CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 12 December 2012
While strictly-scrutinized party factions toe strict ideological lines, every freedom-loving GOP gang glorifies the absurd, frontier badge of rugged individualism.
The Right’s Sham Religion of Rugged Individualism
Behold the damning paradox that bedevils the dazed rightwing. While strictly-scrutinized party factions toe strict ideological lines, every freedom-loving GOP gang glorifies the absurd, frontier badge of rugged individualism. “The great and abiding lesson of American history, particularly the cold war,” declares Rand Paul, “is that the engine of capitalism, the individual, is mightier than any collective.”
Right, one great champion drives every mighty, corporate colossus, doubtlessly a willful, Ayn Rand superman. Columnist Marilyn von Savant only adds fuel to the folly, “The freedom to be an individual is the essence of America.” That so? The apex of radical individualism isn’t found in America, no longer the world’s leader in socio-economic mobility but more likely resides within some all-powerful warlord whose tyranny lasts as long as his lifespan.
The right talks individualism and freedom yet practices the politics of punitive submission, extorted by Tea Party primaries, boorish FOX newscasters, loutish televangelists, Rovian political operatives, and unelected Grover Norquist enforcers. “Don’t tread on me” sounds a great war cry but doesn’t advance a country of 300 million. No wonder, with widening agendas, at least five GOP cliques squabble like hungry chickens:
- the predatory corporate crowd, from Wall Street banksters to reactionary billionaires rigging the system;
- close-minded, Tea Party haters of all government programs that share goodies outside their tribe;
- faith-alone fundamentalists, keyed to Biblical literalism, End of Days, or defiance of abortion rights;
- belligerent, neo-con marauders, boasting pre-emptive invasions to affirm our imperial destiny; and
- the residual strays, fairly inconsequential, spanning distraught moderates to plumb-crazy conspiracy nuts, secessionists, armed militias and back-to-the-boonies cultism.
Yet, all Republican differences dissipate when the right invokes its transcendent, irrational leap of faith: that American prowess wholly reflects our worship of go-it-alone, “I-built-it-my-way” manias, revering the lone gunman blasting all foes. Why, just study history. Did not “collectivist” Puritans season their theocracy with individual freedom for all? Was not our revolution gained by one great hero, not the one-third of insurgent colonists working together? Did not lonely frontiersmen carve out homes from the wilderness, oh, except for families, neighbors, and cheap (slave, Native American, Irish, Italian, Asian) labor? Lincoln alone freed the slaves and won the Civil War, just like great individuals must have won both world wars, built our infrastructure, and now defend global commerce.
In short, thanks to willful ignorance that demeans the essential co-operation that defines America, babble that the individual is “mightier than any collective” goes on. Name one, Mr. Paul? This country is at heart communitarian, not authoritarian, not libertarian.
GOP Triumph of the Will
Yet, if every conservative has the god-given right to liberty and conscience, why are there so few party rebels (or true “rogues”) that defy lockstep obedience to a rigid party line? And why is disagreement, even challenge to one group’s holy crusade, vilified by great thinkers like Norquist or birdbrain Rush Limbaugh? What bizarre notion of freedom induces extremists to primary into oblivion minor divergence from their fixations? Had not Tea Partiers “expressed their individualism” by defeating five electable candidates since 2010, they’d control the Senate. Of course, they’d then have to forego this William Godwin rant, “Above all we should not forget that government is an evil, a usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind.”
In fact, do not warped notions of individualism, implying total mastery over one’s life, represent the motherload for every hot button social wedge issue since 2000? On gun control, what heroic individualist can protect his home and family against bad guys without commanding his own arsenal? Since “evil government” eyes the truest, most independent thinkers, freedom-loving, paranoid militias would betray their essence by not preparing for the enemy. Let’s not forget those gun-loving, manly hunters, decimating all those blood-curdling wild animals, like rabbits, game birds and deer. For stalkers of the innocent, it’s munitions, not clothes, that make the man. Or gay marriage: what self-respecting, individualist he-man “chooses” the “homosexual life style,” let alone publicizes it to the world by marrying one’s buddy?
The Certitude of the Rigid
Certainly, every rugged individualist scrutinizes birth control methods and reigns in appetites so he or she never needs abortion doctors. What model of self-reliance would ignobly drug a date or assault a relative or child? That deserves getting skinned alive. Does not similar, hard line thinking justify capital punishment as just accountability, fitting ultimate punishment to the individual's willful crime, like in good Old Testament days. Bring on the fire and brimstone, hell’s a’waitin’ for miscreants who choose wickedness.
