Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America’s Soul | By Gary Weiss | St Martin’s Press | 304 pages, $24.99
Ayn Rand, the GOP’s crotchety, misanthropic little immigrant grandmother, is hot again. Her books are selling well; her works are animating the ideas of certain Republican congressmen. Even Brad Pitt and Oliver Stone said they were interested in making a movie version of The Fountainhead. Fox News TV personalities John Stossel and Sean Hannity enthusiastically promoted the cinema version of her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, which came out last year on Tax Day. (Though the movie tanked, its producers are still planning to shoot Atlas Shrugged: Part 2.)
Rand, author and ideologue, inspired great devotion and derision for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Ridiculed for their wooden drama and characterizations, readers nevertheless loved the novels for the ideas contained therein. Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, is based on the idea that personal happiness (or self-interest) is the supreme moral code; the only organization of society consistent with this ethical system is unfettered capitalism.
Though her philosophy has been largely ignored by the academy, it’s been consistently popular among members of marginal groups: precocious teenagers, Cato Institute employees, the Canadian rock band Rush, and, most recently, the Tea Party. In Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America’s Soul, Gary Weiss chronicles the growing influence of Rand on America, who Ayn Rand’s followers are, and what they’re doing to the United States.
Weiss, an investigative journalist formerly with Business Week*, has made a career exploring the underside of American finance. In this book he looks at the rise of Objectivism from its early days—when Rand’s small cadre of followers regularly gathered at the author’s midtown Manhattan apartment— through the rise of Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan, up to today, where John Galt signs predominate at Tea Party rallies, the Republican Party simply refuses to govern or increase taxes, and certain congressmen (e.g. Paul Ryan) propose austerity budgets influenced by the dead novelist.
Such an exploration, understandably, takes one fairly seriously down the rabbit hole of Objectivist ideas. It was a fascinating trip. I had no idea, for instance, about the weird, communist-style purges that took place in the movement when Rand was still alive. She had a loyal group of followers but she wasn’t terribly loyal to them. Objectivists denounced and then ignored members of the group who disagreed with her. Once people were removed from her inner circle (which they ironically nicknamed “the collective”) they simply ceased to exist; they were never to be mentioned again. Nathaniel Branden and his wife, who were initially very prominent Objectivists, were removed and vilified when Branden simply decided to stop sleeping with Rand. The purges continue; today there are different sects of Objectivists, including the Atlas Society, which is opposed by the main, de jure Objectivists, affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute. Objectivists and Libertarians also are bitter rivals.
It’s a pretty complicated journey, following Objectivism through the nooks and crannies of its intellectual evolution, though Weiss does a reasonably good job making it entertaining. The story of the early days of the Rand’s movement is fascinating. What he’s perhaps not so good at, however, is explaining the actual influence of Rand on contemporary America. At times he seems to argue that Rand is almost singlehandedly influencing most of the reactionary policy ideas we see today. Privatization of social security: Rand. Opposition to Obamacare: Rand. Hostility to consumer protections: Rand. Lack of sympathy for environmental safeguards: Rand. Support for weirdly low tax rates for the American superrich: that’s also Rand.
This isn’t entirely convincing. We’ve certainly seen a lot of signs at rallies, but how much does this movement really matter? Understandably Weiss spends a great number of pages on Alan Greenspan, who makes up a serious portion of Weiss’s proof of Objectivists’ influence. The man’s life makes a good story, but the extent to which he functioned as an agent of Randian ideology is difficult to determine. Greenspan helped advocate for limited government intervention in policies that helped rich people. Rand loved rich people. Ergo, Greenspan’s vast power helped to put Rand’s principles into practice.
The guiding abstract principle of Objectivism is atheism.
The guiding practical principle of Objectivism, as with libertarianism and all anti-Christian ideologies, is individualism.
Objectivism is the flip side of Communism; the former worships the individual; the latter worships the state.
Both hate God.
#1 Posted by Newspaperman, CJR on Mon 2 Apr 2012 at 04:13 PM
"misanthropic"
You're a liar, Luzer.
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -Ayn Rand
That is the opposite of misanthropy. You're a liar.
#2 Posted by Deco, CJR on Mon 2 Apr 2012 at 04:39 PM
@Deco. No, it isn't. Misanthropy is generalized dislike, distrust, disgust, contempt or hatred of the human species or human nature. A philosophy celebrating an idealized conception of man is not the same thing as liking actual people.
#3 Posted by del2124, CJR on Mon 2 Apr 2012 at 06:43 PM
I know the definition. It still doesn't apply to Rand.
#4 Posted by Deco, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 03:56 AM
Ayn Rand is pop-Hayek for the masses and young. People won't read all the economic textbooks put out by the Austrians and Monetarists like Milt Friedman, they won't subscribe to back issues of Buckley's NRO, but they will get the same flavor of world view from the saucy crap Ayn Rand wrote.
Which is why conservatives subsidize Ayn Rand reading in classrooms.
Gotta break this post up for the links :(
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 12:35 PM
The problem is the world does not conform to the Ayn Rand model and the people that absorb that model end up becoming monsters.
Why is that?
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 12:45 PM
Largely because her philosophy was modeled based on a monster.
When segments of society starts living according to the rules of this dementia, you get an American Psycho society.
We should all be a little scared of that.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 12:56 PM
To understand Rand et al, let me recommend a book that, in my opinion, did not receive the attention it deserved.
Dr. Albert Ellis'"Is Objectivism a Religion?" was the result of a contentions debate between Dr. Albert Ellis and Rand follower Nathaniel Branden. Both were clinical psychologists.
Dr. Ellis was critical of dogmatic religions. He contended they were harmful to people. He read Rands writings and concluded her "philosophy" was a religion in the dogmatic sense, authoritarian, ridgity,irrationality, etc.
You may agree or disagree with his analysis, but whatever your perspective listed to his argument, judge his evidence, and see what you think.
#8 Posted by David Reno, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 02:32 PM