......."the logic of events is causing Americans to realize that they do need Ayn Rand's ideas—and they definitely need the projection, in literature, of her heroes' uncompromising determination to fight for their liberty."
Posted on 08/26/2010 4:36:31 AM PDT by Ronbo1948
A reader just sent me a link, with the explanation: "They're at it again."
And so they are.
"They" is the National Review, the leading publication of the religious wing of the mainstream right. And "it" is bashing Ayn Rand.
There is a long history to this. All the way back in the 1950s, when Ayn Rand's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged—which I have described as "Capitalism's Epic"—was first published, William F. Buckley attempted to kick Ayn Rand out of the right. Her atheism and her ethics of individualism was a threat to Buckley's goal of cobbling together a "fusionist" coalition that would harness the pro-free-market wing of the right to the agenda of the religious traditionalists. He had to get Ayn Rand out of the way, and to add insult to injury, Buckley dispatched an ex-Communist, Whittaker Chambers, to do the job. The result was a sloppy, dishonest hit piece, which I dissected in 2005, when National Review Online decided to reprint the thing.
It was an odd decision on the part of National Review, since I thought the Chambers piece was an embarrassment they ought to bury somewhere down deep in the memory hole. Given the recognized power, ongoing influence, and large audience of Ayn Rand's ideas, why remind people that you stood out against them? At no time would that be more true than today, when the audience for and interest in Atlas Shrugged has peaked in response to the financial crisis and the Obama's administration's lurch toward socialism.
But the folks at National Review have their own agenda to protect, and it is precisely the surge in interest in Ayn Rand that motivates them to strike back at her in self-defense.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ronbosoldier.blogspot.com ...
......."the logic of events is causing Americans to realize that they do need Ayn Rand's ideas—and they definitely need the projection, in literature, of her heroes' uncompromising determination to fight for their liberty."
Hmm, I liked the Chambers negative review of Atlas Shrugged as it provided a counter point to Rand’s edge of the envelope philosophy.
I am a fan of Ayn Rand’s work, and understand her message. But she is not all the way correct, I reject her atheism. On the other hand, Whittaker Chambers was not all the way correct, either.
It is my opinion that one can believe in God and Christ, but still accept many of the precepts of Rand’s philosophy without embracing her atheism.
I don’t think all elements from either side are mutually exclusive.
I agree.
I’m both a Christian and an Objectivist.
I don’t think Rand proved that God does not exist. Rand’s arguments in favor of the non-existence of God are the most weak statements in her philosophy.
I terms of philosophy, however, I think Objectivism greastest strenght is that it blows away Marxism like a nuclear bomb did Hiroshima.
Why use rifles and machine guns against the Left when you have the nuclear option?
Chambers missed the point of Objectivism in his effort to trash it as a rival to Christianity - Objectivism is the answer in philosophy to Marxism and its great strenght is that it’s reason based and secular - a philosophy that can be adopted by believers in any religion, or of any nationality.
Chambers said he was switching from the winning side to the losing side, in this temporal plain of course.
I think Chambers was being as honest as he could be. Having being raised the way he was, he did a great job.
I have really enjoyed this latest debate in NR and NRO and now on FR.
I agree that Rand saw people viciously. So did our founders! They sought to protect the individual from the ravages of government.
There has been a war between NR and Rand for over 50 years. It will continue.
I wonder if it fundamentally boils down to the fact that Rand sees man as irredeemable unless he answers only to himself, and the idea that man is irredeemable unless he answers to God.
In my opinion, since we are creations of God, it’s a fairly simple answer. By answering to God, you answer to your Self. By protecting yourself and your family you are Answering to God.
This does get complicated when you have an overbearing government. What if Caesar says render all unto me? Doing so will free you of want.
Feel free to add.
I would say “narcissism” and the theory of the UBERMENSCH is illustrated and reflected by our Grand&Glorious President and his socialist clique - not we who are influenced by the honest capitalist philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Since the USA is a republic with a written Constitution that limits government (Caesar) from asking more than his due, a Christian should obey.