Just last week, a throng of freedom-loving senators trumped a U.N. treaty for daring to apply American standards to overseas discrimination against the disabled. Pretty rugged stuff. What a brave bunch, shuddering in terror against the mighty wrath of primary challenges by know-nothings! Observe the fierce irony: any conservatives who think on their own, who deviate a smidgeon, face political blackmail, from all the usual suspects:
- libertarians outraged against those who insufficiently despise government;
- fundamentalists outraged at the failure to despise abortion, secularism, or gay rights;
- greedy capitalists outraged at those who don’t despise taxes or regulation; and
- belligerent, neo-con conquistadores outraged at those who don’t despise perpetual war.
Except for militarists, reliant on government-sponsored war machines (“peace after all depends on constant war”), all endorse Godwin’s take on government as evil and the individual as the highest, if not only good. All these zealots are so vehement they continue to shoot themselves in the head by equating “freedom” with obstructive filibustering of whatever the majority supports. If God is really on that side, the world withers without a new theology.
All for One, One for All
Finally, for lovers of high irony, here’s a zinger. The Democrats are in fact a far more diverse, undisciplined, and independent-minded community, yet they share a much higher consensus about community values, the value of government and where the country should go. With the Obama re-election, liberals regained strength simply by asserting this radical idea, “the greatest good for the greatest number,” while reinforcing both Elizabeth Warren’s campaign and Republican, ex-justice Sandra Day O'Connor, “We don't accomplish anything in this world alone . . . and whatever happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one's life and all the weavings of individual threads form one to another that creates something” (of worth).
To end, here’s compelling etymology: the word “liberal” comes from the root “liber,” as in free, thus informing “liberty” and “liberation” (even “libertine”). For over a century, “liberal” buttressed the inalienable rights of all men, plus FDR’s Four Freedoms. A “liberal” benefactor was a hero with positive connotations of compassion, humanity, tolerance and openness to change.
Let us restore “liberal” to its root origins, with brave defenses of liberty alongside tolerance, individualism alongside“collective” teamwork. What’s wrong with pulling together, “all for one and one for all,” the recipe for job creation, health delivery, and critical ecological balances? For that simple, communitarian creed separates us from both know-nothing yokels and scheming fat cats who mouth individualism while funding inquisitions to insure lockstep obedience.
Top Stories
By Ronnie Cummins
21 comments on "The Right’s Sham Religion of Rugged Individualism"
December 29, 2012 9:28am
You can rant and rave all you want but you have missed several very important premises. For instance, the U.S. Senate just passed "unanimously" a recent military budget increase for next year so you have to throw the Dems under the bus as well. Politicians lie through their teeth because they cannot support the promises they make. It is impossible for a legislative body to know what is in the best interest of the majority. In reality, they only act in their own self interest, just as we must all do. The less money you give them the less damage they can do. I'm not saying that we should not help one another but I do not want to be forced to do so and I would surely not like someone like you or Nancy Peloci to make such decisions for me. I do not want to be forced to support something that I do not believe in. Secondly you have not come to understand why democracies fail over time, nor seldom provide what is in the best interest of the majority. The whole concept of political hierarchy is flawed by virtue of the inability to function other than by physical force. We have gotten what we asked for. Britain has invaded all but 22 nations in the world. 170 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th Century alone. As long as political power is condoned, they world will never be without tyranny. I know it is hard to face such facts after you have been indoctrinated throughout you life to the contrary.
December 13, 2012 9:20am
Stephanie Coontz covered the myth of rugged individualism very well in The Way We Never Were.
December 13, 2012 11:15am
thanks, looks interesting, but not exactly seem to focus on the contradictions around political individualism, per this publisher's note on Coontz' web site: what did I miss?
"About The Way We Never Were
This myth-shattering examination of two centuries of American family life banishes the misconceptions about the past that cloud current debate about "family values." "Leave It to Beaver" was not a documentary, Stephanie Coontz points out; neither the 1950s nor any other moment from our past presents workable models of how to conduct our personal lives today. Without minimizing the serious new problems in American families, Coontz warns that a consoling nostalgia for a largely mythical past of "traditional values" is a trap that can only cripple our capacity to solve today's problems. From "a man's home was his castle" to "traditional families never asked for a handout," this provocative book explodes cherished illusions about the past. Organized around a series of myths and half-truths that burden modern families, the book sheds new light on such contemporary concerns as parenting, privacy, love, the division of labor along gender lines, the black family, feminism, and sexual practice. Fascinating facts abound: In the nineteenth century, the age of sexual consent in some states was nine or ten, and alcoholism and drug abuse were more rampant than today ... Teenage childbearing peaked in the fabulous family-oriented 1950s ... Marriages in pioneer days lasted a shorter time than they do now. Placing current family dilemmas in the context of far-reaching economic, political, and demographic changes, The Way We Never Were shows that people have not suddenly and inexplicably "gone bad" and points to ways that we can help families do better. Seeing our own family pains as part of a larger social predicament means that we can stop the cycle of guilt or blame and face the real issues constructively, Coontz writes. The historical evidence reveals that families have always been in flux and often in crisis, and that families have been most successful wherever they have built meaningful networks beyond their own boundaries. --The Publisher."
