Atlas Missed

Ever since conservative pundits started ranting about how the apocalypse in Atlas Shrugged was being brought to fruition by Democratic bailouts and other spending programs, I have mentally slotted it on my ever increasing “to read” list. I finally got around to it this January after receiving a copy of the text as a Christmas gift (shout out to Dad), just in time for the upcoming movie (see trailer below). Like every young liberal-minded person of my age I am aware of the farce that is Fox News, and through beloved media outlets such as The Onion and The Daily Show, am aware that the boundary between what passes as “news” in the US and inane political banter is at best paper thin. With that in mind I didn’t take the media’s love of Atlas Shrugged as a parable for our times at face value.

Yet despite this, I was still shocked by how off the mark Fox & Co. were. There certainly are aspects of Atlas Shrugged that lend support to their Tea Party extremism, but on the whole I felt that Rand was arguing more against their political and economic policies than those of the American Left. One of the first criticisms Rand slaps down is Jim Taggert’s decision to continue to buy his steel from Orren Boyle despite the fact that he can never deliver the product on time; Taggert’s response? “he’s my friend.” Perhaps before they endorsed Atlasism, Tea Baggers need a refresher on the Bush/Cheney administration’s choice to ink huge contracts with Lockheed Martin or the re-working of laws regulating natural gas production that paved the way for Halliburton’s vast expansion. One of the other arguments frequently cited by neo-Cons is Rand’s demonstration that bailouts and government meddling in industry stifle the economy to the point of ruin. Perhaps they too need a refresher, this time on the original $7 billion financial bailout approved by Bush. Rand is also critical of those who inherit wealth—either in the form of hard currency or socio-economic power—as opposed to creating it themselves. Yet you never hear wealthy Republican heirs and heiresses suggesting that perhaps they should have to actually earn their trust funds. 

On a more philosophical note, although I found that Rand really bashed me over the head with Objectivism, it is not an ideology without its merits. Her beliefs in happiness, productivity, and reason are certainly tenets I can ascribe too. Her absolute belief in them, and her application of them only to the individual are, however, something that I disagree with strongly. Countless times throughout the book we are told that each of the "hero" characters are only working for their own personal gain, be it fortune, innovation, or ideological domination. The idea behind this is akin to utilitarianism---but applied solely to one person. The inherent flaw in this philosophy is of course that no man is an island; we both affect and are affected by those around us and thus our success and happiness cannot be judged without consideration to the greater society in which we live.

One needs to look no further to the recent natural disasters in Japan to recognize the global nature of modern society. An earthquake and a tsunami hitting one country on an island has had profound effects on stock markets around the world, to name only one global repercussion. The trickle down of this negative aftermath to an individual living in a small town half-way around the world from Japan is by no means a stretch of the imagination. While the characters of Atlas Shrugged might chagrin those who wanted to help their neighboring countries to succeed, our modern global economy suggests that at least some measure of world wide cooperation is necessary. On the flip side, the success of the post-WWII Marshall Plan (to such an extent that a similar initiative is being considered in the post-revolution Arab world), demonstrates the positive outcome that cooperative financial measures--or in Rand-speak "looting"--can have on global society.


Rand does allow her Objectivist characters to act for the benefit of others, and sometimes does justify it in the perspective of self-interest I have identified above. But it is too little in comparison to the constant badgering of the need to look out solely for oneself whenever a broader self-interest is applied. This, coupled with her decision to not explore this theme when Dagny and Hank discover the abandoned industrial town of Starnesville, Wisconsin, (once the home of the Twentieth Century Motor Company) make it even clearer that Rand's Objectivism was only applicable in the narrowest of senses. Which, when you think about it, suits the ideology of Tea Partyers just fine.

The Fabrication of Public Image

It took two years but I finally got around to reading The Fabrication of Louis XIV by Peter Burke over the past week. My only regret is that I hadn't read it sooner. Like before I wrote my thesis sooner. Burke's monograph is a wonderfully written, engaging, and informative account of the fabricated publicity of Louis XIV. To a large extent, it covers similar themes as my thesis, but with a focus on Louis' French court as opposed to the Spanish court of Philip IV. The final chapter even contains a section that specifically mentions the influence Philip's court had its French counterpart.

Aside from justifying some of the claims in my thesis, it also provides new insight into those areas space restrictions prevented me from exploring in depth. The most memorable of which was something which even Burke only discussed briefly, but eloquently penned: "One might therefore speak of a 'war of images,' or of art as the continuation of war by other means." Spoken in reference to the artistic arms race that occurred throughout Renaissance and Early Modern Europe, this one sentence concisely sums up one of the principle reasons behind each monarch's continual effort to out-shine each other. Although Burke only briefly discusses it, this concept is still at play in the publicity and propaganda campaigns of modern, democratic leaders.

