Last time, we looked at the problem with this emerging trope: 'Americans are tired of conservative and liberal extremism, and they're looking for the Common Sense Middle Ground.' We saw that this is really an electioneering ploy by the two major political parties, which have no remaining purpose other than running campaigns and delivering quid pro quo largesse for large donors. The common sense middle ground myth is a convenient cover story for supposed partisan gridlock, when in actuality our federal politicians constitute a brutally-efficient machine for shunting money and power upwards to our Gilded Age power elite. And finally, we touched on how this idea that the two major parties have become polarized by extremism (when really they are in lockstep on the main policy imperatives of economic growth, full employment, and maximum consumption) is a distraction from a more important potential divide: Ayn Randian, Tea Party dystopianism vs. a yet-to-be-fully-articulated approach to purposeful, community-centered decentralism.

The winds of the Long Emergency are picking up strength, and an array of historical trends will soon impose a much more austere, limited future for us. And in these circumstances, what is decidedly not needed is a more cautious, middle-of-the-road approach. We really do need to break out of the bi-partisan consensus on what constitutes economic recovery, in favor of a much more radical, 'extremist' approach to our predicament. The big question is whether we will steer towards a John Galtish dream for a simple laissez-faire utopia that can never exist in reality, or towards something that makes more sense, given the conditions that are likely to exist on the ground. So let's get at it.

In January, the victorious Tea Partiers from the mid-terms will assume a high-profile position of power in the new Congress. Even though they will have to work with 'establishment Republicans,' the general drift of the American populace towards Tea Party sentiment ensures that these new Congressmen and Congresswomen will get more media attention than they deserve and a non-proportional share of political power. As many on the Left have pointed out, this might create a conundrum for the Republican power-brokers. How can the GOP harness the rhetorical popularity of the Tea Party, but not get swept up in the actual consequences of their program, which would strip down the federal government and likely lead to a lot more economic misery? Let's remember, as the Republican Young Gun Eric Cantor admits, recent history demonstrates that the GOP under Dubya was just as willing to swell the size of the federal budget as were the Dems. So how do establishment Republicans accustomed to swollen rivers of federal cash adjust to the Tea Party push for smaller government? Will the Tea Partiers just get co-opted by the entrenched system of lobbyists and graft, and get with the program? Will downsizing and deficit-cutting fervor get swept aside by the practical exigencies of reelection fundraising and the complexities of navigating the corporate-owned halls of Congress?

I don't think so. The Tea Party has more momentum than most people might think, and as economic conditions continue to stagnate and deteriorate, their platform of grievance will resonate even more. And sure, the Tea Party might be a scattershot collection of sprawling, unconnected organizations; but that is certainly only temporary. I think that the new Tea Party contingent in Congress will actually fuse with the establishment GOP structure, and the result will be a solid, purposeful drive towards an Ayn Randian program of tax cuts, deficit reduction, social insurance gutting, and general government downsizing.

How will this happen, when the results will almost certainly be increased unemployment, accelerated home foreclosures, surging poverty, and a basic collapse of middle class economic security? How can the GOP actually spin the privatization of Social Security, the dismantling of Obamacare (I don't see any way that Obama's medical plan survives the new conservative arrangement of public opinion), and the cascading collapse of government services at all levels, as every tax base fizzles in a relentless feedback loop of decline?

I think it happens through an Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged' rationalization narrative. Say what? What does a sprawling, 1950s-era dystopian novel have to do with our current situation? Quite a lot, I think. First, a quick recap of 'Atlas Shrugged' (for a longer treatment, check out my old post, "The Capitalist Rapture"). In a quasi, near-future America, the heroic John Galt, an unbelievably brilliant, handsome, industrious, and charismatic businessman, sets up a secret utopian community in the mountains of Colorado, and begins luring other great businessmen away from mainstream society to come live in his capitalist Eden. He does this because the wider American scene has become corrupt and irrevocably-spoiled, thanks to a huge socialist government. All of the successful captains of industry, the true masters of the universe, are being bankrupted by the unproductive leeches of need. The true motor of the world, in Rand's telling, is rational, self-interested, creative production. The enemy is the meddling complex of Big Government: force, need, and the tyranny of mysticism. John Galt, after heroically trying to make the world see the folly of interference with individual agency, finally gives up on the whole rotten parasitical thing, picks up his marbles, and retreats to his mountain lair, where he and his awesomely-righteous brethren will rebuild society after the wider American landscape goes to hell and collapses.