December 13, 2012 12:11am
It's rather easy to find a dichotomy here, a simple distinction.
There is one side that says "We're all in this together."
There is one side that says "Every man for himself."
How did anything substantial in this nation ever get accomplished, if not for cooperation?
Probably the most amusing thing, from my point of view, is the distorted worship of the Founding Fathers, without any respect for their intellectual rigor, or the fact that they were considered liberals in their time. Self-determination of the body politic? No taxation without representation? Inalienable rights? "What nonsense!" must the conservative establishment of the day thought.
I wonder what the Tea Partiers would think if they knew that Thomas Jefferson felt that organized religion was a potential instrument of tyranny, that Thomas Paine came up with ideas remarkably like Social Security and progressive income tax, that John Adams signed a treaty which specifically said that the United States "is not in any way a Christian nation", or that the man who wrote much of the Constitution was possibly an atheist? But no, details and nuance and historical accuracy are for uppity lib'ral university know-it-alls.
December 13, 2012 11:05am
The Tea Party couldn't back the iconic Reagan, let alone Bush I or almost every Republican in the 20th C. And no, they'd view Jefferson as an fancy pants elitist, which he was and who knows whether they'd buy into the southern slave model, especially if they were prone to be plucked or exploited. Know-nothings don't stress about consistency but emotional release. They'd do better to find pacifying drugs than screw up politics.
December 12, 2012 11:49pm
@ RB, 6:34pm
Have there not been constitutional amendments adopted with far less than 50 years' effort? The repeal of alcohol Prohibition certainly comes to mind. Was that the only one outside of the first 10?
What does MSOVS claim her IQ to be? Mine was scored as 180. Should I hold a press conference to challenge her for her title, or does she prima facie best me?
December 13, 2012 11:02am
Yes, of course, but reversing prohibition was much easier than "getting big money out of politics," or providing far more transparency, or breaking the link of money-corruption-owning government. Politicians won't be motivated to change the rules unless forced.
I think she once was tested in the 190 IQ range but I was skimming at the time. And it turns out IQ is not about wisdom, accuracy, or judgment, all of which we lessen lights express more readily. :)
December 12, 2012 9:50pm
"Homestead Act of 1862" Essentially taking the land from under the feet of the people who live there and giving to the immigrants. Isn't that what white folk in Arizona are afraid of?
Anyhow, did they give any land to any of the Native Americans who were working the land that were over 21 and never took up arms against the United States? Not in my history books. Wrong color skin?
December 12, 2012 9:00pm
The author failed to mention the Communist "Homestead Act of 1862" signed into law by Republican President Abraham Lincoln and passed by a Republican Congress which basically gave away western lands FOR FREE to anyone over the age of 21 (male or female, black or white) who had "never taken up arms against the United States" and who promised to work the land. Now, those are the kind of Republicans I would vote for.
December 12, 2012 8:00pm
Our growing "since of entitlement" or better known as "narcissism":
Narcissism is a term with a wide range of meanings, depending on whether it is used to describe a central concept of psychoanalytic theory, a mental illness, a social or cultural problem, or simply a personality trait. Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, "narcissism" usually is used to describe some kind of problem in a person or group's relationships with self and others. In everyday speech, "narcissism" often means egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others. In psychology, the term is used to describe both normal self-love and unhealthy self-absorption due to a disturbance in the sense of self.
Theodore Millon, in his five general categories of narcissism, described one which stood out as applying in this case:
Fanatic Type: including paranoid features. An individual whose self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, usually with major paranoid tendencies who holds onto an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value and are trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. If unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.
December 12, 2012 7:02pm
Robert, I think your four or five categories are a pretty good summary of the different main poles of interest or ideology that comprise the coalition of the political "right" today. First are the ones who seek business advantage in the form of reduced taxes and regulations. Second are a spectrum of libertarians, racists and social darwinists who dislike being compelled, especially to support genetic lineages that they see as in selective competition with their own. Third is the religious right, whose focus of loyalty and concern is outside of secular society altogether, and which passes judgement upon it as a rebellious outside entity. Fourth are the patriots whose loyalty is to the flag and the military, and who glory in America's power to humiliate and destroy all opponents. Fifth is all the miscellaneous groups that don't really fit into any of these.
