LIBERADIO(!)

While channel surfing several nights ago, I landed on The Passion of Ayn Rand, a made for TV movie based on a book that I read while going through my “OMG The Fountainhead is the BEST BOOK EVER!” stage. I wanted to know a bit more about the woman whose book I loved and whose philosophy intrigued me.

What I discovered while reading The Passion is that Rand, although brilliant, was also a psychologically-scarred bully with hypocritical tendencies and a severe lack of empathy. Still loved the book, but her practical application of Objectivism? No so much.

Yet, even to this day, my internal dialogue often labels people in her terms (I use character’s names as shorthand) – Oh, he’s a Howard Roark, or, she’s a Dominique Francon. In my mind, Rush Limbaugh has always been an Ellsworth Toohey.

It made sense to me – the Toohey character is a media figure (a newspaper columnist) who uses his medium to grab power by shaping – through lies and manipulation – public opinion. He courts influential associates and destroys anyone who 1) doesn’t recognize his authority and 2) tries to maintain their integrity. He also represents what Rand hated most – socialism.

So is Rush a socialist?

Well, we know that he doesn’t believe in the collective ownership of anything, so maybe not.

But if we look at Rand’s background – Russian-born, twelve in 1917, her father’s business was confiscated during the Russian Revolution – we get a good sense of her frame of reference. While the Toohey character may represent socialist ideology in general, it also represents the Lenin/Stalin brand specifically. All of Stalins’ least attractive elements are embodied in that one character – the development of a cult of personality, absolute control of the message, the acceptance of bombastic titles, the absolute allegiance of your followers, the destruction of enemies, and an ego the size of a small Midwestern state. It’s these elements that make Rush a Toohey.

This week, in just one incident, we saw Rush in all his Stalinist Toohey glory.* After revealing that he hopes the Obama administration fails in its attempt to revive the country’s economy (this statement alone has it’s own implications), Rush (of the gold-accented tribute to his “Excellence in Broadcasting,”) was called out by the president as well as Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey. Rush’s “Dittoheads,” who worship his words instead of articulating their own, fell in line and vilified Gingrey for daring to express opposition. Gingrey, it should be known, fell in line as well:

As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent….

Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination. At the end of the day, every member of the conservative movement, from our political commentators and thinkers to our elected officials, share an important and common purpose in advancing the cause of liberty, reining in a bloated federal government, and defending our traditional family values.

Did anyone else just feel a chill up their spine?

*If this angers you, feel free to re-read it while imagining George Bush is still the president and Rush is Michael Moore.