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
All Aboard the John Galt Line
As
Katherine Mangu-Ward recently noted,
sales of Ayn Rand's capitalist manifesto Atlas Shrugged
have been soaring in recent months. In a symposium entitled "Going
Galt," National Review asked an assortment of writers and
editors for their thoughts on Rand's relevance in Obama's America.
Some choice excerpts follow.
Bradley J. Birzer:
Offensive, ignorant, and devoid of faith, hope, and love, Rosenbaum ends her novel [Atlas Shrugged]. Her philosophy and her reputation should have ended there as well.
Burt Folsom, Jr.:
Ayn Rand's legacy and durability may be most apparent in her nonfiction works. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal points us in the right direction in its treatment of markets. Her criticism of antitrust laws and her praise for entrepreneurs are well done. For example, she describes James J. Hill's solid construction of the Great Northern Railroad with no federal subsidies while exposing the bankruptcies of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific when they had extensive federal aid.
Joseph Bottum:
Taken simply as fiction and prose, Ayn Rand is something an adult reader would hesitate to shove in a laundry bag, for fear it would soil the dirty socks. William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review did the world a favor, all those years ago, by throwing the randy Randians overboard. Do we really have to let them climb back on the ship now?
Gregory L. Schneider:
Rand's relevance is not in her personality cult, but in her ideas. She was an unapologetic "radical for capitalism," which she equated to a moral and ethical system superior to any other. She was also an astute critic of collectivism in any form, including organized religion.... Her defense of capitalism and critique of collectivism is more necessary than ever today and explains why her work is seen as prescient and relevant in the Age of Obama.
Read the rest here. In March 2005, Cathy Young explained why Rand remains "more relevant than ever." In October 2007, Brian Doherty reflected on Atlas Shrugged's 50th anniversary. Click below to watch Doherty discuss Rand's legacy on Reason.tv:
|3.20.09 @ 6:09PM|#
As Katherine Mangu-Ward recently noted, sales of Ayn
Rand's capitalist manifesto Atlas Shrugged have been soaring in
recent months.
So have gun sales - the revolution is afoot.
|3.20.09 @ 6:10PM|#
Should've gotten Matthew Yglesias's thoughts as well. Apparently not reading Rand is no bar to condemning her.
|3.20.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Hey Bottom-
Doc Manahattan knew you were going to write that envy driven drivel
before the first time you ever jerked off and if he could vaporize
Rorschack......you had better complete your estate planning
pronto!
|3.20.09 @ 6:18PM|#
How about Rand's appearance on the Phil Donahue Show, circa 1979? That was some good stuff!
TallDave|3.20.09 @ 6:23PM|#
Heh. Ayn sure makes leftists mad.
Except for that Jesus guy, it's hard to think of another author
whose ideas they hate more.
JP|3.20.09 @ 6:31PM|#
Why does Birzer use her given name (Rosenbaum)? Is this some kind of antisemitic thing?
|3.20.09 @ 6:36PM|#
Apparently the jounrolist issued orders to trash Rand. I am not
a Randian. That said, idiots like Greenwald make me want become
one. Its a stupid book. Yeah, Glenn that is some intelligent
debate.
The fact is that trolls like Greenwald and other media liberals are
craven, shallow and devoid of serious intellectual thought.
shecky|3.20.09 @ 6:41PM|#
The thing about Rand is that she means anything anyone wants her
to mean. Forget that the left doesn't understand Rand. It seems
much of the right doesn't understand Rand either, or at best,
willing to go Galt in the name of keeping their government teat
from going dry.
What she created is a quasi religious following more than a
coherent philosophical world view.
Another Phil|3.20.09 @ 6:54PM|#
Why does Birzer use her given name (Rosenbaum)? Is this some
kind of antisemitic thing?
The fact that Rand didn't identify as a Jew infuriates my (Jewish)
grandmother. If Birzer is Jewish, that could be it. Or it could
just be knee-jerk rejection of any of Rand's preferences,
no matter how trivial. Or I guess it could be antisemitic. If so,
it would have helped if he were a bit clearer about it.
Orange Line Special|3.20.09 @ 6:57PM|#
I wasn't clued in to exactly what "going Galt" meant, so I went
to WP for the truth. I then found out that her book has a
pirate. I sat staring at the word
"pirate" for several seconds, trying to imagine
exactly what Captain Hook or someone like that was doing in her
book.
Then, I found out that it all makes perfect sense!