At present, these categories are not mutually exclusive, and they often overlap in the same individual. But they are fundamentally different in ideation and motivation. Take away the political "left" that presently provides them a focus of unity, and these right-wing categories would harden into mutually hostile factions against each other. The first and deepest split would be between the fundamentalists of category three and the libertarian-to-racist spectrum of category two. These are the two categories that are solidly ideological, and as such they have almost nothing in common but antipathy to the liberal establishment. Category two is secular, and cherishes the "Don't tread on me" slogan. Category three is other-worldly in focus, and preaches personal surrender to Jesus. If all right-wingers were shipped off to colonize a new planet, these two categories would become its principle opposing parties.
Category three would be fragmented among various church groups from the beginning. Spectrum category two would quickly split into separate factions, the libertarians proper and the racist-eugenicists, marking another fundamental ideological divide. The patriots of category four might ally with the racists, provided they could get around their differences in whether race or national institution should be the focus of loyalty. The libertarians, by default, would become moderates. Paradoxically, they would become the ones most concerned with maintaining rule by law under a stable government, in order to preserve the liberties that they cherish. Category one people, who also need a stable government, would tend to ally with them. Meanwhile, social services, no longer provided by the government, would be established by the church groups of category three, in a race with each other to gain new converts. This would quickly teach them sympathy for the plight of the poor, and they would seize this moral high ground to use against their opponents in the category two tradition. Thus, social liberalism would rise again, by way of the religious right.
Some thoughts, anyway. :)
Best, Rory
December 12, 2012 5:26pm
A bit of history plus what we can do about it and restore “liberal”.
Our government was corrupt for 8 years because Bush and Cheney distorted our federal tax code to favor the corporations that outsourced American jobs and granted the richest American citizen’s tax breaks that they did not ask for. In addition, they caused the Iraq war based on contrived information that Weapons of Mass Destruction existed in that country. In addition there was the Afghanistan debacle. Both of these wars were conducted on money borrowed from China and the real purpose of them was to continue uninterrupted importation to the US of crude oil from the Mideast countries so that Exxon and the other four big US oil companies could continue to enjoy their massive profits and exorbitant tax breaks. Cheney’s Halliburton made enormous profits from their participation in these wars. All of this was not enough for their greed. So they refused to enforce financial regulations and that resulted in the billions of dollars of fraudulent Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS’s) assembled by Goldman Sachs that were sold to unsuspecting investors and banks all over the world. Of course as we all know as soon as it was discovered that these MBS’s were made up mostly of mortgages that were destined to be foreclosed on our big banks had to be bailed out with tax payer money. (To throw salt in our wounds, Goldman Sachs shorted the MBS investment packages as soon as they were sold and made a really big bundle of dough on their failure.) So the debts incurred from two unnecessary wars plus the financial crash resulting from fraudulent investment packages plus the horrendous tax breaks given to the very rich plus the outsourcing of American jobs that destroyed our middle class all adds up and the sum total resulted in the near depression and still existing recession we have been experiencing since 2008.
So in addition to the foregoing, where are we now? Let me put it this way: I am 78 years old and from when I was only four years old I remember my father saying "Money talks"! Of course that was only a colloquialism of the time that meant exclusively “You can get what you want if you paid enough money for it!” However, now that I am a mature, well educated and experienced adult, I know the difference between speech and money. However, our current Supreme Court Justice Scalia (who naively took the old colloquial expression literally) has ruled that "money is speech". This gross distortion coupled with another of his gross distortions; i.e., "Corporations are people" has encouraged and made legal an infinite amount of money (that could total billions of dollars or more) that U.S. Corporations can contribute to U.S. elected members of our U.S. Congress to assure adoption of their preferred policies and legislation. Our Supreme Court voted that their action is protected by our Constitution’s freedom of speech proviso. As a result, the Corporations' massive amounts of money funneled through an inordinately large number of lobbyists to our members of Congress "speaks" so loudly that the voices of ordinary U.S. citizens are not heard or ignored by our elected Representatives and Senators. This is not Democracy (government by the people). It is a form of Plutocracy (government by the wealthy). This is the insidious compelling and all powerful force that is the real problem causing the gridlock we have been experiencing in our U.S. Congress. I respectfully submit that nothing is going to improve in Washington D.C. until this crippling situation is changed. And, the ONLY way it can be changed is to take the money out of American politics. To make this change, because our Supreme Court approved what Justice Scalia maintains, we must amend our U.S. Constitution. The basic Amendment is set forth in http://signon.org/sign/take-money-out-of-politics - so click on this link or paste it into your browser and see if you would like to sign the petition. Enough signatures are needed to get a two thirds vote in both our House of Representatives and Senate. Again - http://signon.org/sign/take-money-out-of-politics.
