Don. Thank you for your interpretation of a Marxist Manifesto for the Modern Age. Since you obviously hate America, Democracy, Free Enterprise, personal responsibility and personal achievement, would you please tell us in which country, and which century you live? I'm guessing Europe, about 1931.

Denise are you making a Hitler reference when you mention Europe, about 1931? Just curious. I think you can still love America, democracy, free enterprise, personal responsibility and personal achievement while being concerned that corporate interests are taking over the peoples government. Please don't tell me "corporations are people my friend".

Amen! Scott

Scott, I am commenting on the absurdity of equating Ryan with Ayn Rand. To do so shows a complete lack of understanding of either. Ayn Rand's ideas and philosophies arose in direct opposition to the Marxist, Communist and Fascist principles espoused by the intellengentsia and academic circles of the late 1920's and early 1930's in Europe. Rand was an ardent supporter of the most extreme form of Capitalism mixed with more than a tinge of Anarchist thought. She was also an avowed Atheist. To insinuate Ryan is in agreement with her ideals presupposes either a complete disconnect from reality or a sixth grade at best understanding of his, and her positions. There is plenty to criticize about Ryan, but grounding the arguments in reality would be a good place to start. This entire post reads like someone swallowed a thesaurus minus the dictionary and riddled the argument with pseudo-intellectual references and a big dash of hope no one will be smart enough to call out the factual and historical errors. Arguments like this do the Conservative party a favor, which I doubt was the intention of the original poster. Mostly, my comment was intended to reference the silliness of taking an argument promulgated nearly 100 years ago, nearly verbatim, and misapplying it in a context where it does not fit, in premise or conclusion. So, no, not a Hitler reference, just a reference to the inappropriateness, the false logic and the blatantly false and poorly executed attack on Ryan.

Thanks for clarifying but I have to say that your prior comment was more contentious than informative. I was surprised because your blogs have a much different tone.

I would say the comparison between Ryan and Rand is hardly absurd especially when Ryan told the Atlas Society in 2005, “[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” He has walked back those statements now that he is in the national spotlight and says that Thomas Aquinas represents his philosophy better.
I have for some time thought Ryan was hypocritical for calling himself a Catholic Christian and a fan of Rand. He has betrayed both opposing philosophies throughout his career in public service. I personally find it hard to take someone seriously who until a few years ago endorsed a thinker who viewed selfishness as a virtue and now subscribes to a thinker who wrote “Man should not consider his material possession his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Maybe when someone criticizes Ryan on the Patch they should clarify which Ryan they are criticizing.

To further clarify-there are points in Ayn Rand's ideas I both agree with and admire, particularly considering the hermeneutics of when she wrote. With that in mind, it is understandable why and how Ryan could be inspired by her. Because very few people are famailiar with all her writings, in their context, it is also understandable why Ryan would seem to hedge that support and appear to back pedal. Without a full conversation asking what in her ideas he supports, supported or was inspired by,I would say calling him a hypocrit is premature or simplistic. As for my contentious tone, it comes from this same premise of over-simplifying and making misleading at best and inaccurate comparisons and conclusions by a group that is one of the most leftist, disingenuous groups out there. They are pretending to be just another, every day person rather than the well funded, highly organized political action group they are. I find every thing they say offensive, not just because I disagree with their extremist and in my opinion dangerously socialisr ideas but because of how they go about getting their message out. Ultimately, I don't care where someone, or even a group lies on the political spectrum as much as I do about their practices. I believe in open and honest discourse but that can only happen when facts and the whole truth are the foundation, not innuendos, particularly blatantly, intentionally misleading ones.

Scott-I appreciate this thoughtful exchange. I don't mean this as an attack, but something I would like you to seriously consider...Ryan, just like most thinking people, is not and should not be in lock step with all the thinking, ideals and philosophies of any one person or group. I submit we all should look at a variety of opposing philosophies with an open mind, because most will have one or two kernels of truth that resonate with us on some level. And for the record, I am not a supporter of Ryan or Romney or Obama. I will make my decision this November, sadly once again, on the basis of whom I think will do the least long term damage to this country, according to my views and admittedly idealistic notions. I too am inspired by St. Thomas Aquinas, but also by Ghandi, Mother Theresa, John Paul II, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Jesus, Buddhism...and not in that order. The point is holding multiple inspirations, even those that seem mutually exclusive is not in my opinion hypocrisy but an open mind willing to look every-and-any where for the complex answers to the various strata of questions and challenges we face.

Multiple inspirations are an excellent idea. Choosing wisely which inspiration you cite as, "[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person," is also an excellent idea, particularly for public figures contemplating, running for, or holding government offices. If Paul Ryan had admired some aspects of Rand while also citing other influences then this discussion would be more along the lines of what you're trying to make it be. The reality is, Paul Ryan was extremely outspoken and demonstrative in his admiration for Rand, and that admiration necessarily delivers an entire package of connotations and meanings connected with the works and philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Paul Ryan has proven himself to be hypocritical both as a Catholic Christian, and hypocritical as someone embracing the philosophy of Ayn Rand if we agree that a hypocrite is someone who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

If Ryan has simply, like so many others who struggled or pretended to struggle through Rand's excruciatingly dull and inhumane tomes, eventually outgrown the need to wave them around and play uber-intellectual he'd be better off just admitting it.