Ragnar seizes relief ships that are being sent from the United
States to The People's States of Europe. As the novel progresses,
Ragnar begins, for the first time, to become active in American
waters, and is even spotted in Delaware Bay. Reportedly, his ship
is better than any available in the fleets of the world's navies.
People assume that as a pirate he simply takes the seized goods to
himself. However, while many other protagonists take pride in
making a personal profit from the proceeds of their creativity,
Danneskjöld's motivation is to restore to other creative people the
money which was unjustly taken away from them - specifically, their
income tax payments.
Wow. Not just immoral, but proactively immoral.
P.S. It's too bad Ragnar wasn't around after the
Tsunami. He would have showed them!
JP|3.20.09 @ 6:58PM|#
Or it could just be knee-jerk rejection of any of Rand's
preferences, no matter how trivial.
I would bet that's the reason. Like people who used to insist on
calling Muhammad Ali "Cassius Clay."
Joel|3.20.09 @ 7:06PM|#
A very great deal of snark, some of it positively adolescent, in
that "symposium." I guess to be anti-Rand is necessary if you want
to be in at NR.
I sometimes wonder what Rand's influence might have been if she
hadn't poisoned her own legacy with the "cult of personality". I've
never been able to separate what she wrote from what she practiced,
which wasn't any sort of "individualism" I'd care to be near.
Orange Line Special|3.20.09 @ 7:35PM|#
I have to ask, why are there so many posts here today? Is it a snow day? Is Reason on drugs? Are they trying to get one particularly embarrassing post off the front page? If so, which one of the ones?
Cabeza De Vaca|3.20.09 @ 7:47PM|#
SHUT THE FUCK UP LONEWACKO!!! NO ONE GIVES A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ANYTHING. WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOU'RE RACIST FUCKING SKULL.
|3.20.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Rand isn't the only person to have critiqued collectivism or extolled individualism. There's a long philosophical tradition pre-dating her on that count, including Max Stirner and Fredrich Nietzche. She just popularized their ideas.
|3.20.09 @ 8:08PM|#
"I sometimes wonder what Rand's influence might have been if she
hadn't poisoned her own legacy with the "cult of personality". I've
never been able to separate what she wrote from what she practiced,
which wasn't any sort of "individualism" I'd care to be
near."
Very true. I read her books before I ever met a Randian when I was
in junior high at the urging of my father. My dad and I both read
them as great pieces of futureism warning of the dangers of
government action and collectivism. It wasn't until later in
college that I met the cult. I have never had a problem with Rand
or her novels. Just her followers. But they are still, cult or not,
preferable to douschbags like Yglasias.
Anonymous|3.20.09 @ 8:24PM|#
Cabeza De Vaca, great parody of a Leftist, all shouting down your opponent with insults and exclamation marks.
Fluffy|3.20.09 @ 8:25PM|#
Considering the despicable depths to which NR has sunk, it's a
little absurd for them to try to judge the work of just about
anyone else on the right.
And Birzer's shtick about "Rosenbaum" isn't anti-Semitism per se;
it ties in to her statement that Rand lacked "faith". It's meant to
place her among the set of atheistic post-Jews who were responsible
for "international communism" and "the ACLU" and what have you.
Fluffy|3.20.09 @ 8:28PM|#
And Bottum's comment is particularly amusing, since it was precisely the fact that Buckley chose the Christian fundamentalists as allies and threw the atheistic "pharisees of liberty" like Rothbard and Rand overboard that doomed liberty in this country and culminated in the events of the last nine years.
|3.20.09 @ 8:59PM|#
Wow. Not just immoral, but proactively immoral.
As if I didn't have enough reason already to despise
LoneWacko.
Almost invariably, opinions voiced about Rand say more about those
voicing them than they do about Rand.
|3.20.09 @ 9:01PM|#
I have never had a problem with Rand or her novels. Just her
followers. But they are still, cult or not, preferable to
douchebags like Yglasias.
Most of those people calm down considerably after college.
Mari Dupont|3.20.09 @ 9:42PM|#
A nice, succinct summation on Brian Doherty's part. I wish he'd take a stab at the Objectivism entry at Wikipedia; it's unnecessarily confusing.
|3.20.09 @ 9:49PM|#
Well, if you can judge someone by the enemies they make, my opinion of Rand just went up 10,000%
Aaron Brown|3.20.09 @ 10:28PM|#
When I read the Birzer quote I imagined it spoken in a Louis Farrakhan voice.
Anonymous|3.20.09 @ 10:38PM|#
Go fuck yourself.
