Hi clo,
It's the same old association of economic virtue and financial results that Republicans always espouse. But the uglier side of that equation occurs when they invert it as Gingrich has done, presuming therefore that losers by definition must lack the economic virtue of those who succeed. Of course, the more politically correct Republicans will stick to the side which talks about how the winners have earned their rewards. But the flip side is there all the same.
The funny thing about this philosophy is when you actually see a true believer encounter one of those people they describe as losers and attempt to tattoo their philosophy upon them. Only to discover a sickness here, a shortage of capital there, demand that petered out, perhaps a bout of mental illness, or a disability, or a thousand unanswered applications for jobs which don't exist. What then?
Back to Atlas Shrugged.
How many Republicans actually ask the question: what happened to you? It is so easy to speak from the platform, like a Gingrich. But so hard to confront an individual. Because if they do, they will learn something. People have complex stories. Not simple ones. You can't put people in a political box and assume they will fit inside.
A hard working man may succeed and he may fail. It follows that one should admire the effort rather than the outcome. Fortune will swat saints and sinners if she wishes. A poor person may be poor for many reasons. Luck defines many of them.
The flip side of that story is that luck also defines the stories of the successful. Hard work may make opportunity more likely. This is why it makes sense always to try, even if success is elusive. But chance always plays its role.
Presuming that poor people have no examples of hard work to observe is, therefore, either a failure of logic or a failure of imagination. It is certainly a failure of compassion. Though those who believe in the notion of life as an economic morality believe themselves inoculated from the charge. They are not, of course.
| 
