Skip to comments.What Liberals Donít Understand About Ayn Rand
Posted on 08/24/2012 5:13:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ayn Rand, the Russian-born writer and self-styled philosopher who died three decades ago, is back in the news as a favorite author of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. In recent years, the passionately individualist, pro-capitalist Rand has been embraced as a champion of freedom by many conservatives and libertarians, and denounced as a prophet of greed and narcissism by many liberals. Yet, if Rand admirers tend to ignore the flaws of her vision, her detractors reduce her to grotesque caricatureand invoke her popularity as proof of right-wing nuttiness.
One major misconception is that Rand worshipped the rich and saw moneymaking as lifes highest goal. In fact, most wealthy characters in her novels are pathetic, repulsive, or both: businessmen fattened on shady deals or government perks, society people who fill their empty lives with luxury. (There are also sympathetic poor and working-class characters.)
In The Fountainhead, Rands first bestseller (and best novel), the hero, architect Howard Roark, describes the man whose sole aim is to make money as a variety of the second-hander who lives through others, seeking only to impress with his wealth. Roark himself turns down lucrative jobs rather than sacrifice his artistic integrity, at one point finding himself penniless.
Rand extolled selfishness, but not quite in its common meaning. (To some extent, she was using the now-familiar confrontational tactic of turning a slur against a stigmatized groupin this case, true individualistsinto a badge of pride.) Roarks foil, the social-climbing opportunist Peter Keating, gives up both the work and the woman he truly loves for career advancement. Most people, Rand says, would condemn Keating as selfish; yet his real problem is lack of self.
To Rand, being selfish meant being true to oneself, neither sacrificing ones own desires nor trampling on others. Likewise, Rands stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collectivestate, church, community, or family.
Was Rands individualism too radical? Yes. Her hostility to the idea of any moral obligation to others led her to argue that, while helping a friend in need is fine, doing so at the expense of something it hurts you to give up is immoral. In her fiction, even private charity as a vocation is despised; so, mostly, is family. Rand made little allowance for the fact that some people cannot help themselves through no fault of theirs, or that much individual achievement is enabled by support networks.
Yet great insights can come from flawed thinkers. Rands anti-altruism tirades often turn their target into a straw man, but she is right that the knee-jerk habit of treating altruistic goals as noble has aided evilfor instance, blinding well-meaning Westerners to communisms monstrosity. When pundits alarmed by Rand-style individualism scoff at the myth of individual autonomy, we should remember that this myth gave us freedom and human rights, and unleashed creative energies that raised humanitys welfare to once-unthinkable levels. Rands work offers a powerful defense of freedoms moral foundationand a perceptive analysis of the kinship between progressive and traditionalist anti-freedom ideologies.
Rands ideas apply to the personal as well as the political. One neednt go to Randian extremes to agree that the valorization of sacrifice and the accusation of selfishness can be potent weapons for users, manipulators, and family despotsor that dependency is not the path to healthy relationships. (In Rands words, To say I love you, one must first know how to say the I. ) A common critique is that Rand appeals to adolescents who think theyre self-sufficient, special, and destined for great achievement. Yet surely the world would be poorermaterially and spirituallywithout people who carry some of that spirit of youth, as Rand called it, into adulthood.
Attacks on Rand have also focused on her person, from her disastrous extramarital affair with a much younger protégé to her brief infatuation, at 23, with a notorious killer she described as an exceptional boy warped by conformist society. Ugly stuff, to be sure; but plenty of other intellectuals had a sordid personal lives and romanticized murderers as rebels.
Rand is best viewed as a brilliant maverick. But there are reasons this woman attracted hordes of followers, influenced many others, and impressed smart people from journalist Mike Wallace to philosopher John Hospers. Those who treat Rand as a liberal bogeyman will forever be blindsided by her appeal.
Yes it is, but .. is it AYn or EYEn ?
Rand remained an ardent atheist until shortly after her death.
I retitled and re-worded this a bit and sent it to jerry brown to help him fix kali-fornia. no reply yet.
In the name of the general welfare, to protect the people’s security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that:
Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.
Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under pentalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.
Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.
Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufacturerd or sold afer the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.
Point Five. Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as it, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more and no less. The year to be known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Barod.
Point Six. Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.
Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive.
Point Eight. All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisions will be final
You know, it would be nice if those who try to find things to criticize about Rand to seem "balanced" in their analysis would actually cite examples from the books instead of just making sweeping generalizations that can't easily be supported by her actual prose.
Is it true it took her 14 years to write Atlas Shrugged?
HAHAAH yup didn’t ole richy nixon try [one of his wackier ideas....] the WAGE PRICE FREEZE thing long ago and far away....? It fell flat on it’s face.....i.e. they froze rib eye steaks at a buck a pound so the butchers simply sliced the beef a different way called it ROYAL BEEFSTEAK or someting like that and priced it as he wanted....hahahahaha the free enterprise system won again...oh well...
“WAGE PRICE FREEZE thing “
My father, who is very conservative, hated Nixon after that.
Thanks for posting. It is a very insightful analysis that the Rand haters around here will struggle with...I hope.
No, not the charity. The guilt-trip which the vocational lay upon others is what is despised. There are plenty of places where you can find Rand sympathetic to charity. What she was unsympathetic to was con men pretending to be righteous.
so, mostly, is family.
I would love some backup for this claim. But in all my reading and re-reading of Rand I can think of none.
It took 2000 years to write the Old Testament and 30-40 years to write the New Testament. Whether you agree with her or not, she questioned centuries-old paradigms and thought-processes and just about everything else. I started reading her stuff 30 years ago and still do, among many other authors and thinkers. She challenged every assumption I ever had, and I am grateful for it. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan, and many, many others in the Pantheon of conservative thinkers absorbed her ideas and wove them into their political ideologies. She remains one of my favorites.
Interesting article. Appears over-generalized. Rand was not against individuals making choices, only against others presuming to have a veto on the choices you make.
Its always interesting to see how those who deem to comment on Rand, almost always, cant resist inserting generalizations, conclusions and characterizations of Rand as if they are qualified to make such judgments and or implied smears...e.g., “self styled philosopher” ... One may not like Rand’s Objectivism but I defy the author to produce a proposed superior philosophy as comprehensive and deeply rational. Rand is a giant of several fields and her book sales alone raise the importance of her work to towering heights. The last four years have emphasized to any thinking person the continuing relevance of her work.
I would recommend that Rand critics to be taken seriously first demonstrate they actually understand the full scope of what she has to say and its implications for our civilisation and for the life of a free individual. It is clear to me, that most of her critics have only skimmed her work and are left feeling stung, having found in Rand, valid critiscms of long held but poorly thought out assumptions that control their lives and actions. Attacking Rand may restore their self esteem, but it does not make them right nor competent to hold the opinions they express.
It's been a long time since I've met a dewey-eyed naif.
Saw a 1953 episode of Hopalong Cassidy yesterday.
One of the main characters was a railroad president named Jim Taggart!!!
My mouth dropped!
This Jim Taggart was a much better president of a railroad than the Jum Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, but I wonder just how much of a coincidence this really was?
Hopalong comes on here at 6 PM against Diane Sawyer.
No need to explain which 1/2 hour I watch, is there?
At least I can respect the words coming out of Hopalong’s mouth!!! He is also easier on the eyes, along with his horse, Topper.