm the conservative movement. I am worried because it reminds me that politics is driven by emotion and Republican leadership and even Tea Party leaders have failed to make an emotionally appeal or an appeal to a higher purpose.

I am reminded of the expression that came out of the last government shutdown:

‘Republicans have to avoid being seen as the guy with the green eyeshades–the souless, expressionless accountant.’ Unless Republicans can create strong emotions in voters, all the numbers, such as the budget deficit, will be meaningless.

Let me illustrate why an non-emotional analytical approach is ineffective. A politician might say “Our budget deficit last year was 1.4 Trillion dollars. This is the highest it has ever been” The politician then may try to relate its importance by saying something like “how can we leave this debt to our grandkids. It will leave them $38,000 in debt”

Did you feel anger? Disgust? Worry? Fear? Sadness?

No. Of course not.

Now compare the same issue with an emotional push. A politician might say “To pay for this tremendous deficit, our government has been printing money. Haven’t you wondered why gas and food prices have been going up so dramatically? Families accross this great country are suffering. As gas prices have risen, families have had to make hard sacrifices. Parents have less money to save for their kid’s college.

Our businesses owners are strained under high energy prices and higher taxes created by run-away Democratic spending. Some busines owners worry how they will be able to pay an extra $6000 under ObamaCare to keep an employee who only creates $3000 of profits. They worry whether they may have to layoff trusted employees, or whether they will close forever.

Seniors worry about whether they life savings will be decimated by inflation. Parents worry that our jobs and our kid’s jobs are leaving the country as employers find they can no longer compete in a world economy if they stay in our high tax nation and now President Obama talks of raising taxes even more.

Where will our kids work? Will they be able to enjoy the same quality of life as we did? These budget deficits caused by reckless spending are killing the American dream and we may look back and wonder what happened to that great nation that could out produce, out innovate, and out class the rest of the world. ”

This second arguement has an emotional pull that the first one does not. The problem is that the Republican leadership has not been voicing this type of emotional pull. If we want to win the next battle, we must make this connection or we are doomed to failure.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • ssshannon1026

    Is because it was not written by a conservative, but by a libertarian. Not the same thing at all, but certainly indicative of how confused the conservative movement really is.

    • quill67

      While there are differences, those differences do not matter at this point in time. Just as Democrats and Socialists, Communists, and Marxists are different, they all want to push us in the same direction–more government control over our lives and the abolition of personal responsibility.

      The conservative movement and libertarian movement both want less government control over our lives and more personal responsibility. We may want to end up in different final destinations but, for now, both groups want are heading in the same direction. I think both would agree that ending up a bit too conservative or a bit too libertarian is far superior to ending up too socialistic.

      • ssshannon1026

        Libertarians are indistinquishable from social progressives. The phrase “small government’ does not mean the same thing to Libertarians that it does to Conservatives. To a conservative, small government simply means local government. To a Libertarian small government means a government limited to a narrow range of powers specifically intended to free the individual form any form of social restriction.

        Likewise, ‘personal responsibility’ means entirely different things to conservatives and libertarians. To a conservative personal responsibility also includes social responsibility – actively striving to participate in how the rules and standards that define a civilzation are defined and maintained. To a libertarian personnel responsibility simply means radical individualism – the individual involved only in maintaining his own existence and living his life exclusively according to his own moral preferences – all protected, of course, by “small” government.

        In truth, I consider libertarians at least as great a threat to the fundamental principles the nation was originally governed by as I do any socialist, if not more so. I will never join or participate in any movement that includes anyone referring to themselves as a libertarian. Nor will i pay money to see a movie based on a book written by a self proclaimed athiest.

        • acat

          I suggest you go read this piece:

          http://www.redstate.com/thejoyofreason/2011/02/17/a-necessary-good-or-leaving-lazy-libertarianism/

          This discussion has already taken place, and thread-jacking quill67′s movie review to have it again is kinda rude.

          Any libertarian you find at Red State is likely small-ell, and pragmatic. After all, Red State is a Conservative Republican site, not a Libertarian site, eh?

          Mew

          • quill67

            Our constitution put limits on the scope of it powers and actually libertarians have very strong restrictions on the range of actions that people are allowed to follow. You cannot harm another person or take his freedom because that belongs to him.

            Also notice that while God wants us to act in certain ways, it is not forced upon us. We have to free will. While we have a “social responsibility”, that is up to the individual to decide in accordance with their own beliefs.