Now in my view (see link above to the full treatment), "Atlas Shrugged," which Rand called her most important work (after its completion, she stopped writing novels, and turned to the role of public philosopher), is staggeringly mediocre, and is riddled with historical ignorance and philosophical naivete. She vastly overestimates the novelty and importance of her own ideas, but she tries to make up for it by endless repetition of the same simplistic, banal concepts.

But surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, some of our mainstream political leaders actually find value in Rand's formulation, and truly believe that it is a valid, useful depiction of how the American future will unfold. Alan Greenspan has been the highest-profile disciple of Rand, but Clarence Thomas is also an admirer, and her novels continue to rank high on many lists of the world's most important literature.

Amongst the Tea Party set, Ron Paul and Young Gun Paul Ryan are even more relevant Rand Fans. Ryan especially, as a significant power-broker in Congress, is instructive (he's the probable new Chairman of the House Budget committee). He sees the ultimate battle in America as one of Individualism vs. Collectivism, and the latter has polluted government and society to such an extent that it will take decades to purge the system. Ryan wants to exorcize this collectivist poison by privatizing Social Security, changing Medicare to a private voucher program, and freezing all non-military federal spending. Ryan sees this project as taking decades, and as ultimately very painful. But that is the John Galtian price to pay for building a society based on looting the productive for the benefit of the parasitical.

As I noted in my longer treatment of "Atlas Shrugged," there is a strong element of apocalyptic rapture thinking in Rand's formulation, a la the "Left Behind" books. The idea of a small, righteous remnant, persecuted by the lazy and sinful, percolates all through this movement. When confronted with the messy maelstrom that is typical of a huge national conglomerate of 300 million people, there is a powerful temptation to cut through all complexity by retreating to a comfortable ideology, wherein the masses will crash and burn, and ultimately, magically 'go away.' And those that are left will reinhabit the planet in a righteous, spotless way.

Now of course, Randian disciples cannot so openly fuse rapture thinking and John Galt schaudenfraude over societal collapse. Practical politicians cannot hope for the absolute pauperization or straight-up elimination of the parasitical masses. So they ultimately must rationalize the pain that will come out of systematic dismantling of the welfare-state as just a necessary bridge to a more mature, fulfilling future. Once we come out on the other side, stripped of our dependence on collectivist boondoggles, we will morph into an economy of powerful, productive, rational citizens. We won't be able to look for handouts and giveaways any more, so we'll have to sink or swim by our own sweat and brainpower.

This is how I think the Tea Party dismantling of the non-military side of the federal budget will unfold: as a necessarily-painful process that will transition us from collectivist dependence on leeching government giveaways to a more 'American' economy of sleeve up-rolling and gumption-packed bootstrapping.

Of course, this prescription will be disastrous, because the diagnosis is wrong. But as the economy continues its decline for regular people (as opposed to corporate profits, which are already recovered to high levels), it will be harder and harder for establishment pols to hold off the sea change of opinion for deficit reduction, tax breaks, and government downsizing. Unfortunately, there will be no capitalist Shangri-La on the other side of this purging of collectivist structures. Heroic, entrepreneurial individuals have never been the story behind capitalism or economic growth, and they won't be the future foundation for a laissez-faire American Atlantis. But in order to counter this drift towards Ayn Randian apocalypse, we will need an equally 'extremist' interpretation of our own, one that goes far beyond the irrational desire for a return to a hyper-consumptive 'normal.' We'll need to recognize the decentralizing trends that are ultimately unavoidable, crafting another vision for life after bloated central governance.

Next Time -- Part 3: Waxing Medieval.