With reasoning like that, who wouldn't come to
reason to dispense it?
blink|3.20.09 @ 10:49PM|#
I don't get the focus on "The Age of Obama." Why not the "Age of Bush"? Or we could call it the "Age of Bushama." Obama's not doing anything radically different from what Bush was doing or what John McCain would have done or any other mainstream poll.
The Bearded Hobbit|3.20.09 @ 10:59PM|#
I had a good headstart into freedom by devouring all of
Heinlein's works that I could lay my hands on as a teenager. I read
AS in my mid-twenties at a friend's urging (he used to carry copies
to hand out, where I got mine. I have since done the same, although
without nearly as much zeal as my friend.)
I finally grokked it several years later and here, thirty years
after my first reading, I seem to be living it.
.. Hobbit
The Bearded Hobbit|3.20.09 @ 11:04PM|#
Something about the parenthetical comments there doesn't seem
grammatically right. Apologies to the English majors here.
.. Hobbit
Cabeza De Vaca|3.20.09 @ 11:12PM|#
"With reasoning like that, who wouldn't come to reason to
dispense it?"
That sounds just like something Orange Line Special would write.
Did I hurt your feelings Lonewacko?
bill|3.20.09 @ 11:23PM|#
If you ask me the most important book Rand ever wrote was "The Virtue of Selfishness". It was the first Rand that I read, in my mid 20's, and it changed my life. It gave voice to what I had been feeling was the proper way of life. After reading it I no longer felt like I was alone in the world in my beliefs. A close second would be "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Both of these should be required reading for high school freshmen. Maybe after the Revolution they will be.
Anonymous|3.21.09 @ 12:18AM|#
Wow, and he mistakes insulting him for insulting reason. It's
like rewriting reality to fit your ego.
Is there anything Leftism can't do?
Cabeza De Vaca|3.21.09 @ 3:24AM|#
"Is there anything Leftism can't do?"
It can't change the fact that you're a douchebag.
KipEsquire|3.21.09 @ 9:08AM|#
To the best of my knowledge, Atlas Shrugged is the only
book that people actually brag about not having ever read.
That alone should make it required reading for anyone who would
dare label himself an "intellectual."
|3.21.09 @ 9:40AM|#
KipEsquire-
How about L. Ron Hubbard's classic, Dianetics? Although I will
admit that I have toyed with Scientology street recruiters, how
could anyone dismiss Hubbard's literary style, in general, and his
work in Dianetics, in particular, without having read them?
|3.21.09 @ 11:17AM|#
Very true. I read her books before I ever met a Randian when
I was in junior high at the urging of my father. My dad and I both
read them as great pieces of futureism warning of the dangers of
government action and collectivism. It wasn't until later in
college that I met the cult. I have never had a problem with Rand
or her novels. Just her followers. But they are still, cult or not,
preferable to douschbags like Yglasias.
The only thing worse than a Rand fanboy is a Rand hater.
At least the fanboy will argue with you about what she actually
wrote.
Metal Messiah|3.21.09 @ 12:53PM|#
I've had nothing but bad experiences with all of the Randroids
I've met. (Granted, I can count them on one hand...)
A former friend in high school was huge into Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead, always trying to get me to read them. Turned out that
this "friend" also stole about $500 worth of CDs from my car, so
that single event has pretty much prejudiced me against Rand and
her sycophants. They're just as full of shit as any leftist or
conservative in my book.
And, yes, I have read Atlas Shrugged (finally, when I was in
college) and couldn't make it through The Fountainhead.
Thought Atlas was a rather bad novel; it might have been decent if
Rand didn't have an Aspergers-like obsession with her own
philosophy and might have actually written some interesting
characters instead of mouthpieces and strawmen. It was this bizarre
40s/50s style melodrama, shot through with rape scenes and death
rays, and filled with characters who would stop the action, stare
into the camera, and make long-winded speeches.
And, yes, I did get those CDs back.
Sam Grove|3.21.09 @ 1:06PM|#
it might have been decent if Rand didn't have an
Aspergers-like obsession with her own philosophy and might have
actually written some interesting characters instead of mouthpieces
and strawmen.
But that was her intention, though those straw men are perhaps a
little more real than you grant.
Sam Grove|3.21.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Perhaps Rand's best fiction for reading purposes is "We, The
Living".
Given that she experienced the communist revolution firsthand,
perhaps she should be allowed a little righteous anger.
JB|3.21.09 @ 2:27PM|#
People attack Rand because she encourages people not to be
victims.