            Socialist demand that they define what is our “social responsibility” . They deem people are entiltled to products or services, but one person’s rights is another person’s responsibility. If you deem that people have a right to shoes then you are deeming that others must be the slaves to make those shoes. This is not Christian and not conservative. I may be morally compelled to provide you with shoes but if I do so it will be of my own free will and the calling of God. No church uses the force of a gun to get donations.

            There are many religous libertarians so while Ann Rand was athiest and I pity that she never developed a relationship with God–I completely understand it. She grew up in a communist society and the only church of which she knew acted to support the communists. They justified the enslavement of people in their society as serving a moral responsibility.

          • ssshannon1026

            Is a conerstone of conservatism, and is precisely why the anti-federalists insisted on the incluson of the bill or rights in the Constitution – so that the federal government could not interfer in a communities local control of their own society. It had nothing to do with Libertarianism or radical individualism. And your post is little more than a reminder of the chasm that exists between conservatism and libertarianism.

          • aesthete

            “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” – Fr?d?ric Bastiat (The Law)

          • ssshannon1026

            because they pruposefully created a system of government where morality could be imposed via the government – just not the federal government. Otherwise, you have a rather difficult task of explaining why the country was governed in precisely they fashion through out the first century or so of its existence.

          • quill67

            The point of my piece is that we had better make sure in any debate that we have the “emotional high ground”. Dollars, deficits, and numbers have zero political impact. This is particuarly true when the other side denies there is even a problem. The other problem with numbers is that people expect any number problem to be solved by “splitting the difference” and gee why not raise taxes on the rich.

            Shutting the government down will not make sense to the average person if the problem is 10 years down the pike. If we shut down the government, it should be regain those freedoms that are endager of being lost if we fail to act at this moment . The EPA and FCC creating laws without authority and provisions of ObamaCare that apply only to some while others get wavers are a couple of examples.

          • ssshannon1026

            And it badly needs to be pointed out that Ayn Rand was no conservative. She was an ahtiest Libertarian. The book and the movie have nothing to do with conservatism one way or the other. And its time to tell the Libertarians to stop trying to high jack the conservative movement.

          • powertothepeople

            you are going way out on a limb here and becoming quite offensive. I am not a libertarian, BUT, just as there are a bunch of nuts in that movement, there are a ton in our party. We have the Ron Paul idiots, does that make our who party nuts?

            There is a segment of libertarians that are way too high, way too dramatic, way too stupid, but that does not encompass the whole movement. Many libertarians do not want the right to shoot dope, run naked on any street, etc. In fact, I would take a lot of libertarians over many in our own party. I only have to look at so called republicans like McCain, Snowe, etc to know that your comment holds no ground in reality.

            And as far as being an atheist, what a crock of crap lady. Belief in a God does not make on superior when it comes to politics. Granted, I hope all find the truth that is Jesus Christ, but we are not talking about souls, we are talking about politics. And at the end of the day, I care about a persons track record in politics, not their declaration of faith. I have seen way too many pander to the christians proclaiming their faith in Christ only to see them solicit man love in a bathroom, cheat on their wife, sleep with numerous aids, etc.

            By the way on that subject, unless I am mistaken, a staunch conservative on this site, one who fights for us, is an atheist. Can not remember which one it is, Moe or Neil, but I am pretty sure it was one or both of them.

            As to your decision to not pay for a movie based on the atheist factor, that is your choice and no one can say it is a wrong one. But based on your statement, I must assume that you do not watch anything produced by guys such as Cameron, Lorre, Scorsese, Lynch, and so on, right?

          • ssshannon1026

            and second, I have been a wavering athiest for most of my life. But I am a conservative who understands that there has never been an atheistic civilization nor is there ever likely to be. Religion is fundamental to maintaining a civil society, and the political de-empowerment of those who are religious is a death sentence for civilizaton. Both liberals and libertarians (such as Rand) work for the political de-empowerment of religion in our civilization, and they should both be opposed for the same reason. Conservatism, first and foremost, defends the rights of the religious to participate in how their local communities are maintained, even if it means someone’s individual expression is somehow limited as a result. So it is therefore entirely appropriate to point out that Rand was an atheist.

            I have not insulted or impugned anyone, I’ve simply stated the truth. Atlas Shrugged has nothing to do with conservatism at all, and neither did its author.

          • powertothepeople

            and I am saying that being an atheist has nothing to do with competency or ability to be a conservative. As to the rest of your atheist rant, that has been discussed here more times than it should have been and I am not going to rehash it. I will only say that claiming a faith does not make one dedicated to preserving our rights, keeping government small, allowing morality to dictate certain law, etc nor does being an atheist mean that one will go after faith and faith in law. It is an absurd argument period.

