Mike, Ayn Rand specifically said (if I remember correctly) she wished she had written the scene in which the Bishop tells the police, after they caught Valjean with the stolen candlesticks, that he had given them to him. She admired because the Bishop was acting in perfect accord with his principles, namely altrusim, turning the other cheek, etc.

As Galileo Blogs said, she admired Hugo’s Romanticism, that his characters acted volitionally, and always had strong value conflicts.

However, an explanation that would fit your take *and* mine, is that Gibson knew that there was something going on with a conservative expose on ACORN, but carefully avoided learning any more details.

After all, if you’re going to avoid a story, you need to know just enough to recognize it.

I think it’s because he knows perfectly well how preposterous it is for him to claim he knows nothing about it, but he did some quick calculus about the matter, and I think he would rather risk the embarrassment of appearing to be completely uninformed than to admit, publicly, that he knew perfectly well of the story but chose not to report on it, thereby betraying whatever credibility he might have. Either way, he looks the idiot, but he didn’t dare admit his bias. Just a theory.

The councilmen probably should have gone to jail for such corruption, along with their recipients. Nothing happened, as far as I know. Altruism is the ultimate “get out of jail free” card.

Isn’t this the same pass that the entire welfare-state apparatus gets, despite the obvious harm it inflicts even on its own recipients? Despite their obvious failures, government keeps pouring money into public schools, public housing, etc.

*****

On a separate note, in response to Mike’s comment regarding Les Miserables. It is also one of my top favorite books, but it is not because of the altruist morality of the characters. As for Ayn Rand, she admired Hugo as a writer, but not the altruist morality he subscribed to. He was a superb Romantic writer. His characters had clear motives; his plots dramatized clear themes. The conflicts were clashes of principled characters, and were incredibly exciting. She admired him for accomplishing this as a Romantic writer. She classified her own writing style as Romantic, so you are correct that the writing techniques you see in Les Mis informed Atlas Shrugged and her other novels.

In sum, Ayn Rand admired Hugo as a writer, but not as a philosopher.

Like many who learn from Rand, I have found the literature of Victor Hugo to be phenomenally enjoyable. Les Miserables was an amazing read, and Atlas Shrugged itself clearly seems to bear the fingerprints of Hugo and Les Mis in many respects. However, there is one aspect of the story I could not reconcile. From the Bishop of Digne to Jean Valjean himself, Hugo demonstrates the “goodness” of the good characters by showing how altruistic they are, and how much they abnegate themselves for the benefit of whomever. It is a critical plot point, too, because Valjean attracts the attention of the Thenardiers by appearing to be an easy mark philanthropist. My question is: Am I missing the point somewhere? Or is this an issue where Hugo just plain differs on the epistemology of liberty?

I’m certainly not one to criticize voluntary charity, but it seems that the Bishop and Valjean saw it as a duty and not a choice. In that light, I don’t understand how it can be lionized.

It’s amazing how many reporters, editors even some bloggers retract their claws, close their eyes and ears, and give a free pass to anyone who says “It’s not for me but for others I do this”.