Most people either want to be victims or have power over other
people. They are threatened by the free exchange of goods and
ideas.
|3.21.09 @ 2:44PM|#
"I wish he'd take a stab at the Objectivism entry at Wikipedia;
it's unnecessarily confusing"
Something I always find interesting is when you look at an article
in wikipedia look at the list of languages on the column in the
left and to click on them
Even if you don't speak the language
(if you got one latin language you can understand about 4 more
pretty well reading)
you can still kind of get a sense of how well disseminated into a
culture different philosophies/historic events etc are by the
length of the articles
I was saying this cus I was chatting to a Spanish philosphy student
the other night and obviously got into a bit of a rant about
objectivism, libertarianism, georgism and classical liberalism. She
hadn't heard of objectivism, (non collectivist) libertarianism or
Georgism and only had a vague concept of classical Liberalism
I was flicking through French Spanish and Italian wikipedia
articles and there really isnt much on the four concepts
Obviously there are huge articles on socialism which is the default
ideology for any european under the age of 30
Back to my point the drunken rant on Objectivism that I was
slurring at a pretty confused looking spanish girl was that
basically the whole Objectivist metaphysical part of objectivism is
bolocks
It just delves into that pointless realm of philosophy that deals
with unanswerable questions
and apart from that its just pretty much basic
liberal-capitalism
the whole cult of personality shit comes absolutely from the
objectivist metaphysical philosophical shite
Writing pretty alegories about how statism sucks is all good but
basically Objectivism is dull
capitalism with added beard stroking, pipes smoking beret wearing
douchbagness
Nietzsche was a complete cock same goes for Satre
"Objectivism states that "Existence exists" (the Axiom of
Existence) and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity
of a specific nature made of specific attributes."[3] That which
has no attributes does not and cannot exist. "
how fucking dull
|3.21.09 @ 2:55PM|#
They say you can't judge a book by its cover but here goes
marxist beard stroking, pipes smoking beret wearing
douchbagness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Marx_001.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beauvoir_Sartre_-_Che_Guevara_-1960_-_Cuba
real men have bad ass sideboards and hate communism
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_Darwin_seated.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elvis_Presley_1970.jpg
Mad Max|3.21.09 @ 4:12PM|#
'And, yes, I did get those CDs back.'
You're just like the people who persecuted Howard Roark - hassling
someone with superior vision just because he appropriated someone
else's property for his own (undoubtedly more valuable) use.
Mad Max|3.21.09 @ 4:15PM|#
'People attack Rand because she encourages people not to be
victims.'
Unless you hire an architect and he ends up blowing up your
building instead - then your obligation is not to protest, because
that would simply interfere with a superior man's vision.
People should be more like that girl Howard Roark raped - she was
*glad* to be a victim! She *enjoyed* it!
The Angry Optimist |3.21.09 @ 6:43PM|#
A former friend in high school was huge into Atlas Shrugged
and The Fountainhead, always trying to get me to read them. Turned
out that this "friend" also stole about $500 worth of CDs from my
car
How pathetic. The first libertarian of whom I became aware was
Colloidal Silver Guy; imagine if I had been as ignorant as
you.
People should be more like that girl Howard Roark raped - she
was *glad* to be a victim! She *enjoyed* it!
When is rape not rape? Oh, when it's consensual.
Material Monkee - you're completely unreadable. Try again, plz. It
seems obvious that you're completely devoid of intellectual
appreciation or curiosity, so maybe Objectivism isn't for you. Try
Christianity (Mad Max can help you with that).
|3.21.09 @ 7:42PM|#
"you're completely devoid of intellectual appreciation or
curiosity"
charmed!
when it comes to civil liberties and economics I've come to some
general conclusions about what political system would enable human
beings to generaly maximize their physical well being
when it comes to metaphysics
I'm absolutely lost and i think anyone who
claims to have "seen the light" is a chump
Lots of philosophy is admittedly beautiful
Tao te ching is great
but essentially just poetry
Objectivism isnt even particularly nice poetry
It just seems dull
The Angry Optimist |3.21.09 @ 7:54PM|#
metaphysics is not, nor should it be, terribly complicated. If you want a more artful life, I wouldn't recommend finding that art in metaphysics.
|3.21.09 @ 8:36PM|#
"nor should it be, terribly complicated"
It just seems something totally unverifiable
and therefore more akin to art
more a crutch for people to deal with reality
the older I get the less i actually feel the need for
crutches
as the Taoists say
"the further one goes the less one knows"
that could be a crutch in its own right
:)
Sam Grove|3.21.09 @ 8:55PM|#
how fucking dull
Most, if not all, philosophical discussion is pretty dull in my
experience. Something like geometry proofs.