            I do not know much about Rand, do not read her books, nor to my best knowledge have I ever watched a movie based on her writings, so I can not comment on her or her beliefs. But I can say that your effort to tie her faith or lack of into the reason one must be ignored, is ludicrous. I also find it absurd that you lump the entire libertarian movement in with the nutcases spawned from it. Every group has its nutcases, no exceptions.

            If you feel she is a dangerous nut, address it. But using her as a springboard into bashing those who are libertarian and or atheist is dumb. You are not directly addressing Rands beliefs and that they may have resulted from her lack of faith in God, you used the post as a jumping off point to attack libertarians and atheist who are among us. Your own words:

            “Libertarians are indistinquishable from social progressives. The phrase ?small government? does not mean the same thing to Libertarians that it does to Conservatives.”

            This has nothing to do with the subject of Rand and you and we know it.

            ‘Likewise, ?personal responsibility? means entirely different things to conservatives and libertarians. To a conservative personal responsibility also includes social responsibility – actively striving to participate in how the rules and standards that define a civilzation are defined and maintained. To a libertarian personnel responsibility simply means radical individualism – the individual involved only in maintaining his own existence and living his life exclusively according to his own moral preferences – all protected, of course, by ?small? government.”

            Again, nothing to do with Rand, simply your opinion on an entire group of people and it is inaccurate.

            In truth, I consider libertarians at least as great a threat to the fundamental principles the nation was originally governed by as I do any socialist, if not more so.

            And yet to this point you are yet to mention Rand, you are simply using a Rand topic to attack all libertarians.

            I will never join or participate in any movement that includes anyone referring to themselves as a libertarian. Nor will i pay money to see a movie based on a book written by a self proclaimed athiest.

            First mention of Rand yet you do not use her name. You simply express dislike for libertarians and atheist. Her conservatism, lack of conservatism, being a nutjob or being right has nothing to do with her belief there is no God. You simply state it as a hidden attack on any who dares call themselves conservative yet do not believe in God.

          • ssshannon1026

            I accurately defined Libertarians. When conservatives are being told that “Atlas Shrugged’ is a conservative movie, they need to be told the truth. The work is a defense of libertarianism not conservatism

          • powertothepeople

            and what you are doing would be like me saying all people with the name of shannon are not very bright and border on moron status instead of just saying you are not very bright and would be considered a moron in most circles. The last statement would be correct, the first a blanket statement made about an entire group of people and would not be backed in reality.

            As to you, I can not stand ignorant people who trash an entire group of people. I do not like racists, bigots, and now you. What you have said is absolute moronic nonsense, and you are too dim to back off when most would realize they have spoken out of turn and spoken incorrectly. I just do not have time for a fool, so I am moving on.

          • acat

            Ayn Rand was not a libertarian nor a conservative. She was an objectivist.

            Her philosophy – objectivisim – lines up in some ways with conservatism in that it includes a belief that those who labor should be rewarded. This is in line, for example, with the idea that those who don’t work shouldn’t eat.

            Objectivism also lines up in some ways with libertarianism, especially in its’ focus on the rights of the individual.

            Rand had no respect for either libertarians or conservatives; in her objectivisim, she rejected everyone who was not objectivist.

            I don’t have a problem with your statement that this movie isn’t “conservative” .. because it isn’t. The problem is you mis-identify Rand’s philosophy as “libertarian”, and that ain’t so either.

            Further, you go on to paint all libertarians as sharing the beliefs of the more kook fringe of libertarian thought. Yes, there are libertarian kooks, just as there are christian kooks, atheist kooks, and democrat kooks. So what? In none of those cases are they objectivists.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            There was no love lost between herself and libertarians (she famously and contemptuously characterized them as a motley crew of religious nuts, hippies and poseurs). As for your characterization of conservatism, it is certainly one that has a long tradition, but is also one which conservatives have by and large moved away from. For example, most conservatives and paleo-libertarians would broadly agree that people should have some propriety when it comes to their sex lives. However, both groups realize (or have come to the realization) that using government coercion, instead of voluntary mechanisms, to enforce propriety is wrong in and of itself, and leads to more problems than it solves. I would agree that most libertarians would take this view more often than conservatives, but I highly doubt that today’s modern conservative would be pleased as punch with tyranny so long as it comes from the state legislature (see the reactions to RomneyCare if you don’t believe me). Certainly, our goals are mostly in alignment when it comes to the responsibilities of the federal government.

