 |
| Testimony before The House Un-American Activities Committee, 1947 |
Rand, so beloved by Libertarians that they name their children for her, was a child of the Russian Revolution and a rebel who immigrated to the United States in 1925. She became a film extra and a junior Hollywood screenwriter, and, eventually a political activist who supported Republican Wendell Wilkie in 1940. Her philosophy grew out of an abhorrence of communism, culminating in 1947 with her testimony as a "friendly witness" for the House Un-American Activities Committee. The HUAC, to give you a feel for that august body, decided against looking into the Ku Klux Klan, because, "After all, the KKK is an old American institution;" they did, however, produce the Hollywood Blacklist.
 |
| HUAC Chief Investigator Robert Stripling and Richard Nixon examine subpoenaed documents |
"What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it? What is the people but millions of puny, shrivelled, helpless souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew helplessly the words others put into their mildewed brains?...I know no worse injustice than justice for all." (Ayn Rand, first edition of the semi-autobiographical novel, We The Living)
Ayn Rand is a favorite of the Heritage Foundation, a DC think tank and one of the most influential conservative organizations in America, which floats her quotations above many of their media releases. (They do tend to cherry-pick heavily, though and I've never seen the one above cited.) Heritage was seeded in 1973 by money from The Coors Brewing Company, under the persuasion of Paul Weyrich.
Weyrich, a devoted acolyte of Ayn Rand and controversial figurehead of The New Right, was also co-founder, with Jerry Falwell, of the Moral Majority. In addition, he infamously asserted to a gathering of like-minded souls in 1990 that it was a mistake to believe that it was Roe v. Wade that gave birth to the Religious Right, but, rather, it was the IRS's attempt to rescind Bob Jones University's tax exempt status due to racial discrimination.
Weyrich, a devoted acolyte of Ayn Rand and controversial figurehead of The New Right, was also co-founder, with Jerry Falwell, of the Moral Majority. In addition, he infamously asserted to a gathering of like-minded souls in 1990 that it was a mistake to believe that it was Roe v. Wade that gave birth to the Religious Right, but, rather, it was the IRS's attempt to rescind Bob Jones University's tax exempt status due to racial discrimination.
Christianity "is the best kindergarten of Communism possible."--Ayn Rand
Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. (Wikipedia, with my emphasis)It's such a relief to know that Rand's followers are not required to harm the interests and well-being of others, but that does only leave us to conclude that, when they do so, it is entirely voluntarily and knowing--as was the case in Ayn Rand's personal life and with the cult of followers she created, The Collective. I call it a cult advisedly: Rand commanded such slavish devotion of her disciples that she was able to coerce them to accept long-term behaviors that caused them personal pain in the name of adherence to her philosophy of Egoism and Objectivism. She ignored their well-being, convincing herself that, in serving her own will, she maximized theirs.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."--Ayn Rand
 |
| Barbara Branden |
(Helen Mirren, Eric Stoltz, Julie Delpy, Peter Fonda), based on the book of the same name by Barbara Branden
, an icon of cognitive dissonance and wife of Nathaniel Branden, personal assistant and most beloved disciple of Rand. The movie has a great cast and, while it is distressing to watch, nobody should be allowed to quote Rand again until they've seen it."Evil requires the sanction of the victim"--Ayn RandIncidentally, while researching this post, I elbowed one of my heroes nearly off his pedestal: Michael Shermer, author of Skeptic Magazine and critical thinker extraordinaire, usually gratifies me, but he let me down with a big thud when he wrote for HuffPo:
You can no more understand the right without Rand than you can understand it without Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan. The dismissal of Rand by both the left and the right as mind candy for college kids is fatuous. It may be true that many of us (myself included) were first introduced to Rand in college, but that's when most of us are introduced to most of the philosophical and literary figures in history. So what?
And yes, of course, both biographies (Jennifer BurnsI could not disagree more heartily. Destructive and pathological thought and behavior in the founder of a theory do wholly inform her theory and cast its value into doubt. The Religious Right has long since linked arms with the Heritage Foundation conservatives, and it is the Core Value of this alliance that personal responsibility underlies all economic and political tenets. You'll have to judge for yourself whether Rand's thought and behavior were destructive and, possibly, pathological.' and Anne Heller's
) deal with--as they must--Rand's sordid and salacious personal life, which must also carry this disclaimer: Criticism of the founder of a theory does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the theory.
Let's cover Rand's personal life with bullet points. You're big people; you can follow the links you like.
- Despite William F. Buckley's best efforts to co-opt Ayn Rand's philosophy for Christians, Rand was a firm and unrepentant atheist. She met Buckley once at a cocktail party and told him, "You are too intelligent to believe in God."
- Ayn Rand supported abortion rights.
