Another message Rand drives home with the practiced subtlety of a sledge-hammer operator:  government regulations run the economy into the ground.  In Atlas, the “men in Washington” fix a shortage here, an ague-ish corporation there with whack-a-mole precision.  Of course, the sum consequence of their scrabbling is to worsen the economy.  Regulations “for the greater good” so hamstring America’s industrialists that they cannot keep the country from falling down around their ears.

Though Rand writes with a smugness that makes it difficult, I share her disdain for heavy-handed efforts to bend social/economic institutions to the federal will.  But our reasons differ.  Rand wants government on the sidelines because then, as I understand her, those who deserve success will achieve it.  On the other hand, I think arguments for intervention are often admirable.  I urge restraint for pragmatic reasons.

I did a graduate degree in criminology.  Much of the course was devoted to questions such as “What factors lead people to offend?” and  “How can we address these factors to prevent criminal behavior?”  Do you know what I learned?

We can’t.

Not really.  Not in the real world, bounded by real-world constraints.  If someone waved a magic wand, setting all of society on equal footing–that would be a  start.  But how do you legislate an end to teenage pregnancy, which puts children at high risk for neglect or CSA?  And if these same children develop into psychologically aberrant adults, unable to hold a steady job, living off the proceeds of semi-legal activities at the fringe of society?  Can our legislators step in at this late stage, delivering that silver bullet to dissever them from their felonious pasts?  As Zack de la Rocha would say, “Wake up.”

What a sad commentary on the discipline of criminology, huh?  Good thing all the whiz-kids study economics, so when the world economy goes into a five-year tailspin they’ll be able to consult a few models, run a few algorithms, and “Hey, presto!”  Bullshit.  Frankly, there’s a hubris pervading most intellectual and academic circles–we think we understand the infinitely complex interweaving of political/economic/social/individual personality factors well enough to produce the outcomes we desire.

All that probably sounds like an indictment of government-mandated redistribution of wealth–and I guess it is. Plenty of money is earmarked by Democrats for social programs that don’t work, or to keep the cycle of corruption ticking along in Liberia.

But here’s my point:  right-wingers and libertarians who invoke Rand do so selectively.  Rand doubts the machinations of men can help the economy to its feet.  With that in mind, why would she support the giddy nation-building efforts that have lately defined American foreign policy?

Republicans have long been our nation’s faithful spin doctors, as we blow up buildings and whisk away politically prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  We search high and low for locals willing to play by our rules (not too heavy on religion, happy to turn the hounds of capitalism loose–Oh, and eternally grateful we put them in charge).  Then, a gazillion dollars later, the soldiers skeedadle and wait for the culture in that burned-out crater of a petri dish to grow into a full-fledged America! (at least, that’s the plan).

Does anyone play God more literally?

But it doesn’t work, does it?  Recently, radio programs marked the ten year anniversary of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, which makes it the longest in American history.  In their extended coverage, the same programs solicited the commentary of foreign affairs experts.  Their opinions varied somewhat, but most agreed that Afghanistan is in worse shape than when America arrived; extremism more rampant.

Alright.  Democrats and Republicans alike–take a letter:  “Dear Powers that Be, / Leave everyone alone; you’ll only make it worse.”