NP Rank:
Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' having its comeback
A Philosopher makes a reappearance in America's Newest Culture Wars
From Fox News' Limbaugh and Beck, to the Tea Partiers, to the Libertarians and Neo-Cons, to the passenger sitting next to you reading “Atlas Shrugged” on your commute to work, Ayn Rand seems to be the comeback kid in American literature.
Beginning in the late '90s, and gathering speed since the economic collapse of 2008, the controversial novelist, objectivist Capitalist, and rugged individualist philosopher , has emerged as a leading intellectual on the right in America's "newest Culture Wars" – and she’s been dead for nearly 30 years, and her works were most popular in the 1950s.
Rand was all about economics and freedom, and was a supporter of abortion rights, and a despiser of all forms of mysticism and religion. She advocated for the free individual, but her biggest flaw was in thinking money and the forces of the market were the greatest measure of that.
At the tea parties that swept the nation last spring, protesters waved signs claiming “Ayn Rand was right” and warning “Read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ before it happens.”The fresh appeal of 'Atlas Shrugged'
Consider this: “Atlas Shrugged,” Rand’s most famous novel, is set in a dystopian future America, where a socialist government has brought the country to the brink of ruin. Fleeing punitive regulations and crushing taxation, the country’s top industrialists and executives have gone on strike, virtually shutting down the economy.
For American conservatives, the significance of Rand’s message is clear. “Atlas Shrugged” is prophetic, they say, and it warns us all of the coming collapse.
It wasn’t always so. In her day, leading conservatives denounced Rand for her atheism and immorality, and her economic ideas were scarcely mentioned.
Conservative author Whittaker Chambers attacked Rand as a godless authoritarian in his famously brutal review of “Atlas Shrugged,” printed in an early issue of William F. Buckley’s seminal conservative magazine, National Review. The book’s message, according to Chambers, was “to a gas chamber – go!” Anti-ERA crusader Phyllis Schlafly stopped reading Rand’s other novel, “The Fountainhead,” as soon as she reached the infamous rape scene, horrified at the immorality and violence of what Rand once described as “rape by engraved invitation” and condoned.
But Rand did not have much patience for conservatives, calling herself instead a “radical for capitalism.” She intended her individualistic philosophy, objectivism, to be a guide to the future, not the past.
Rand identified four basic components to her philosophy: objective reality, the supremacy of reason, the virtue of selfishness, and the importance of laissez faire capitalism. She celebrated the virtue of selfishness and attacked religion for being irrational.
These aspects of Rand made her alien to an earlier generation of religious conservatives who gleefully launched a “culture war” against secular America. In the 1980s and ’90s, the culture war was waged over issues of gender and sexuality, and religious values were central.
NowPublic on Facebook
Recommendations (24)
-
nanute
New York, United States -
tikun
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel -
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States -
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States -
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (40)
at 12:33 on December 13th, 2009
Thanks for all that, Roy ......I have never adhered to Rand's objectivist thinking either----yes, the Golden Rule being ignored, as Rush Limbaugh is so proud of, is the mark of a low nature to me. Even Nietzsche dreamed of the Cesare with the soul of Christ.
at 12:48 on December 13th, 2009
smk
I never liked her Social Darwinistic theories that in today's world would earn her the title of Elitist. Her form of Capitalism with its selfish virtue and narrow definition does not fit with the emerging global sensitivity to the issues of governance and the integration of the world economies.
at 12:54 on December 13th, 2009
Yes, A you are certainly correct: The blatant selfishness ethic cannot be justified anymore, if in fact it ever could!
at 13:49 on December 13th, 2009
Selfishness is a far more predictable and powerful motivator than altrusim. Rand was a great thinker but her ideas have been confused by the left who want to think that people will work hardest when they work for the "common good". I would say that it is THAT philosophy which has been clearly shown to be bankrupt. Ask yourself this: Does your boss or your significant other keep you around because they want to help you? No way! Those relationships survivve only because you add some value to that other person. And when you cease to add value those relationships cease as well. So goes all aspects of human life.
at 14:01 on December 13th, 2009
Dang! That is spot on!!!! Good job, eastvanray. Very good!
at 14:04 on December 13th, 2009
Well, that may be true in most cases. Certainly, when my husband was ill, dying, unable to make money or add any more "value" to me, I prayed and prayed for his survival, and would have laid down my life to make him well, though there was nothing in it for me. Isn't that also human?
at 14:15 on December 13th, 2009
eastvanray
Depending on one's definition of "value," your assessment is true for those relationships. If value is "what am I going to get out of this," then yes, selfishness is the progenitor. If value is "how can we work together for a cohensive union," then cooperation for the "common good" is the progenitor. Your view is a bit cynical, and I do not share it.
