Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Who Said It? (Ayn Rand Birthday Edition)
Atlas Shrugged is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should. [The New York Times reviewer] suspiciously wonders "about a person who sustains such a mood through the writing of 1,168 pages and some fourteen years of work." This reader wonders about a person who finds unrelenting justice personally disturbing.
(Emphasis added).
Who said it? Federal Reserve poobah Alan Greenspan, in a 1957 letter to the NY Times, protesting its trashing of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Read that and more like it in Rand-O-Rama. And then check out other Reason takes on Ayn Rand and Randiana (a state of mind due south of Hayekian), on the occasion of her 100th birthday.
And check out the Times' Edward Rothstein on the matter, too. He notes that her books still sell well over 100,000 copies a year and that:
She could never convincingly reconcile elite achievement with democratic culture, which is why she so often seems antidemocratic. She wanted heroes who could straddle that divide. And she created heroes who could presumably be celebrated for their elite achievements within democratic society: the entrepreneur heroes like the industrialists of "Atlas Shrugged," or the artist hero in "The Fountainhead" cut from American folklore, as self-reliant as Paul Bunyan. Rand famously said: "This is the motive and purpose of my writing: the projection of an ideal man."
Whole thing here.
|2.2.05 @ 10:48AM|#
I think there has been no great satirical caricatures of libertarianism because Rand acted it out in real time for us.
|2.2.05 @ 12:01PM|#
"This is the motive and purpose of my writing: the projection of
an ideal man."
That's part of the reason why her characters seem so stilted and
malformed; and why they resemble - in style - the sort of "ideal
men" found in Soviet propaganda. Then, communists aren't the only
people to have created such a fiction; you see in the work of
classical authors as well, and there are of course 19th and 20th
century analogues.
digamma|2.2.05 @ 12:04PM|#
On NHPR this
morning, they had some Rand worshipper taking calls and
discussing her life and legacy. Someone called in and said that her
"superman" idea had a lot in common with Nietzche and Hitler. The
guest said that Rand was all about equality, and wouldn't believe
in a "superman".
Here's my question - if there's no Ubermensch in Rand's vision, why
the hell didn't Eddie Willers get into the Gulch?
|2.2.05 @ 12:08PM|#
digamma,
A Randroid would likely argue that all people - if they acted
rationally - would accept Rand's worldview and act like the
"heroes" in her novels. But since most of us are "deniers" or
"deceivers," that isn't the case.
|2.2.05 @ 12:28PM|#
digamma, I think the idea is that Eddie didn't ever quite convert to the Gospel of Galt, preferring to remain with the railroad that he loved (and thus in the service of the "looters"), and time ran out on him.
|2.2.05 @ 12:31PM|#
digamma,
Well, I thought I did, but perhaps Nathaniel Branden says it
better:
Galt's Gulch is a place where the Prime Movers of society are
invited to, when they go on strike. It is not a place where any
moral man or woman would be invited to merely because of being "a
good person." In that sense, it is an elite society � "the
aristocracy of superior ability." Therefore, do not view it as a
literal prototype of an ideal society in the real world; it is not
meant to be that.
Eddie's end is meant to show what happens to "the best of the
average" when the Dagnys and Reardens are gone from the world, and
the James Taggarts are in control. Eddie, Ms. Rand would say, is
too honest to survive in James Taggart's world when "the better
people" are gone.
To add my own viewpoint, I find Eddie's end somewhat troublesome.
"The best of the average" is a little tougher and more independent
than Eddie is presented as being. He could be a leader in his own
right and on his own level, even if not on that of the book's
heroes. I would like to have seen that shown. He should not have
stayed with the train. He should have made his first priority to
survive. That he chose the end he chose was not, as I see it,
"idealism," but an unfortunate expression of immaturity,
dependency, and lack of realism: he could not absorb that the world
of his youth was gone � and that the battle for a better world had
to be fought from scratch.