December 12, 2012 6:34pm
thanks for the informative overview. Do try to work on your paragraphs as it's hard to read one block of text like this one. I am not sure we can or should take "money out of politics" but we can take 1)billionaire buyouts of government, and 2) without transparency out of government. And I support efforts to amend the Constitution but that is a 50 year job -- and I fear where we will be in the meantime. Regards RB
December 12, 2012 4:45pm
The Community of the the United States of America thru exercising The Constitution of the United States of America garauntees, protects and defends the right of the person to be and individual as free as possible from the dictates and constraints of religion and government. We as a nation are a collective, a community of individuals each with the inalienable right of liberty to choose whom we choose to be. Yet, stop signs and turns signals are essential for a relatively calm coexistence.
It's not "Freedom of Religion". It's "Freedom from Religion" that is the corner stone of this nation. The right to experience 'God' as one so chooses to. Individualism is what this nation is founded upon. But individualism can not flourish with out the support of the community. Nor can a community flourish with out the support of the individual.
December 12, 2012 3:56pm
"Columnist Marilyn von Savant only adds fuel to the folly, 'The freedom to be an individual is the essence of America'.”
Wrong she may be (she often is, actually), despite her self-promoted identity as the "woman with world's highest I.Q., but the author is wrong, too. Her name is Marilyn VOS Savant, not "von Savant."
December 12, 2012 4:53pm
thanks for the correction. Yes, I saw her bio and the stuff about her claiming a super IQ, which only made me more interested in replicating her straight line for my pitch. Savant, indeed.
December 12, 2012 1:51pm
Choosing John Wayne for the graphic is the perfect compliment. If there was ever a more perfect role model/ metaphor for the conservative aesthetic, I can hardly think would it would be. Consider;
JohnWayne was not his real name. It was Marion Morrison. He wasn't even present when the name was selected for him.
Played many "cowboy" roles. Did not like horses.
Played many "soldier" roles. Spent the war in Hollywood mostly chasing skirts and worrying about his acting career.
High profile Chicken-hawk during Viet Nam War.
I guess these kind of contradictions would appear in any resume. But Wayne's is notable in that he played those Randian iconic roles that conservatives still hold as ideal..... but he worked in Hollywood. His life off the screen was nothing remotely like his life on screen. He was like so much of what Hollywood produces, artifice. I can hardly think of a more perfect symbol of far-right denial and myth-based world view than the lack of cognitive dissonance in embracing this guy as an icon.
December 12, 2012 1:38pm
Republicans constantly complain about this country becoming socialistic (which we already are) because they do not understand the difference between a democatic socialist and a Marxist socialist or dictatorial socialist. They say this because of food stamps, welfare, WIC, cheeze give-aways, medicaid, etc. They don't realize that medicare, and social security by definition are also democratic socialistic programs. The irony of it all is the fact that all the red states across the sun-belt are the highest participants in all these social programs. They rail against the very programs that are the hand that feeds and cares for them. Ignorance is bliss.
December 12, 2012 12:39pm
I agree with you basic idea, that there is no such thing as absolute individualism, that everything of merit we have accomplished came through cooperation and good government. I disagree with the name calling. It puts us in the same category as Rush, Beck and Rove, and only inflames the opposition. We need adult dialogue, not vilification.
December 12, 2012 1:16pm
Name calling? Other than calling Limbaugh a birdbrain, which I consider technically accurate :) -- all I offer are opinions and I barely focus on any one individual, don't even mention Beck and Rove only in passing. And if you think my mild put downs are in any way like Beck's or Rush's, you need to do more research. I am a pussy cat by comparison who sticks to intellectual points, not character assassination.
I consider myself an adult and you'll have to show me where in this piece I don't hold to that standard. Why not deal with my paradox or why the right would need to obscure clear distinctions?
December 12, 2012 11:48am
As for etymology, bear in mind that cancervative come from the root 'cancer' : "3: something evil or malignant that spreads destructively"
Have we seen any good at all come from cancervatives? Any lasting benefit to mankind?
No. Only selfishness, hatred, inequity and greed. Maybe that's the 'tradition' the wish to preserve.