- Ayn Rand carried on a long affair with Nathaniel Branden while she and Branden were both married. She coerced the consent of both spouses. According to Barbara Branden, the affair was "agonizingly painful" to her and to Rand's husband. Barbara Branden stated in a 1992 interview, "once we decided (the affair between Ayn and Nathaniel) was reasonable and it was something we should accept, then I don't think we quite let ourselves know how desperately we were suffering. I don't know how we would have lived with it otherwise."
- Ayn Rand was addicted to amphetamines and suffered in later years from severe depression, aggravated by that addiction. She had begun using them to prevent sleep as she wrote her novels. Later she "fed herself a steady stream" of amphetamines ("speed," the same class of drugs as chrystal meth) to keep up with her youthful followers. She became unpredictable and verbally abusive to them. In other words, it could well be argued that Ayn Rand suffered from chemically-induced mania, with the euphoria, aggression, irritability, invincibility, and paranoia common to that state.
- In the end, her Collective dissolved in rancor as a result of revelations from the Brandens. Saul Bellow's Auggie March could have told her: Don't shit where you eat.
 |
| The self-proclaimed "greatest creative thinker of all time." |
"The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. --Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
To the folks who send emails with quotations from Ayn Rand: I'm sickened. Do you really think you are, or will ever be, one of the elite Ayn Rand believed herself to be? Do you really want to be? So far, I haven't received a single email from a captain of industry or a corporate CEO; they are all from the insignificant masses, like me. Frankly, I think there's a little Stockholm Syndrome at work, here; a little identification with the aggressor, the abuser, the exploiter. At any rate, don't quote Rand, that sick and sad woman, to me until you prove you've done all your homework.
Follow-up, 11/30/2010: For a sample of the twisted rhetoric from The Fountainhead, Rand's first "literary" success that has sold 6.5 million copies to date and that brought her fame and fortune, please scroll down through the comments to the one from my friend Absence of Alternatives, and to my reply. Symbolism--how subtle! How many 2001-2010 events are you reminded of?
I first encountered Ayn Rand when I was teaching college in the late 1960s. I had a student who "discovered" her and wanted to read her to the exclusion of other books. I agreed to take a look at her. I read just a bit, and thought--this is crap. I allowed the student to keep reading her, but for myself quit.
ReplyDeleteI am astounded as to the places the "tea party" gets it ideas, and how little they seem to know about the awful road U.S. history has followed with people like this.
I read most of Fountainhead as a youngster and only read Atlas Shrugged because I wanted to impress a young beauty that I thought was an intellectual and she was reading the book. She wasn't impressed with me as I wasn't impressed with the books author.
ReplyDeleteMichael Shermer graciously consented to an interview for my documentary, so I tend to cut Michael some slack here. However, I was sorely disappointed when he joined with Penn and Teller and became (rabid) Libertarians. Recently Shermer has written that he now realizes that a totally "free market" devoid of any regulation is not really practical or desirable. But still, he holds to his newly-accepted political stance. I haven't been able to bring myself to read his most recent book, "Mind of the Market" which is heavily influenced by Rand.
ReplyDeleteStill once Michael was an evangelical christian and he changed; he was a critic of Global Climate Change and he changed. My hope is that he eventually looks at the segment of our society who are unable to participate in "the market" and change.
More often than not, wealthy people like Shermer encounter illness or accident rendering them out of the "market" and unable to maintain their self-reliance they champion so highly. My experience (in Social Services) find them knocking on the door of Government demanding their "services" which they previously decried.
By his own account Michael has had two encounters between his bicycle and a car; hopefully he doesn't learn a very hard lesson on Market Economics should the third encounter render his stance academic.
Criticism of the founder of a theory does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the theory.
ReplyDeleteI think the key phrase in Shermer's assessment is "by itself," and I would agree with him. On occasion, some pretty despicable people can offer ideas that have merit. I also think that making too broad a connection between the theorist's character and the validity of the theory leads to a converse observation that if the theorist is of good character then the theory must be sound, which leads us down a dangerous path. For instance, even if Ayn Rand had been a paragon of virtue, her theories would still be the demented ravings of an egotistical woman who worshiped at the altar of individualism and advocated the sacrifice of those that she considered inferior to her on that altar whenever necessary.
I don't disagree with you that Rand was a fruitcake of rare distinction but I think that even if she had been twin to Mother Theresa, her theories would be no less dangerous and destructive. It's not her mess of a personal life that made them so; it's the disorganized, selfish, and irrational beliefs that informed her views.
KGMom,
ReplyDeleteI thought Shermer's "mind candy for college kids" was understated; it was more like crack for the kids I knew in the sixties who read it, and that describes your student's obsession. You demonstrated more mature tastes and the wisdom to allow burnout to have its way with the girl eventually. It's very hard to get high on exploiting the masses on a college teacher's salary, I imagine.
Of the crowd I hung with, we became chemists, bankers, investment counselors, psychotherapists, doctors, and a lost soul or two. I haven't spoken with them all, but I doubt that any of them are still quoting Rand, which makes it all the more shocking when it shows up today in...late bloomers? No, that's hardly fair; certainly Greenspan was no late bloomer; he was just stunted in his emotional growth. How should we understand this rampant Randism in the previously passive, self-identified Silent Majority?