For these reasons, incidentally, it was not entirely plausible that
he be Dagny's "right-hand man." That job would have called for a
person of better mind and greater autonomy.
|2.2.05 @ 12:37PM|#
In a big melodrama like Atlas Shrugged, you've got to have at least one of the good guys die tragically in the end. Maybe I've just seen too many operas.
|2.2.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Gary: that still wouldn't answer my question about Eddie
Willers.
Because Gary doesn't know and he's currently googling for an
answer.
Annnnnnnnd there it is:
Well, I thought I did, but perhaps Nathaniel Branden says it
better:
|2.2.05 @ 1:02PM|#
I tried to read Atlas Shrugged, I mean REALLY tried. I sort of felt like it was my duty as a fledgeling libertarian to grok the Rand message. I got to page 420 or so, and just totally threw in the towel. Due respect to all of the Randroids out there, but that had to be the most poorly written book ever in the history of poorly written books. Hed the woman NEVER heard of an editor? Also, I just couldn't handle her venting her ideologies all over me EVERY PAGE. Really, EVERY PAGE. I mean, for God's sake, LET IT GO ... WE GET THE POINT!
b-psycho|2.2.05 @ 1:26PM|#
Never quite got the appeal behind Objectivism myself. For every
one reasonable point made within it there always seems to be two
bits that trigger automatic eye-rolling. For example:
I remember reading an opinion column in the paper awhile ago from
someone w/ the Ayn Rand Institute. They were trying to argue that
it's not only unnecessary but utterly offensive for anyone to
criticize the compensation of CEOs because they all (note the use
of "all") deserve every penny.
"You mean even the ones that get bonuses while the company itself
nosedives & a shitload of folks get laid off?"
Sam|2.2.05 @ 2:43PM|#
Philosophical arguments often use improbable illustrations for
the purpose of isolating and clarifying points. Atlas Shrugged was
written as a philosophical illustration to make a number of points.
However, in the real world, the ideal is merely that, an
ideal.
Consider the Christian hero: he raised the dead, healed all manner
of maladies, resisted political tempation, gave up his life to show
the magnitude of his love, and himself came back from the
dead.
Top that John Galt.
|2.2.05 @ 3:01PM|#
On the Eddie Willers issue:
1) A few years ago at the FEE convention in Vegas, Branden was
present. He was asked about Eddie. After commenting about the asker
getting a prize for being the 10,000,000th asker of the same
question, he said very quickly that Rand felt it necessary to show
that that non-looter moral agents suffer greatly at the hands of
looters.
2) My wife points out that not all Gulch participants are Prime
Movers. I think Reardon's secretary goes, for example.
digamma|2.2.05 @ 3:05PM|#
he said very quickly that Rand felt it necessary to show
that that non-looter moral agents suffer greatly at the hands of
looters.
But it's not like Eddie was stopped from getting to the Gulch by
the looters. He was never invited.
|2.2.05 @ 3:58PM|#
Sorry to change the subject from the incredibly stimulating
direction it's taken here, but having just heard Nick Gillespie's
piece on Rand on NPR, could I ask:
1. What is the evidence for his claim that Rand believed that
Beethoven was 'morally superior' to Mozart? Maybe she did, but I've
been a "Randroid" for fifteen years now, and I've never heard that
one, so it isn't exactly common knowledge. Citation?
2. Gillespie claimed that Rand banished N. Branden in 1968
essentially because he broke up with her. Hell hath no fury like an
Old Jilted Bitch Scorned, etc. etc. But was it that--or did she get
rid of him because he lied to her for years on end about an affair
he was having with someone else? And does the difference not make a
difference in Gillespie's book?
Just curious.
|2.2.05 @ 4:15PM|#
Did Branden's relationship with Rand and Patrecia Scott overlap? I don't believe so. Indeed, as I recall, their sexual relationship ended around 1959 - about two years before he met Patrecia Scott. Now admittedly Branden kept his affair secret from his wife, but one has to ask, why the hell should Rand had to have been informed of it? Or was it simply a matter of her wanting to screw him again, and he rejecting her offers?
|2.2.05 @ 4:19PM|#
So what we have here is an ex-lover scorned, whose questions about her ex-lover's current love life are either ignored or answered less than honestly. Of course, one has to ask, by what right did she have to meddle in, or be angry about, Branden's love life in the first place.
|2.2.05 @ 4:55PM|#
GG,
I can see why a Randriod would care about such things, but I can't
see why you would.
|2.2.05 @ 5:04PM|#
"I always thought Telemachus Sneezed was a better book."