If on the other hand, the republic is overthrown by a tyrant who says, “GIVE ME EVERYTHING” - the ruler and ruling class have become criminal and evil, and the Christian should not obey them.
That would assume that only Socialists can be Narccistic, that is not so, Rand philosophy wound up creating a sort of cult of personality in her life that was simply..bizarre, but it is the logical outcome of what she believed.
And is a product of Narcissism.
That is why for me, Rand was always the outlaying edge of Capitialism/Libertarianism and I’m not completely sold on the idea that should be the “Target” a society should aim to reach.
Which is why I enjoyed Whittaker Chambers counter point to Atlas Shrugged.
There’s no Constitutional limit to taxation. Once the 16th amendment was enacted all income came under control of the Federal Government.
Hence why you see dumbasses talking about tax cuts that weren’t paid for.
I agree. I just finished reading "Witness," and was moved by his hunger to do the right thing. His childhood and young adulthood was a patchwork of dysfunctions and he did a wonderful job of extracting himself and finding what peace he could. I recommend "Witness" very higly.
Absolutely. An atheirst world view is fundamentally nihilistic. There may be a heroic struggle based on pure individualism but ultimately iy is for naught. The greatest atheirst heroic struggles have all led to tyranny because, under Nietzsche's rubric all individuistic effort descends into a strong man ethic in which tyrants control government. Communism always results in tyranny and despotism for preciesely the same reason. The vain attempts by leftists to secularize society resulty in the same condition. Obama, by his own standard, is a tyrant in the making. There is no other possibility when leadership owes its entire allegiance to itself. For these reasons I find conservative reliance on Rand misplaced.
My personal reliance upon spell check, however, is undisciplined.
I would disagree with your verbiage. I don't think our founding fathers saw people "viciously", I think they understood the political and material grasping nature of people, and saw it with open eyes. That is something liberals are loathe to do, because that means Utopia can't be achieved without fundamentally changing people's nature. Conservatism, however, sees it quite clearly and attempts to protect us from it.
I understand completely why Whittaker Chambers took the task of trying to bring down Rand. Rand was an atheist, as were the communists, and that was the thing that turned the worm eventually for Chambers. Sure, the German-Soviet pact was one thing, watching people around him get hunted down and killed was another, but when he came to the core of what it was about communism that turned him to the West, it was his faith.
He says it all in his "Letter to My Children" which is the preface for his book "Witness". I thought (and still think) it was one of the most powerful things I had ever read with respect to the nature of communism, how the Soviets meant to replace God with Man, and the corruption of thought, spirit and action that is inevetable when you go down that road. "Witness" changed my entire political outlook. (I was always conservative, even from the age of 9 or 10 when I was following the Nixon-Humphrey campaign...:)
But when I read "Witness", and recognized in his book the tactics of the modern left they employ against their enemies, I turned all the way to the right with no going back. None.
When I first read "Witness", it came across as a political tome. However, when I listened to it last year on unabridged audio during my personal road trip from Massachusetts to the tip of Florida, I was amazed to realize it was less a book about politics than a man's search to find God. It really stunned me...I think I was so fixated on the political side of it that I didn't see the forest for the trees.
The core of Rand’s philosophy is that “a Man exists for his own sake”, that is a complete 180 degree contrast to Christ who asks us to give our life to him.
Objectivism and Christianity are not reconcilable in any way. Although both reach similar conclusions about leftist collectivism, they get there through completely different paths and will lead their follower to completely different destinations.
I agree with your post, but in 1957, her objectivist philosophy might not have resonated with people who were still immersed in New Deal thought, even with people who weren’t fans of the Roosevelt years.
We have the privilege and good fortune now to see just exacly how damaging Marxism and socialism are, through the wide availability of material that has been able to analyze Marxism and socialism in a 20th century prism and easily highlight the fatal flaws in both.
The body of analytical and empirical research available to us today is just as much a nuclear option!
Witness is a great book. Chambers is far more introspective and self-aware, and hence has far more true intellectual depth, than Rand.
