"gone Galt"; or, How bad sci-fi ruined the conservative movement

TBogg at firedoglake makes light of some recent comments from Michelle Malkin's site, where some of her readers make dire promises to cut off their nose to spite Obama's face:

We also have “gone Galt”. Hubby decided to retire and start Medicare instead of our original plan of waiting two years.
*
I’ve resigned from my job, and I’m selling my rental properties. After this, I’m moving to a rural little town and simplifying everything...I truly am worried about America, but the path we’re on has been set to a certain degree. I choose to not be a part of it.
*
You really think the people who voted for [Obama] actually work? Or have a real job that offers a 401K? Heck no. They just want what’s yours to be theirs. Remember? Obama’s going to pay their mortgage, their gas, etc.

And my favorite:

We’re going to see a lot more bartering of goods and services under the table. It won’t be reported as income either. If cash is exchanged, it won’t be reported.

Oh noes! America cannot continue to exist as a free society if the top tax bracket is increased from 35% to 39.1%. It will reduce us to the barter economy!

This, and Noah's mention of rugged individualism as a motive for conservatism, reminded me of a libertarian-conservative friend of mine (whom I've known since the 2nd grade) who once confided in me that Atlas Shrugged was the finest book he'd ever read, and that it had changed his life. I was a little taken aback at the time- I vaguely remembered Atlas Shrugged as a too-long, poorly premised, rather preachy but otherwise unremarkable work of bland sci-fi, rather like Battlefield Earth (also written by a silly person who is revered as a prophet today); one of dozens I probably wouldn't have ever bothered to read if not for the interminable dullness of my previous occupation. Whatever I think of Atlas Shrugged, though, the influence Ayn Rand's work on the modern conservative movement cannot be denied- today it is required reading for any young conservative (anyone who followed the Ron Paul movement remembers "Who Is Ron Paul?" t-shirts, a reference to "Who is John Galt?").

I won't review Atlas Shrugged here (alas, Whitaker Chambers did a much better job than I ever could, back when National Review was an intellectual rag) but in a nutshell the central conceit of Atlas Shrugged, and indeed all of Randian philosophy, is RICH=SMART=GOOD. John Galt is a genius who invents an perpetual motion engine. He and his band of genius industrialists are the driving force behind the world's economy because only they actually create wealth, which the rest of the world then leeches off of them (for about 3600 unique ways to express this idea, see absolutely any clip from CNN's recent coverage of CPAC). Fed up, they run off to the mountains (and live under a cloaking device, presumably borrowed from Klingons in a kind of cross-sci-fi-pollination, or maybe Gene Roddenberry stole the idea a decade hence, who knows) and the rest of society, deprived of their genius and drive, collapses. All the evil socialists safely dead, Galt's buddies emerge to create their laissez-faire utopia. Yaay free market capitalism, which always rewards good work and boo the lazy collectivist lie-berals coming to confiscate your wallet. Sound familiar?

"What a crock!" I remember thinking years ago. What would happen if, say, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim Helú woke up one day and decided to run off into seclusion, essentially taking their toys and going home the way John Galt's fellow entrepreneurs did? Would civilization collapse? Alas, I think the answer is a resounding NO. I think that the world would soldier on bravely without them, barely noticing their absence save for some vacant space at the top of the financial food chain which would remain unfilled for about 3.4 seconds.

Besides, history tells us that, unlike John Galt's magical physics-defying engine, no invention ever occurs in a vacuum. We all stand on the shoulders of giants- and some people are just lucky, to boot- Bill Gates happened to go to a primary school that afforded him unique opportunities he wouldn't have had if he had attended, say, PS35 in the Bronx? That isn't to say that achievement shouldn't be rewarded- but neither should wealth be the sole measure of it.

*On a side note, Ayn Rand was an atheist like me, which makes the marriage of her philosophy to the movement known for its religious fundamentalism seem on its face rather ironic. My personal theory is that religious types tend to believe that rich people are good because their wealth is physical evidence that they are in God's favor. (If this offends anyone, please remember that all I know of religion is what I've learned from the outside looking in. Try to imagine what your Bronze Iron Age mythology looks like to people who weren't raised with it.)

disclosure: though the wife and I don't expect to ever be in the $250k+ income bracket, my parents have been for several years now. (hi, dad) I somehow doubt they'll be "going Galt", though. My dad, a very smart person who has contributed much to the library of human knowledge, is in a profession that sadly wouldn't really exist without state support- picking the pockets of John Galt and all.