I honestly have no idea why it took me so long to read the
Illuminatus! trilogy. My well-worn "Principia Discordia" is
currently sitting between nearly as worn copies of "Beyond Good and
Evil" and "The Virtue of Selifshness."
"Top that John Galt."
To be fair, John Galt wasn't a crazy desert-dwelling hippie. I
think he gets a few points over
He-Who-Probably-Got-What-He-Deserved-Given-A-Historical-Perspective
right there.
clarityiniowa|2.2.05 @ 6:21PM|#
If I gave a damn, I'd object to the perjorative "Randroid." It's
too cheap, too easy, and doesn't signify anything but the state of
mind, or lack of same, of the one uttering it. If you want to talk
about the merits, or lack thereof, of Objectivism or Objectivists,
fine and dandy. I self-identify as such, so have at it.
The reason there isn't such a cheap and easy slur of Libertarians
is that, like Cleveland, there is simply no "there" there.
Objectivists are easy targets because there is, at the very least,
something substantial and well-defined to rail against. Railing
against Libertarianism is like arguing against fog.
clarityiniowa|2.2.05 @ 6:35PM|#
Having said the above, there is very little to be gained in evaluating or trying to interpret the mertis of Objectivism by focusing on discrete events in Rand's life. The Branden thing was an episode � a large one to be sure � but a single episode in a life, which, on whole and on balance, was extremely true to that which she espoused. Moreso, I would say, than most people's actions conform to their own ideals. Rand's "lapses," if you see them as such, no more negate Objectivism than Jimmy Swaggert's consorting with prostitutes, in itself, discredits Christianity.
|2.2.05 @ 6:40PM|#
Clarity, There is a difference between a Randroid and an
Objectivist. A randroid takes every off the cuff remark, and
personal preference of Ms Rand as an example of Objectivism.
Randroids understanding that Ayn being the highest intellect ever
to grace this earth allow her to think for them.
Objectivists think for themselves and were ultimately cast
out.
Peikoff=Randroid
Nathaniel Branden=Randroid turned Semi Objectivist
David Kelly=Objectivist.
NoStar=Smart Ass Libertarian (not smart enough or willing to learn
to use language in the peculiar and specific way that Objectivists
do.)
As a self proclaimed Objectivist, I am sure you can appreciate (if
not agree with) the definitions I have provided.
clarityiniowa|2.2.05 @ 6:45PM|#
NoStar -
Well, aside from the fact that they are pretty arbitrary, why
should or shouldn't I agree with those definitions? What value do
they bring to the discussion?
As a musician, I think her musical esthetic was hugely limited. Sad
for her, but it does not diminish my respect for her, or those who
take her ideas seriously. Should I, then, shout "Randroid" whenever
I meet someone who parrots her love of martial music? More
importantly, if I do shout such, should I feel that I have said
anything of importance, or that I have made any sort of valid
rhetorical point?
|2.2.05 @ 6:49PM|#
Clarity, RE: "there is very little to be gained in evaluating or
trying to interpret the mertis of Objectivism by focusing on
discrete events in Rand's life."
As I said in another thread, Ayn Rand opened the door to evaluating
her life as a way to test her philosophy when she proclaimed
herself, Frank O'Conner, and the Brandens to be the embodiment of
her philosophy and real life examples of people like her
heroes.
If you can admit that she was mistaken about her own virtues and
that she did not in fact live up to her philosophy, you are
probably an Objectivist. If not, you are a Randroid.
clarityiniowa|2.2.05 @ 6:54PM|#
NoStar - If you can admit that she was mistaken about her
own virtues and that she did not in fact live up to her philosophy,
you are probably an Objectivist. If not, you are a
Randroid.