I don’t disagree that you cannot be a core Objectivist and a core Christian at the same time. But I firmly believe that there are major elements of objectivism that can be embraced by Christians without compromising their faith.
Independence and self-reliance. Good work ethics. Personal responsibility and so on.
Yes, I think he’s choice of the title for book was imbued with that purpose. He was a witness in the Hiss trial.
But the book’s real purpose was the bear witness to God.
All the good you can get out of objectivism, you can get out of being a Christian without objectivism.
Excellent point. But then, those of us who have read Rand in depth know that while she nost likely is not as deep or introspective as someone like Chambers, she IS like the instructor who covers the same subject, class after class after class...hammering it home until people want to jump up from their desks and shout “I get it!”
There are swaths of “Atlas Shrugged” I simply pass up now whenever I re-read it...:)
I’ll have to dwell on that a bit...I have never considered work ethic, self-reliance etc. to be qualities derived from Christianity any more than morality is derived from a good work ethic or self reliance.
I will give it some consideration, though...I’ll talk with my brother about it...:)
Just as much...a Witness to a titanic struggle between Good and Evil.
I personally found the Fountainhead to be a better book.
I will say that Rand’s works is a good instrument in getting the liberal educated college student the shock treatment he/she needs out of the leftist mindset.
But it is only a stepping stone, if they stay there they will end up swallowed by the same darkness.
I will say, one of the MAIN things that Christianity and Objectivism have in common, the way the corpus callosum ties together the two sides of the brain is...free choice.
The very heart of the Christian faith is that you choose to believe in God and Jesus. You can choose not to. You have freedom of choice.
Objectivism believes you should be free to do what is right for yourself, it is your choice. If you choose to make a fortune, fine. If you choose to be slovenly, that is your choice. But it also stipulates that if you choose to be slovenly, that is your bed to sleep in, and others are under no moral or legal obligation to assist you. There are consequences for your choices.
Just as there are if you choose not to believe in Christ.
The colonization of American Wilderness, the settling of the western Frontier, the industrial revolution, the revolution war for independence. Which of these did not require good work ethic, self reliance, personal responsibility, etc.
True. I walked through my department the other day, and saw a well used paperback copy of “Atlas Shrugged”. I picked it up and asked who was reading it, and a young hispanic guy raised his hand...it was good to see.
I want to think about it for a bit...I see your point, but I am not prepared to paint with as broad a brush yet.
“..leadership owes its entire allegiance to itself. For these reasons I find conservative reliance on Rand misplaced...”
Yes and no, Randian philosophy DOES have a huge role to play in Conservatism, the Individual does decide what is best for them and their life and career and business or what have you.
The difference is, that philosophy functions when married to a Judeo Christian Ethic, when the Individual Ethically decides to offer charity, or sympathy, or compassion, or to raise a family..free from Govt coercion or theft.
There is no such Ethic in a “pure” Randian Philosophical outlook, so such a situation will devolve into Totalitarianism.
As the Anarchists discovered when the Bolsheviks turned on them in Leninist Russia, the State will always crush the lone Knight..it HAS to crush them.
On a Christian point of view, I looked into the Fruit of Rand’s tree, and it was not at all attractive, dying childless and alone is not exactly the pinnacle of Mankind’s Journey.
“..Objectivism and Christianity are not reconcilable in any way...”
I disagree with that notion Truthsearcher, the core of Luther and Calvin’s message was work and industriousness ARE Godly pursuits that is one of the themes of Objectivism, where they depart is when the product of that line of thought is deployed.
Every workmen is indeed worthy of their meat, however a Christian would quail at devouring a banquet with starving neigbors across the hallway, Rand shares no such qualms, and that is the difference.
As I already explained, the core of Objectivism is that “a Man exists for his own sake”, that is completely incompatible with Christianity.
We will have to agree to disagree, my FRiend.
Ayn Rand was a great American patriot who loved her adopted country saying, “America is the only moral country in the world.”
I agree. “Witness” is one of my all time favorites. I have never forgotten it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.