George Washington and the "Objectivist Center"
by Adam Reed
A recent Solo Forum discussion on the relocation of the Objectivist Center to Washington, DC, got me thinking about TOC's relation to the ideas of the Founding Father for whom that city is named. For the non-Americans on this forum, my reference to the ideas of George Washington could be puzzling. Foreign history books often present George Washington as mainly a military leader, not an intellectual like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Samuel Adams or Alexander Hamilton. In America, however, George Washington is remembered as the "father" of two key political principles. One, established by his precedent-setting behavior as first president of the United States, is executive deference to the constitutional decisions of the federal courts. The other is the revolutionary principle that the government owes every individual not a mere toleration for his differences - which under European governments, when they granted it at all, was conditional on any number of governmental restrictions based on each government's official religious ideology - but rather, respect for his individual rights without any conditions other than equal respect for the rights of others - or, "the equal protection of the laws." In his Newport Address of 1790 Washington said, "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights."
Washington might not have anticipated all the "classes of people" who today claim their "inherent natural rights" under this principle - women, Africans and Asians, Lesbians and Gays and prostitutes and pornographers, Atheists and Pagans and Falun Gong - but, being a man of the Enlightenment, he would not have been surprised. The applicability of this principle to the Jews of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, where he spoke, certainly seemed obvious: they were, like himself, white gentlemen and veterans of the Revolutionary War. Washington owned slaves, and never considered the possibility that women might serve as military officers, not even when Molly Pitcher's cannon saved the day at the Battle of Monmouth Courthouse. But it was an Enlightenment principle, that it is the nature of principles to find new applications, as men's minds ever learn more about the nature of reality from the experience of living on Earth. The true original intent of the Founding Fathers was that their principles would be applied in future generations according to the laws of reason; and George Washington knew that it is the nature of reason itself not to be bound by the chains of tradition.
Washington's principle of equal protection of the laws became part of the Constitution of the United States in the 14th Amendment, 78 years and a great war after the Newport Address. In the federal courts, this principle is still winning new victories, most recently in 2003 with LAWRENCE v. TEXAS. In the US Legislature, however, those who again speak of "toleration," as though other Americans enjoyed their inherent natural rights only by the indulgence of Congress, are ascendant. They have proposed, and passed, dozens of laws enforcing their religious bigotries against one natural individual human right after another, all the while proclaiming that their victims should thank America for "tolerating them" - the word that George Washington proclaimed no longer "spoken of" has been revived - with alleged Christian benevolence. There is so much to condemn that one must choose. Being an Objectivist, I choose on the basis of my own highest values.
I am the father of a Lesbian woman. I want her to have all the life options that any woman has, including the option of marrying the person she loves. I want my grandchildren to grow up with two loving parents, whether or not their parents are allowed to marry each other. Today, Lesbian couples form stable families by adopting each other's children. I want my child and my future grandchildren to be able to live as equal citizens anywhere in America, including our capital. However, the US Congress has recently passed legislation prohibiting joint-custody adoption of children by Gay and Lesbian couples living in the Federal District.
The Objectivist Center in Washington, D.C. recently announced the program of their "Ayn Rand Centenary - Celebrating the 100th birthday of Ayn Rand!". The central event of this program is a 'Special session, "A View from the Hill," with remarks by Congressman Ed Royce (R-California) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin).' Both of these congress-reptiles promoted, and voted for, the bill banning Lesbian couples from adopting children in the District of Columbia. There is no objective reason - no reason at all, for religion-based bigotry most certainly cannot qualify - for this despicable measure. The man, for whom the city in which they voted for this bill is named, said 215 years ago, "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." That two traitors to this principle should be honored and legitimized - in the name of the woman who gave us unprecedented understanding of Americanism as a body of principles, including this one - is an unspeakable obscenity. For shame, TOC, for shame.
This is not an objection to the inclusion in the TOC program of people who disagree with Ayn Rand. My own cognitive style is such that I can best refine my own ideas through confrontation and disagreement, and I have benefited from constructive disagreement at the TOC Advanced Seminar and elsewhere. But legislation is not an argument. Laws are passed to be enforced by force. Laws that violate the principle of equal individual rights are an initiation of force. And force is the opposite of reasoned argumentation. The two congress-reptiles invited to speak at the TOC "celebration" are not being offered a platform for ideas, because living by the ideas of one's mind is what the enforcement of arbitrary legislation abrogates. Their invitation legitimizes the violation of rights by force. It legitimizes the opposite of reason. If TOC had invited two Jesuits, I would have had no objection to their inclusion. But the new TOC invited two abrogators of individual human rights - to "celebrate" the birthday of history's greatest advocate of individual human rights. This makes it a "celebration" that one who actually respects the ideas of Ayn Rand could not possibly attend.
With the termination of the Advanced Seminar, the "Objectivist Center" no longer provides me with much of anything that would serve my own rational self-interest. TOC's legitimation, of two of the most repulsive congress-reptiles on the Hill, has turned the scale so much against my interest and values, that I will no longer collaborate with TOC on anything. If this be Sanction, make the most of it.
________________________________________
Editor's Post-Script: The following was posted on SOLOHQ earlier by Ed Hudgins, TOC's Executive Director-designate:
The Objectivist Center indeed invited Reps. Ryan and Royce to speak at our February 2 celebration of Ayn Rand's 100th birthday. It is a sign of progress that members of Congress not only know of Rand but also find her insights valuable in their thinking about public policy. I note also that Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) likes Rand and has written about her. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who was mentioned in a post, is a libertarian-leaning member of Congress but NOT a Rand fan. Among other Rand fans in Washington is Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Center event is to celebrate Rand and to have panels and discussions about her significance and influence. It's not a meeting of true believers only. Thus, while I'm aware of the mixed record, by our standards, of Royce, Ryan (and all other members of Congress), I'm pleased that they find Rand of value and will state their reasons publicly. I also note that in the link provided that Royce has a lot of votes with which Objectivists can agree -- pro-free trade, anti-agriculture subsidies. And Ryan is leading the charge for some sort of Social Security privatization. (Yes, I know, it does not get the government out of the retirement business but it's a move in the right direction.)
I note here the benefits of having non-Objectivists speaking at Center events: 1) Non-Objectivists have many good and insightful things to say that are consistent with Objectivism -- we've had John Stossel, Charles Murray and a long list of libertarians speak at our events and Summer Seminars; 2) Sometimes we want to delve into subjects, policies or particular questions to which Objectivism still needs to be applied, and panels that include thoughtful non-Objectivists can help do just that; and 3) Debates with opponents who are thoughtful on the topics to be discussed often attract audiences better than panels of all-Objectivists, which are seen by the media and potentially interested individuals as propaganda-fests. Since our ideas are shown to be correct when they go head-to-head with opponents, debates can spread our ideas.
At the February 2 Rand birthday bash we have a panel, which I will chair, with David Kelley, Michelle Kamhi and Madeleine Cosman and another panel hosted by Fred Smith of CEI with Howard Dickman (formerly a Reader's Digest editor), Ed Crane from Cato and Bob Poole from Reason. Will Thomas also will make remarks on Rand's life.
So come one, come all and celebrate a century of Ayn Rand!
Ed Hudgins
The Objectivist Center
Discuss this Article (40 messages)
|