It's interesting you use the word "bankrupt." What was motivating wall street in the derivative market? The only answer is selfishness, and who bailed them out when it all collasped? Yep, the American people because the banks' failure would have adversely effected the "common good." Because selfishness is predictible as you state, and now we know financial institutions when left to own devices will not regulate themselves, a new era of government regulation is being ushered. While we value the free market, we also value stability and some measure of predictibility.
at 14:38 on December 13th, 2009
Rand never argued that greed and selfishness should not be subject to laws. What happened on Wall Street was a failure of the regulatory structure. Greed produces the greatest wealth. That fact is not widely disputed. The real argument should not be whether greed is good or bad since we will never change ingrained human behaviour. What needs to be debated is how to use greed to produce the most desirable outcome for society.
at 06:11 on December 14th, 2009
Eastvanray,
Well said. I agree that human nature is almost impossible to change. But what can be changed is the environment that surrounds us for the "Good" or "Bad". It is our responsibility as citizens of whatever State we live in to put into place the necessary infrastructure that guards against the extreme possibilities that we all have within us.
As far as greed in concerned, it is a human desire that can be motivated as an energy toward a positive outcome for the best in society. This is commendable and honest.
at 15:03 on December 13th, 2009
eastvanray
Your views are Machiavellian.
It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always to to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.
In The Prince he proffers success by any means possible and raw political power over the principality. He would have liked you a lot in the 16th century, but I can't say that I can agree with these methods in the 21st century.
at 15:11 on December 13th, 2009
I read The Prince in university. I have to say that of the the works of political philosophy I have read it (more so than The Art of War, Candide or even works by J.S. Mills) teaches lessons that can be applied daily in our lives.
at 15:47 on December 13th, 2009
I am puzzled you could embrace Machiavelli with one arm and Voltaire on the other. Voltaire ascribed to the natural sense of justice deriving from a love of order which is natural to humans, and defines virture in its relationship with the good of others. He believed there was evil in the world of sufficient magnitude to influence our understanding in terms of our position in the world , and Candide satirised philosophical optimism. To these ends it appears he is urbanly stoic, yet a humanitarian which is at once confusing. : )
at 16:06 on December 13th, 2009
Voltaire had one good line and it was at the end of Candide. I believe it went like this "... in the end, we must till our own garden as best we can. .." An important statement about the need for self-reliance. To me that is not inconsistent with the writings of Rand.
at 16:13 on December 13th, 2009
It could also be Thoreau or Emerson or any of the Transandentalists whom I will argue would not have embraced Rand.
at 16:23 on December 13th, 2009
I was not trying to make that point. My point was that Rand's beliefs about selfishness and greed are not at odds with many other philosophers. She is controversial due to the raw language and harsh arguments she employs to make her case. I would argue that she has been the object of criticism due partially to the fact that she is a female atheist and did not embrace early 20th century society's notion of "woman" as nurturing and politically soft. Her views on government and the evils of collectivism are mainstream libertarian today. She would not be so shocking if she wrote Atlas Shrugged in 2009.
at 11:17 on December 14th, 2009
There is a fallacy in Libertarian Capitalism. In Libertariansim no social goal can justify forcing a person to be a resource for others. This is their basic tenet. Capitalism states that no one can be forcibly deprived of the accumulation of property or its uses, and places no limits on amount of or uses of private property. Holders of vast amounts of property have the power to dictate the terms which others can "work" for them and in effect the power to "force" others to be their resource. They can set wages and terms based on their desired profit.
To me this is a contradiction in Libertarian/Capitalism and a circular flaw.
at 12:33 on December 14th, 2009
That may have been the case a long time ago but proof that people without vast amounts of land or other capital can succeed in a modern capitalistic system are all around us. Just look at the founder of Cirq du Solier as a perfect example.
at 12:54 on December 14th, 2009
Non profit organizations are everywhere, but I was speaking specifically of the contradiction to Libertarians professing to be Captialists.