            To go back to the point of the OP, I think that libertarians and their arguments will be particularly useful for those looking to win the moral high ground in this fight — Reason.com TV, for example, has been great when it comes to making videos that illustrate truths about economic freedom in a clear and concise way. Documentaries like “Waiting for Superman” are very good, and should be encouraged. Clever ways to show the extent of the debt are fantastic — most Americans have an aversion to debt wired in their culture, and will understand if you show our enormous debt that it needs to be paid for. IMO, showing the bad effects of policy *today* is a lot more effective than making slippery slope arguments about the possible road to serfdom, however valid such arguments may be.

          • ssshannon1026

            and why your version of conservatism has no moral legitimacy over liberalism. In the US people are allowed to express their morality, their religious views through poliltical expression. That is what the conservative movement is first and formost about. The financial issues are entirely secondary. You will never maintain a civil society by means of any sort of ‘voluntary’ social accomodation. It requires coercive authority to maintain a civil society. The difference between liberals and conservatives, is that they believe that authority should be given to a central federal authority while conservatives believe it should be with the people in their local communities.

          • aesthete

            Do you arrogate any authority to the individual as a moral agent at all, or do you simply see him as one of many fungible citizens whose moral agency may only be exercised by voting for a leader or by following the laws? Your vision, if it is the vision of conservatives in general, is an exceedingly bleak one which allows no autonomy or individuality, and one that I would want no part in even if it were workable. As far as I can tell, it simply transfers the authoritarian to my hometown, and trades in his Little Red Book for a Bible.

          • ssshannon1026

            by the freedom to participate as an individual in how a society is governed. If that is ‘bleak’ it is a bleakness which governed our nation for most of its history as was intended by the founders, and is one I am perfectly comfortable with.

            And, if you are afraid of the people of your home town, your only alternative is to be protected from them by some higher level of government – which is what gives the lie to Libertarianism being about ‘small government’. It clearly is not.

          • Doc Holliday

            Ever read the Constitution? Ever notice the millions of infringements on said document by federal, state, and local authorities?

          • ssshannon1026

            What, ya got magic Libertarian pixie dust to sprinkle over everyone?

          • acat

            First, you’re confusing the religious right with all conservatives .. and while there’s probably 2 religious conservatives for every fiscal conservative, insisting that the whole movement is religious in nature ignores history. The religious were pretty evenly split between dems and repubs for a long period in our history, they’ve only skewed heavily toward the GOP since the ’60s and ’70s.

            Further, you seem to be stating that you want the church to provide a “moral center” to society, to coerce good behaviour, but you don’t want the god that comes along with it.

            This is messy thinking, and I’d like to know how you square it all for yourself.

            Mew

          • ssshannon1026

            aside from acknowleding their right to exist. I am not even making a religious argument – I am making an antilibertarian argument. Coercive authority must exist within a society in order for it to remain civil. And, yes, religion, as the founders well knew, is fundamental to that. Conservatism is not about the indiivdualism, it is about the individuals rights to participate freely in the process of defining the standards of our civilization – not some absolute right to be free from such standards by some all powerful Grand Libertarian council.

      • ssshannon1026

        tp your post.

  • AnnaD

    Saw the film last night and it was definitely worth watching. Pace is brisk (unlike the book), dialogue was crisp (unlike the book, which had some cringe-inducing lines), and the ending was great. If I had to make one criticism, Dagny?s scream at the end reminded me way too much of Anakin Skywalker?s / Darth Vader?s scream at the end of that dreadful Star Wars 3, when he learns he killed Padme. Other than that, I loved Atlas Part 1.

    The film captured the essence of the story and the characters well. To support the making of the second part, I will buy the DVD, when it comes out later this year. We should support this film so the message of Atlas Shrugged can be even more widely distributed. I loved the book and only read it recently, for the first time. I did find the writing to be tedious but it was a matter of principle to read it to completion. I think the film does a better job at conveying the story to those with shorter attention spans than mine.

    • quill67

      But hope it is better than the first. The actors are good but they need to be put into more situtations where one feels their frustration, anger, and dispair. I have felt more of these emotions reading posts on Redstate or watching the news than from this movie. Frankly, they messed up the Wyatt scene at the end too. As I recall from the book, the government had already made it clear they would take over his wells and so his course of action made sense. However, in the movie, they go from celebrating the success of the new line to him deciding to drop everything and leave.

      • AnnaD

        about the Wyatt scene – it would have been more powerful to put in a little vignette after the celebration and before Galt comes to the door, showing the DC bunch cooking up a scheme to take Wyatt’s wells, and then Ellis somehow hearing about it (even through Galt – a little screenplay license is permitted). But I really felt Dagny’s despair at the end.

  • 6eorge Jetson