Paul Ryan it is...

[spence]

Don't think Ryan was in college seven years ago, but you're right, there's danger in interpreting Weiss's interpretation of Ryan's interpretation of Rand.

That being said, listen to the actual audio here from 2005 that received condemnation from the Catholic Church:

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand's ideas: in the hot seat again | The Atlas Society

(2:54) And so when you take a look at where we are today, ah, some would say we’re on offense, some would say we’re on defense, I’d say it’s a little bit of both. And when you look at the twentieth-century experiment with collectivism—that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism—you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism than Ayn Rand.

If you're a Rand fan I'd say he articulates a very compelling position.

Then contrast with his statements in 2012 to the National Review:

Ryan Shrugged - Robert Costa - National Review Online

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

A lot of my views have certainly evolved since college, but not like that in the past seven years. Is he guilty of hyper-pandering? Perhaps, but like the author says, you can't have it both ways. If Ryan really is the intellectual leader of the GOP in regards to money, I would think voters would want to know where he'll really get his inspiration in 2013.

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern

-spence

why is this difficult?....

in the first case he's referring to Rand's political philosphy:

"that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism"

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[103] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[104] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[105] Rand believed that rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[106] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[107]


and in the second he's referring to her religeous philosophy(or lack of)......and in response to "These Rand-related slams, Ryan says, are inaccurate and part of an effort on the left to paint him as a cold-hearted Objectivist. Ryan’s actual philosophy, as reported by my colleague, Brian Bolduc, couldn’t be further from the caricature. As a practicing Roman Catholic, Ryan says, his faith and moral values shape his politics as much as his belief in freedom and capitalism does."



“I reject her (objectivist) philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview."



Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."[91] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and esthetics.[92]

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[93




if you know anything about Rand you know that she was a bit of a conundrum...

she often took controversial stances on political and social issues of the day. These included supporting abortion rights,[72] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"),[73] supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 as "civilized men fighting savages",[74] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[75] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws against it..........

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

why is this difficult?....

if you know anything about Rand you know that she was a bit of a conundrum...

Sounds like Ryan might be one as well,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like Ryan might be one as well,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you were smarter than that

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't think Ryan was in college seven years ago, but you're right, there's danger in interpreting Weiss's interpretation of Ryan's interpretation of Rand.

Can views only evolve from one's college days, or only after the same specified amount of time? That's ridiculous. Right, the danger is in misrepresenting Ryan's views for political purposes to falsely influence voters. Of course, if that is your intent, it would be an objective, not a danger.

That being said, listen to the actual audio here from 2005 that received condemnation from the Catholic Church:

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand's ideas: in the hot seat again | The Atlas Society

Did he receive "condemnation" from the whole church, Pope and all, or from a bishop? Does that bishop not approve of any of Rand's views? Are all Catholics in lock step about Rand? They certainly aren't about other things. In my opinion, from my reading of the Bible, Christian political activism is a personal rather than a faith based action. Jesus seemed to have little concern for political systems, and certainly little to no concern for secular politics. He stated it succinctly with "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." And he didn't seem to fight for government solutions to poverty and health. Was he not mostly concerned with your individual soul and its salvation? Were his "miracles" which brought back life from death, fed a multitude from a small amount of bread and fish, transformed water to wine, perfomances meant to inspire governments to do the same, or, rather, to inspire those who witnessed to believe in the power of God, not government, to inspire that belief in him was the way to salvation and heaven on earth, not belief in government?

If you're a Rand fan I'd say he articulates a very compelling position.

Then contrast with his statements in 2012 to the National Review:

Ryan Shrugged - Robert Costa - National Review Online


As Scottw points out one is a political philosophy and one is a religious view. Why is it difficult to understand that Ryan can be intelectually influenced by Rand's view on individualism versus collectivism, and yet be spiritually and emotionally moved by his perception of Catholicism?

A lot of my views have certainly evolved since college, but not like that in the past seven years. Is he guilty of hyper-pandering? Perhaps, but like the author says, you can't have it both ways. If Ryan really is the intellectual leader of the GOP in regards to money, I would think voters would want to know where he'll really get his inspiration in 2013.

Why must Ryan's views evolve like your's? He might have been mini-pandering to the Atlas folks, but it is extremist, absolutist to say he must be totally a Randian, or totally be what a particular bishop considers Catholic?

We were not supposed to care about what inspired Obama, such as his Communist mother and her family, or Reverend Wright, or Bill ayers, so why would voters want to know where Ryan got his inspiration? Isn't the proof in the pudding, as you like to say, not in the cook? How about actually focusing on his plan, not what inspired him?

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern

-spence

The greater cause for concern in the campaign rhetoric the next few months, in the interest of informing the voters, is truthful debate. Both sides are claiming this to be a most important election. It is fitting, then, to be honest, not to merely win, not to lie or influence by inuendo or implications.

Weiss's article is very much inuendo and implication--that mixture of half truths and facts meant to imply contradictions that don't exist. Somewhat similar to your post earlier in this thread in response to the National Review article on Ryan's plan where you said that the author "admits" the plan might be a "total failure" . . ." twice!" There was no such "admission." There was speculation that "if" it did, things would simply revert to the present state which the Democrats seem to prefer. And if that is "total failure," then the status quo that the Dems prefer is a total failure. And the article was far more optimistic about Ryan's plan than your assertion, and its choice of words, implies.