I have not read about any non profits professing to be Libertarians--at least not lately. : )
at 12:57 on December 14th, 2009
There are many libertarian non-profits. The Ayn Rand Institute happens to be one of them.
at 13:21 on December 14th, 2009
Yes, I presume the Aye Rand institue is one. Are there others? But most importantly, the majority of non-profits are decidely not Libertarian, which is the point I was making. : )
I know we disagree on this, and I respect and bow to your opinions.
at 13:30 on December 14th, 2009
I enjoyed our exchange, thanks.
at 13:38 on December 14th, 2009
As did I, Thank you.
at 18:59 on December 13th, 2009
This is a funny story! And the comments are great! Dumb/ignorant rubes such as myself have a lot in common with Randy. I bet she was hot in her day!
at 06:13 on December 14th, 2009
Rory,
There are clips of her on youtube. Feisty lady. Respected her energy and unwillingness to be intimidated by the "liberals" of her day.
at 12:54 on December 14th, 2009
I bet she was hot in her day. Apparently she thought so. She hooked up with a 24 year old disciple of Objectivism when she was 50. Didn't matter that they were both married. Here's a little excerpt from the book:
The Rand Cult (Open Court, 396 pages, $31.25), by Jeff Walker, an account of the chaotic, angry school that swims in Rand's wake. While Walker's book is often clumsily written, it provides an absorbing portrait of the still-thriving Rand movement. He reports that books by and about her sell half a million copies a year, and Randian organizations keep attracting new members.
Walker is a Toronto freelance journalist who did a series on Rand for CBC Radio's Ideas in 1992. It's appropriate that a Canadian should dissect the Rand organization. After all, Canadians founded it. In 1951 two New York University students, Nathan Blumenthal of Toronto and his wife-to-be, Barbara Weidman of Winnipeg, were enthralled by Rand's vision of world-conquering heroes, unfettered by government, freed of religious restraints on their triumphant egos. Soon Blumenthal became Nathaniel Branden (he chose the surname because it contains "rand") and signed on, with Barbara at his side, as Rand's chief disciple, building the Objectivist movement.
In 1955 he also became Rand's lover, when she was 50 and he was 24. This led eventually to the scandal that shook Objectivism. In 1968 he told Rand (who was wondering why their affair had lost its magic) that he was in love with a gorgeous model who happened to be 35 years younger than Rand. Predictably, Rand threw him out of the movement and blacklisted anyone who associated with him. Nevertheless, he kept spouting Randisms. He still thinks Atlas Shrugged the greatest novel ever written.
Walker classifies Objectivism as a cult, and certainly it has cultish qualities: It insists on conformity, judges members by loyalty rather than merit, shames and excommunicates dissenters, interferes in the private lives of members and claims to have an answer for everything. But it doesn't entirely fit the cult pattern: no street solicitation, no begging, no barracks or dorms, no techniques of sleep deprivation, etc. It more closely resembles an old-fashioned political movement, always splitting into smaller parts, like the Trotskyites.
And just in case anyone forgot: Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction.
at 13:09 on December 14th, 2009
Nanute
The part I found personally disgusting about her love affair was not so much the age descrepency, as the double standard is celebrated in the male circles when older men have affairs with younger women, but the fact that both she and her lover wanted their affair to be sanctioned by their spouses! Ayn Rand expected her husband to remain with her whilst she carried on. I think he became an alcoholic. The whole affair reeked of selfishness and hubris in my opinion.
at 03:44 on December 15th, 2009
Couldn't agree more.
at 19:31 on December 14th, 2009
nanute: I had no idea about any of this! I just threw my comment out there! JEEZ! Thanks for the info . . . .
at 19:13 on December 13th, 2009
Indeed she was, Rory, have you seen the film of her life, with Eric Stolz?
at 07:11 on December 14th, 2009
But isn't altruism also borne of self-interest or even selfishness? The mechanism we have used to advance altruism (namely, religion) proposes all sorts of rewards we will enjoy in an afterlife if we were to just deny ourselves rewards in this life.