Maybe it was just my philosophy instructor.
Ugh|3.21.09 @ 9:26PM|#
Ayn Rand was an atrocious writer. No wonder so many naive
conservatives fell in love with her.
It was their version of high art.
Ugh|3.21.09 @ 9:34PM|#
"A close second would be "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Both
of these should be required reading for high school freshmen. Maybe
after the Revolution they will be."
Wow, you sound like a fun guy.
Ugh|3.21.09 @ 9:39PM|#
"Almost invariably, opinions voiced about Rand say more about
those voicing them than they do about Rand."
You mean that those people are more likely to understand human
beings, history, nuance, and a host of other factors that usually
coincide with having a reasonable grasp of reality?
Of course the comments say something about the people making them,
just like the seething replies suggest something about the faith of
those who idolize Rand.
This blog has been dumbed down so swiftly that it almost seems
calculated.
|3.22.09 @ 12:17AM|#
Sam Grove:
I'm with you on "We, the Living" being Rand's best book. It's
certainly the most moving. Almost auto-biographical portrait of
life in Bolshevik Russia.
But the metaphysics part of objectivism is totally unnecessary and
unsophisticated to boot.
|3.22.09 @ 12:21AM|#
If you ask me the most important book Rand ever wrote was
"The Virtue of Selfishness".
If you like that you might try the original: "The Ego and His Own"
by Max Stirner (1844)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own
bill|3.22.09 @ 2:07AM|#
@Ugh
WTF is that supposed to mean? You don't fucking know me. Just
because I think young adults should read one book that defends
individualism and one that defends liberty as they enter the first
level of higher education I'm a fucking square? I drink, smoke weed
and fuck hot chicks. Is that fun enough for you, you fucking
douche?
@Hazel
Thanks I'll check it out.
zoltan|3.22.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Mad Max,
Yeah, you seem like the type that likes being a
victim.
Well, he is Catholic.
I drink, smoke weed and fuck hot chicks.
Check it out guys! This dude is cool.
MNG|3.22.09 @ 4:34PM|#
"Try Christianity (Mad Max can help you with that)."
Oh my, it's rare when I say this, but isn't that TAO winning the
thread?
MNG|3.22.09 @ 4:37PM|#
I think We The Living is a tremondous book. In fact, I think it
is the best book with a female main character I've read.
I think some of Rand's later work is just terrible as either novels
or philosophy, but look, the woman wrote some great literature and
also had a big influence on American life and letters. She deserves
to be in the American Canon. I mean, have you read Upton Sinclair?
He's in there, and he let his political leanings mar his writing
all the time.
Suki|3.23.09 @ 4:08AM|#
A character in a book I was helping my friend with is supposed
to read Atlas Shrugged every year.
The character does not like John Gault because "instead of
continuing be productive, he goes out starting a lot of
trouble".
Is this a possible perception someone who knows the book well can
have? Neither me nor my friend has read Atlas, just comments about
the book.
Other Matt|3.23.09 @ 8:08AM|#
Obama's not doing anything radically different from what
Bush was doing or what John McCain would have done or any other
mainstream poll.
Somehow, I think that McCain would show a much higher level of
restraint in regards to spending, and a much lower level of using a
perceived financial crisis to jam through every bit of boneheaded
bullshit he could dig up.
Suki|3.23.09 @ 8:05PM|#
Sorry for misspelling "Galt" earlier. My fault for posting while
sleepy.
If anybody has an opinion on what I posted it would be appreciated.
Assistance on making it work if that is not believable is welcome
too.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.23.09 @ 9:35PM|#
Suki,
It's been about ten years since I've read Atlas Shrugged. So I'm
far from an expert on the subject, but I would suggest reading
Galt's rant in the book. It pretty much sums his philosophy &
why he decides to take the course of action he does. Then use that
as the basis for any criticism of the character.
Suki|3.23.09 @ 9:42PM|#
Cabeza De Vaca,
Will try to look at it. I think the character's perspective is that
she would like a bright man she finds attractive, does not seek
fame but is successful. But she does read Atlas annually and her
friends assume she is looking for John Galt, although he is not
exactly what she ever wanted.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.23.09 @ 10:37PM|#
Suki,
Here is a mini version of John Galt's speech.
http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
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