Was Ayn Rand Randian?

Thursday, 15 September 2011 06:23

This article is reprinted from The Washington Post, September 4, 2011.

Ayn Rand burst onto America's literary scene in 1943 with her novel "The Fountainhead" and its unforgettable hero, Howard Roark, a paragon of manly independence and rugged individualism. Cast out of architecture school for his subversive designs, Roark merely laughs. When his nemesis, Ellsworth Toohey, a critic who has ruined his career, taunts him by asking, "Why don't you tell me what you think of me?" Roark replies serenely, "But I don't think of you."

The Russian-born Rand insisted that her novel was a blueprint for moral living. "The Fountainhead" was but the first step in her larger presentation of objectivism, the philosophy she would create. Although Rand would eventually expand objectivism into a system encompassing everything from politics to sex to art, at its base lay the celebration of the independent, rational individual epitomized by Roark.

For Roark, the views of critics — indeed, of anyone other than himself — were meaningless.

"To a creator, all relations with men are secondary," he counseled, arguing that "the degree of a man's independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. . . . There is no standard of personal dignity except independence." What mattered to the creator was the joy of creation, not the accolades or status sought by contemptible "second-handers."

Rand claimed to follow Roark's lead. In a letter to fans, she declared starkly, "My own character is in the pages of The Fountainhead." She added: "I have no hobbies. I have few friends. I do not like to ‘go out.' I am unbearable — to myself and to others — when I stay too long away from my work."

Fiercely committed to laissez-faire capitalism and limited government, Rand was an equally fierce atheist and despised the religious beliefs of most conservatives. America needed a secular philosophy of individualism, rationality and small government, she declared. She began teaching this philosophy to a small group of devoted acolytes, including a young Alan Greenspan. In 1957, she presented objectivism to the world in "Atlas Shrugged," her 1,000-plus-page opus featuring another Roark-like protagonist, John Galt.

Rand expected opposition, but she also was confident that her work would be widely celebrated. Instead, she was shattered by the negative reviews. Although it hit the bestseller lists immediately, critics savaged "Atlas Shrugged." Liberals hated her politics, conservatives her atheism, and almost everyone said the book was poorly written.

Rand tried, but she couldn't live up to Roark's stoic disregard for the opinions of others. She retreated to the privacy of her Manhattan apartment, weeping daily and losing herself in endless games of solitaire. The philosopher of rationalism found herself swamped by emotions she could neither understand nor control.

In desperation, she turned to Nathaniel Branden, the most loyal of her followers. Years before, flush with inspiration, she had taken Branden as a lover, disregarding both their marriages and the fact that she was 25 years his senior. Now Branden became her therapist, helping Rand pick through the wreckage of her ideals. Howard Roark wouldn't feel like this, she moaned to him, nor would John Galt.

Despite believing in Rand's philosophy of independence, Branden understood that his mentor needed the adulation of others. He created the Nathaniel Branden Institute, an organization that taught courses on Rand's philosophy. The institute grew alongside a reinvigorated libertarian movement that made Rand an icon of the right. Revived by the stream of young people interested in her ideas, Rand continued to preach individualism, even while insisting that her students accept objectivism without question. She told none of them about the dark days after "Atlas Shrugged" or about her secret affair with Branden.

Discovering individualism's limits was something each objectivist would have to do alone.

Maker Faire: Where Libertarian Dreams Come True

Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:51

I spent part of last weekend at the Maker Faire in San Mateo, CA, a two day event showcasing a mindboggling array of technology and artistry, from futuristic robots to retro steam powered trains to re-engineered clothing.  Somewhere between displays on composting toilets and distributed power systems, it occurred to me that all of this was a libertarian fantasy come true.  Here in reality were all the dreams of the 1970’s libertarian ‘zines: a way to finally get off the grid, on the land, away from “the man,” to be totally self-sufficient and independent of larger structures of power and coercion.  The hitch is that most of the makers there, I’d wager, were folks of the left, not of the right.  If any one set of values united them, it was environmentalism, or more specifically the quest to use natural resources more efficiently and with fewer damaging side effects (e.g. externalities).  Thumping under all of this was a quasi-apocalyptic theme that would have seemed familiar to any Tea Partier, militia member, or science fiction buff: how are you going to take care of yourself and your family when our world changes irrevocably for the worse?

All of these connections and missed connections started me thinking on the theme of left-libertarianism, or how the libertarian ethos or spirit can really be said to transcend partisan boundaries.  As those of you know who read my book Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, one of my major arguments in that book is that Ayn Rand served to pin libertarianism to the right through her advocacy of unregulated capitalism and her long history of political collaboration with conservatives and others on the right.  Today, Rand might be more influential than ever, but libertarianism is evolving rapidly and even approaching the political mainstream. As such, we’re bound to see some shifts and changes.

The Right Since Obama: The Rise of Market Fundamentalism

Wednesday, 21 April 2010 05:21

This article originally posted at dissentmagazine.org

THE CRAZIES have come out of the conservative woodwork.  Enraged and infuriated by the election of President Obama, bereft of any intellectual leadership or compelling figurehead, unable to stomach their declining powers in a multicultural America, conservatism has been reduced to a rump movement of alienated working class whites who can only mount bizarre “tea parties” to express their discontent.

Or so runs the conventional liberal wisdom on the conservative movement after the election of Obama.  Even some leading conservatives appeared to agree. Sam Tanenhaus has recently announced the death of conservatism and called for a return to “classical conservatism,” and from his perch at the New York Times, David Brooks has cast a wistful eye at responsible “grown-up” British conservatism.

But the reality of the situation is more complex: The crash of 2008 has recalibrated the balance of power between market fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists in the Republican Party and what we are now seeing is the rebirth of a potent strain of pro-capitalist, anti-statist thought. This aspect of the right has always perplexed liberals, and few expected its return in the wake of a crisis that did much to discredit free-market economics. And yet libertarianism has surged (and religious and cultural conservatism has faltered) as the economy has pushed economics back to the forefront of the policy agenda.

The election of Obama has put conservatives back where they are most comfortable and, arguably, most powerful: on the outside looking in—or, as William F. Buckley, Jr. had it, “Standing athwart history, yelling stop!” Liberals may be comforted by this fact: After almost a decade of George Bush, it’s nice to see what the view is like from inside the White House. But they’d do well not to relax, for it is in periods of political exile that the right has developed its most effective ideas and political strategies.

Read more: The Right Since Obama: The Rise of Market Fundamentalism

My Appearance on the O'Reilly Factor

Friday, 19 March 2010 07:39

Being a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s show was an exciting and at times surreal experience.  The interview itself was awkward, for I never saw O’Reilly himself; I sat in a studio in California, heard O’Reilly through an earpiece, and spoke to a camera lens.  Maybe the set up contributed to the choppy nature of the interview.  But, as the many commentators on my Facebook page pointed out, interrupting guests is part of O’Reilly’s style and he has trouble being anything other than confrontational.  I’m not a regular watcher of Fox, but I had seen enough to be prepared.

While I was asked to provide some context for Hanks’ statements, O’Reilly had his own agenda which involved a similar form of simplification, so the format wasn’t conducive to examining something as complex as our involvement in World War II.  In my podcast lecture course, “Introduction to U.S. History,” I decided that World War II needed a whole week and three full lectures; check those out if you’re interested in learning more about the war in the Pacific, Europe, and on the home front.  These lectures also cover the history of Japanese internment camps in the United States, which are certainly relevant to any complete discussion of race and WWII.