Nice straw man, well constructed. Sounds very much like Bush's "You
are either with us, or with the terrorists." I have no reason to
allow you to frame the debate in those terms, or to participate in
a debate so framed.
Having said that, I do believe I said earlier, or at least strongly
implied, that it is clear to me that some aspects of Rand's life
and behavior did not completley conform to her philosophy. I
imagine the same can be said of Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, etc.,
although I am not as familiar with their day to day biographies.
Feel free to label me as you will.
|2.2.05 @ 6:55PM|#
Clarity, if they tell anyone who doesn't love the tiddly-wink music that their sense of life is all wrong because of it, then yes indeed call them what they are: Randroids.
|2.2.05 @ 7:01PM|#
Clarity, I did not frame the argument. Ms. Rand was arrogant
enough to do it for her detractors.
She claimed her philosophy is perfect and that she lived it
perfectly. By her own standards, her life is a proper measure of
the validity of her philosophy.
clarityiniowa|2.2.05 @ 7:03PM|#
Where are you getting this from, exactly, and if that is true, so what? I'm not getting how any of this qualifies you to denigrate not only Rand herself, but others more respectful of her than you are.
Kevin Carson|2.2.05 @ 7:04PM|#
"They were trying to argue that it's not only unnecessary but
utterly offensive for anyone to criticize the compensation of CEOs
because they all (note the use of 'all') deserve every
penny."
--b-psycho
Although there are some brilliant non-Randroid Objectivists like
Chris Sciabarra, the mainline 'Droids are totally dedicated to
defending existing wealth as the result of the "free market." I've
seen Randroid attempts to minimize the role of the federal
government in creating the national railroad system--never mind
Rand's claim that the military-industrial complex was a "myth at
best."
This serves a very real legitimizing need: witness the popularity
of Atlas Shrugged among brown-nosing executives who want to believe
they're John Galt instead of James Taggart.
clarityiniowa|2.2.05 @ 7:26PM|#
Kevin Carson - So whom are you faulting, the John Galts or the James Taggarts? There is a clear difference between those who make their money by production and those who make it through connections. One is a businessman, the other is a politician, no matter what company he heads. Poll CEOs and you're more likely to hear they'd rather AVOID government entanglements than be beholden to government.
|2.2.05 @ 7:27PM|#
Clarity, Re: "I'm not getting how any of this qualifies you to
denigrate not only Rand herself, but others more respectful of her
than you are."
I suppose since Rand was the greatest thinker of this and any other
time, there is no one qualified to evaluate much less denigrate her
philosophy, the precision that she applied it to her own life, or
the results of that application.
But the fact remains, she invited the criticism.
|2.2.05 @ 7:29PM|#
Clarity, Re; "Poll CEOs and you're more likely to hear they'd
rather AVOID government entanglements than be beholden to
government."
What they say and what they do are two different things. Do you
remember Lee Iococa?
|2.2.05 @ 7:33PM|#
Let's ask the airline executives whether they want the gov't to
leave them alone the next time they ask for a bailout.
Let's ask agribusiness executives what they think about subsidies
and tariffs.
|2.2.05 @ 8:18PM|#
OK, this is what I really want to say (and remember that I'm only basing this on the first 400 pages of Atlas Shrugged). It struck my how incredibly unhappy everyone in that novel seemed to be. Preachy and unhappy ... I mean, a REAL downers. Also, for folks that were supposed to be so 'moral', they certainly weren't very 'moral'. You know, what with Rearden (the hero of our story) banging the other chick (i.e. not his wife). I'm no prude, but shouldn't these people tend to what's going on in their own homes before trying to change the world? Don't misunderstand me, I get that I'm totally missing the point of the exercise, and 'clarityiniowa', or some other Randroid (get over it), is going to hook me up with an explaination of my failings. It's just that the whole thing and all of the characters really made me tired. Literally. I'm tired now just thinking of slogging through the part of the book that I survived. Maybe reading that book is for the young.
|2.2.05 @ 8:59PM|#
Clarity,
Was the irony of using a strawman argument yourself
intentional?
"Nice straw man, well constructed. Sounds very much like Bush's
'You are either with us, or with the terrorists.'"
