Of Graffin and Galt.

As a rule, on a yearly basis, I try to work in at least one re-reading of Ayn Rand's landmark novel "Atlas Shrugged." The struggle of the book's heroes - Dagny Taggart, Francisco D'Anconia, Hank Rearden, et al - against the empty, morally and ethically bankrupt mode of thinking that dominated their time - is one that is inspirational to me, and relevant to what I'm about to write:

I've noted before in this space my admiration of the punk-rock group Bad Religion. Yes, the atheistic elements of some of their songs are hard to stomach - more than 20 years into their career, it's pretty tiresome by this point - and their leftism-masquerading-as-populism runs contrary to my political beliefs.

On the other hand, their songs are often smart, tight, and incredibly catchy and melodic. It's one thing to mindlessly chant "Bush lied, kids died" without bothering yourself with the details, but it's another thing to rage so eloquently over the tight slash-and-burn nature of their songs. BR's anger - and let's face it, the house of punk rock wasn't built on sunshine and daisies - doesn't come off as blind hatred like it does for so many bands of their genre; rather, it's focused, reasoned and intelligent. We're never going to agree about the content of their message, but I'm a fan nonetheless; really, they're probably one of the five greatest rock bands of the last quarter-century. I'm probably not one of their five favorite fans, though.

All of that being said, I still take issue with an essay that lead singer Greg Graffin posted on the band's website. Now, I will grant that it was posted some eight years ago. (Pardon? It's 2006 already? OK ... the essay was posted nine years ago, in January 1997.) But, as NBC used to say when advertising their summer reruns: "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you." Besides, I imagine that the passage of nearly a decade hasn't altered Graffin's thoughts on the matter a whole lot; he's a man that, by all indications, is very steadfast in his beliefs, so the essay is probably still an accurate reflection.

The essay, "A Comment on Responsible Voting, and a Protocol on a Useful Vote," is a Bad Religion song in long form. Here's the key quote I pulled from it (it almost reads like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, so play along):

AN UNORTHODOX PROTOCOL FOR CASTING A MEANINGFUL VOTE:

1. Determine whether you care about the general well-being of society (If you do not, skip to step 7, if you do, continue on)

2. Determine whether you are a privileged citizen (If you are not, then proceed to step number 6, if you are, read steps 3, 4, and 5 only)

3. Examine not how well you will fare if a given issue is voted into law, but how poorly the under-privileged will suffer (no matter which laws pass a vote or who is voted into office, you will probably always still be better off than the people you fear you'll become, namely the under-privileged).

4. Create an ideological balance-sheet that details how much better you will fare, as a percentage of your current comfort level, versus how much worse the under-privileged will drop in their current comfort level (for instance, as a very banal example, a mere 2% drop in your current income, could provide a tremendous relative rise in an under-privileged household's income).

5. Vote for the issue or candidate that promises to balance the disparity between the privileged and the under-privileged classes, even if it doesn't make you richer or if it provides a small compromise in your day-to-day comfort.

6. Vote for the issue or the candidate who will make your life better.

7. Abstain from voting

Graffin's protocol, obviously - especially step #5 - is codespeak for "Vote Democrat" or "Vote Green" or "Vote Socialist": if you have any compassion whatsoever for your fellow man, you'll vote for the slate of candidates on the left side of the political spectrum. I suppose since I'm so familiar with their music, it's more clear to me than it would be for someone who's never heard a note of Bad Religion's songs.

I don't know that Graffin, a clearly intelligent man, paused to consider that the "selfish desire for personal gain" he spoke of elsewhere in his essay is very rarely fulfilled through the electoral process.

Take me, for instance. I consider myself a reasonably well-informed person who has, nonetheless, never voted for a Democrat in hs life. This isn't out of any sort of selfish interest - I don't know of an election yet that has made me rich beyond belief - it just happens that the things that I believe will make a better society for all (the reduction of abortions, a strong national defense, protection from terror, and a smaller, weaker federal government) are all things (on paper, anyway) espoused by the Republican Party. I know that point one - the abortion question - is one that will never be resolved in my lifetime, the hysterics of the left after the rise of Justices Roberts and Alito notwithstanding. While the evidence mounts that the philosophy of the current administration and legislature runs counter to the bulk of conservative philosophy, this would leave the only other choice for me to be the Libertarian Party. This isn't really a choice at all; the Libertarians will never be a viable choice for anything more than a protest vote until the drug-legalization and open-immigration planks of their platform fall by the wayside. Those would do as much damage to the American fabric as any Great Society plan.

(Speaking of which - why not vote Democrat? Because for all of the damage done by the current crop of Republicans to our cause, the Democratic "hand out, not a hand up" social welfare policies have created a generation of citizenry that is losing whatever tendency it might have had toward self-sufficiency. Yes - there will always be an element of society that cannot help itself, and we must never forget about those people. However, it is not my moral responsibility to assist those who won't [not can't] help themselves, and I resent the implication that it is.)

But it blows my mind, Graffin's assertion that I, as a middle-class "privileged" citizen, should be expected to reduce my "current comfort level" for the sake of propping up the underclass. This is socialism in its purest form, and it's frightening to consider that there is an element of people who believe this to be a perfectly plausible course of action.

The underlying tenet of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" was best put forth in a speech by the character John Galt:

I swear - by my life and my love for it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

This is an oath that ran counter to the philosophy of those who dominated the ruling class in the book - a class that was populated by people who thought like Graffin: that equality of opportunity was not sufficient or otherwise did not exist - therefore, equality of outcome must be guaranteed.

John Galt's morality and Greg Graffin's morality would not appear, on the surface, to oppose one another so diametrically, and in fact, the atheistic components of their respective psyches are very much in agreement with one another. And Galt's landmark 60-page speech in the latter pages of "Atlas Shrugged" deals heavily with reason and rationality, which is something that Graffin prides himself on as well. But consider the fact that Graffin aims to have me essentially throw away my precious vote in support of a lower class that as often as not has only itself to blame for where it is, and then weigh that fact against a key quote from Galt's speech:

Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None - except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine.

Which philosophy is more attractive to you?