Friday - December 12, 2003
Who is John Galt? Could it be George Bush?
John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand's "Atlas
Shrugged" stopped the motor of the world. The basic plot of the book is that
John Galt was an engineer who invented a type of engine for the railroad that
provided cheap power that would transform the world. When his employer made it
clear that he was expected to share his invention without being paid for it, he
destroyed it and then recruited all the people who actually made things happen
to stop making things happen. Throughout most of the first half of the book,
the question keeps getting posed, "Who is John Galt?" in response to any
evidence that things are getting bad. Galt and many of his like-minded
compatriots escape to a hidden valley, while others remain and sabotage the
wealth that they have
accumulated.
Essentially, Rand's view
was that there are productive, inventive people on whom the rest of the world
relies to make their lives possible. Without anyone to think for them, the
leaches such as politicians, socialists, etc., would soon devolve into a panicky
morass of fear and the entire civilization would
collapse.
I'm starting to think that
this is the only thing that explains the behavior of George Bush.
His domestic agenda, even more than his father's,
is seemingly self-destructive. He has increased spending especially on
blatantly frivolous pork. He has enacted the Patriot Act, a totally unnecessary
intrusion of our civil rights. He has enacted tarriffs damaging steel
consumers. He has expanded Medicare beyond what even the democrats wanted. And
now he wants to increase Social Security spending so that illegal immigrants can
collect social security from the US after they return to Mexico.
I can't think of a better way to
destroy socialism than to give so much money away. Could it be that George Bush
is playing the part of John Galt by running the socialist state into the ground?
Could that be his plan? It's about the only thing that makes
sense.
Except that history has shown us
that when government programs fail, the usual response is to throw more money at
it rather than end it. The usual response when more money can't be thrown at a
government program is not to end it, but to enact totalitarian laws to allow the
program to continue. History has shown that politicians are rarely willing to
put the very lives of its citizens ahead of bureaucracy or programs that keep
them in power.
Ayn Rand's story is a
good one for putting forward philosophical ideas, but the scenario she presents
is not one that can realistically happen. When the society falls apart, the men
who make the engine of the world run won't be allowed to step up and take
charge. They're the first ones to be executed by the goons. Just look at
Cambodia, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, etc., for proof.
George Bush, if you're really trying
to be John Galt, give it up. Fight the fight directly, society can rarely
handle nuance.
But I fear that this
is not George's goal. Naked ambition and cynical political power is his agenda.
It's good to keep the socialist/communist people in the Democratic party out of
office, but not at the price of being more socialist than even they
are.
Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents
|