Why don't you quit acting like Dominique. Just admit that I make
you hot, and assume the position, be-yotch! You know you want it,
and you want it bad.
|2.2.05 @ 9:51PM|#
BLG:
Reardon's "sin" - and if sin it was, it was against himself - was
not banging Dagny, but shortchanging himself by staying in a
loveless marriage. By the moral compass of mid-20th century America
this was at least mildly controversial. Rand didn't clog up the
plot by giving Hank and his trophy wife kids. If anything, his
workaholism probably meant that, had Mrs. R. wanted some, he
probably wasn't around much to deliver his share of the raw
materials to the blast furnace, ifyaknowhatImean. By the 1970's,
ditching a first (house)wife in order to achieve self-actualization
with some babe you had met in the workplace was the new cliche, and
the screwed-over first wife one of the standard victim-heroines of
modern fiction.
Dagny and the young Francisco, however, was just gymnastics. No
harm, no foul, and the less said about it the better. Our modern
kids who "hook-up" could find spiritual ancestors, there.
Funny how Rand could write about characters with such twisted love
lives, then turn around and recapitulate it all in her own life.
Nate Branden obviously should have waited until Ayn had tired of
Frank, and the two of them should have mated for life, while Barbra
belonged with one of the second tier of the Collective: a perfectly
sound girl who would make a fine wife and mother for the next
generation of perfect rational children, but not to be part of the
Pantheon. Branden proved he had philophical feet of clay when his
quite natural urges to be with a pretty woman near his own age
asserted themselves over an intellectualized devotion to his much
older heroine.
The meanest thing about Rand was that she treated O'Connor like
crap.
Kevin
|2.2.05 @ 10:10PM|#
kevrob,
Yeah, but he sat there and took it.
thoreau,
Poll steel companies and the major airlines on whether they want to
continue to fund their pensions or pass that onto the government
emergency pension system?
Shit, even Rand herself admitted that most U.S. corporations would
never live up to her "ideal" - that's one of the reasons behind
that O'ist business organization.
BLG,
Here, I'll give you the standard response of a Randroid:
You are just in denial of Rand's greatness. You are a liar. You
don't have the moral courage to face the "truth." *sarcasm*
digamma|2.3.05 @ 8:08AM|#
Rand didn't clog up the plot by giving Hank and his trophy
wife kids.
To say the least. Rand didn't "clog up" the fundamentalist dogma in
the book by mentioning children AT ALL. Because that would
complicate the black-and-white vision where everyone is either John
Galt or a looter, and anyone who isn't 100% sure of that is a
worshipper of contradictions and death.
|2.3.05 @ 11:01AM|#
Well I guess it's pretty clear no one here knows the answers to the questions I asked. Sorry Mr Gunnels, but a list of rhetorical questions doesn't answer a real one.
|2.3.05 @ 12:42PM|#
Irfan Khawaja,
Not all of my comments were questions of course (that you
characterize them as being exclusively questions illustrates your
unwillingness to accept reality). :)
And I believe that they were an adequate answer.
|2.3.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Mr Gunnels,
Not all of your comments were questions, true. Alas, of the
comments that weren't questions, few were assertions, and none were
answers, much less adequate ones. This is the partly
non-interrogative part of what you said:
"Did Branden's relationship with Rand and Patrecia Scott overlap? I
don't believe so. Indeed, as I recall, their sexual relationship
ended around 1959 - about two years before he met Patrecia
Scott."
"As I recall." I like that. As you recall what? Were you there in
the bedroom with them? If not, what is it that you're "believing"
that you're "recalling"?
I can't tell whether you're trying to assert something here, or
merely to kinda half assert one, but if this is supposed to be a
real-live assertion, could you give me the source?
|2.3.05 @ 4:03PM|#
BTW, no takers on the Beethoven/Mozart question? So...was that all horseshit or what? You're going to have to help me, I'm just a poor spaced-out Randroid, confused and frightened by the powerful criticisms you've offered up here. C'mon folks, you can spare a little altruism for a Randroid, can't you?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245