A few months ago I watched a great documentary series on CBC called Love, Hate and Propaganda. Through six installments, it analyzed the various forms of propaganda employed by both the Allies and the Axis, as well as the various groups each side targeted. Aside from motivating their own troops and vilifying the enemy, both sides also utilized propaganda in an effort to intimidate their opponent. More recently, we have seen footage of ICBM tests performed by North Korea, and videos of Osama bin Laden denouncing the West and proclaiming the impending dominance of Islam and Al-Queda. Nothing could better exemplify a modern interpretation of Burke's quotation.

On the other side of the coin, the world is rife with modern examples of the more positive publicity Louis XIV fabricated. Anyone who has ever followed a political campaign has seen examples of crafted press ranging from George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fabrication, Steven Harper's sweater ads, or the more recent G20 photo-op bonanza. All of these echo artistic campaigns launched by Louis and his ministers: the exaggeration of military successes in the war of War of the Spanish Succession, the donning of symbolic regalia in state portraits to emphasize dynasty and legitimacy, and the various media that demonstrate Louis visits to the Academies and Gobelins factory. Although there is insufficient evidence to precisely determine the ultimate reception of Louis' message, any current campaign or PR manager for a politician is unlikely to question the importance of modern propaganda.

In the end, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter whether or not Louis XIV's artistic endeavors influenced contemporary Europeans. What matters is that its usefulness was so highly regarded that every major leader undertook similar artistic programs, and that art as propaganda is a practice deemed so politically integral that it has continued down to this day. For even though the specific form has changed, the same principles and methods are, if anything, more prevalent today than in Louis' time. What does this ultimately boil down to? Another example of the importance of historical study. While knowing the origins of modern publicity might not save lives, it can certainly help us to understand the intricacies of modern political imagery. Perhaps this understanding will help us to delve beyond the headlines and see past the picture of the handshake. Perhaps we might even begin to question why our leaders deem it so necessary to live behind a cloak of deception.

Slow Death by Big Business

In Slow Death by Rubber Duck the authors test changes in chemical levels in their blood as a result of using certain toxic items. The outcome was frightening: both authors saw two- to seven-fold increases due to using everyday household products in high concentration. What is equally frightening is how hard it has been, and continues to be, to get these products banned from use. With each chemical, a common pattern emerges: numerous studies and real-world cases come out that illustrate the toxicity of the chemical, only for the various lobbyists representing the chemical and manufactoring companies to fight back and maintain the status quo. Even if a chemical does manage to get banned, the companies simply tweak the formula, and replace it with a very similar compound with equally adverse effects, causing the whole cycle to run again.

As horrible as it is to see these chemicals stay in the products that we use everyday and toxify our bodies, unfortunately this is only one symptom of a bigger problem. We have let the government become dominated by Big Business to the point that individual citizens no longer have the control to remove substances that pollute us and negatively impact our health. What's more, the onus is on scientists to prove that a substances causes serious harm beyond any doubt before a chemical is banned. There is no responsibility on the part of the companies that use and manufacture these chemicals to prove that they are safe before they enter the marketplace and pollute our lives.

Unfortunately for the people of the world, this is only one example of how the demands of Big Business control our legislative process. For all the flack they take, even Big Pharma isn't this bad: at least they have to run tests (however flawed) to prove that their new drugs work and meet certain safety thresholds before they are approved by the government. This problem is not limited to toxic chemicals, environmental issues, or even prescription drugs. It is lurking behind every backroom deal between the government of some country and a large multinational corporation. It has reached a point where the rights of companies are greater than the rights of individuals, and the penalties when companies are rarely held accountable for their misdeeds are laughable in comparison to the penalties faced for civilian offenders. What has to happen before we wake up and demand change? Is it even possible to effect change when faced by the Goliath of Big Business lobbyists and their infinite bank accounts?

To bring this piece back to the topic in Slow Death, the second-last chapter demonstrates that perhaps the tide is turning. The chapter outlines the process that ultimately led to the banning of bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles in Ontario, and eventually Canada. What makes this example truly promising is that unlike so many toxic chemicals of the past, BPA was banned before there was an outbreak of dying or severely ill people that could definitively be traced back to the chemical in question. Finally the government had decided that it was "better to be safe than sorry."* Although this only banned BPA from baby bottles, the ensuing press frenzy resulted in certain retailers, such as Mountain Equipment Coop, to preemptively remove all products containing BPA from their shelves. As of today, consumer demand drives companies to produce BPA-free products.

While it is unfortunate that BPA has lasted in the marketplace (and thus the environment) as long as it has, at least it is slowly being weeded out without having to first witness an episode like Minamata. Hopefully, this will symbolize a movement towards a more balanced relationship between the rights of people and the rights of corporations in today's democratic governments. The result will be a political environment conducive to banning the use of toxic chemicals, to forcing companies to prove the safety of new products before they are put into our environment, and to putting the needs and health of people above the profit of corporations. Only once this paradigm shift occurs will we truly be able to break the cycle and eliminate the life-threatening problems so succinctly demonstrated in Slow Death. At the very least, if the toxic side-effects of these products are allowed to run their course, companies will have no one left to sell their products to.

*Excerpt from Health Minister Tony Clement's press conference announcing the ban of BPA in baby bottles.