Jerry,
Ah, but did you arrive at any conclusions about your young beauty after reading Rand? Would you have pursued her anyway, if she'd encouraged you, even after sampling her "intellectual" wares?
My issue with Rand's novels was that they were anti-intellectual. They appealed to the emotions, primarily...great existential preachments and hot sex delivered by characters that are about as subtle as animated sledge hammers, products of an overheated mind and a frustrated will. Schlock.
I'd have thought that would be hot stuff to a young man in pursuit of fair lady, but...maybe not in this case? Perhaps not every man wants to ram his way through life like Howard Roark. And we are all better off for that.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteShermer is a human? You mean he doesn't always wear that little, self-satisfied smirk he sports in his Scientific American mug shot? Wow! He comes across with the certainty and arrogance of Ayn Rand, as if he was BORN a wholly rational--if wittier--atheist and scientist. You bring a man to life and your stories give me further permission to think critically about Michael Shermer...as I would about any co-human.
These revelations will be the topic of conversation at our house all day!
Sheria,
You make an excellent point and encourage me to clarify my own. Of course, one cannot and should not broadly skewer theories based on the life of the theorist. I should have been more specific.
Shermer goes on in his review of Rand to state, "By most accounts, Sir Isaac Newton was a narcissistic, misogynistic, egocentric, curmudgeon, and yet his theories about light, gravity, and the structure of the cosmos stand on their own and would be no more or less true had he been a saintly gentleman."
Except that Newton theorized about matters of physics, astro-physics, and cosmology. We naturally would not toss out his First Law of Motion just because of his egocentricity. But that analogy fails in this case.
Ayn Rand was not writing theories of physics. In fact, I would submit that she was not writing theory at all. She was writing philosophy and psychology: a prescription for how to live, how to be moral, what should matter most, how to think, and the proper nature of man. She was not even writing economic theory--although economists were influenced by her world view.
She was considered a psychological purist and was proud to be, so she made a point of applying her philosophy to her life and to her tight cadre of followers. She intended her writings to be read very nearly as scripture, as "how-to" manuals for life. She did not discuss a point of view about humans; she declaimed and asserted and ordained.
It was because she lived her principles determinedly and in full measure, we are able to read a microcosm of her psychology in her own life. She meant to model so-called "ethical egoism" for all to see. She became increasingly embittered, blaming the failings of others for the frustrations of her own life. They didn't make her films right, review her books properly, adhere to her admonishments fully, embrace her tenets sufficiently...they were, in the end, ALL people who had held her back or abandoned and betrayed her.
In her case, particularly, I think we MUST judge her philosophy and psychology by her life.
I do, however, give Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, etc., a pass on their passions.
Like many people, I went through a phase of taking Ayn Rand seriously when I was younger. But it's bizarre when I run into someone over 30 has hasn't gotten beyond that phase.
ReplyDeleteRand's only admirable trait was her disdain for religion; it's also the only aspect of her views that the modern hard-line right (being essentially theocrats) never cite.
Very interesting report here, Nance. I am fascinated by all this. I have heard of her, but didn't know any of these details. It does make sense that the Christian right would take her ideas and bastardize them for their own. They removed the "bad" stuff and replaced it with the "God" stuff, but it seems to play out to be just as elitist for the Christian Right, as it was for her atheist, pro-choice, self indulgent self! She, along with the Christian Right, give no thought to anyone in any other situation. They serve themselves, and mostly at the expense of others. But I suppose they believe that it's OK to do so because the "others" are inconsequential to them.
ReplyDeleteIn order to get everyone believing in hate and fear mongering, you do need a "champion" of sorts, someone larger than life on which to hang your philosophy and give it credibility.
The question remains, would she approve of Teabaggers using her as a cornerstone of their movement. Probably yes, because she was so full of herself that she could not imagine anyone else being such an influence.
Those are my uneducated thoughts on this interesting post. :)
Infidel,
ReplyDeleteIt is bizarre that more people don't know Rand. After all, I knew her, so surely everybody did--everybody does. In fact, I've often been floored to learn that my kids didn't absorb through the placenta the wisdom and experiences I accumulated before pregnancy. What's even more amazing is that I seem to need to relearn that over and over, one issue at a time. Take women's shoes, for example.
You're right; I have never once read a conservative, Republican, or tea party piece that quotes Rand and includes the disclaimer: "She's the one who killed God."
Stan,
That's a mighty insightful comment. I started to raise, within the post, your excellent question of whether Rand would approve of her teabagging followers today, but the post was already insanely long. I mulled it and pondered it. She was so disdainful of everyone and everything that she had not "originated" herself. In the end, I wound up agreeing with your answer: the only thing more powerful than Rand's disdain was her immense "self-esteem." She'd have found it delightful to have roiled our country so, regardless of the fact that the roilers were largely the same little people she despised.
It was Nathaniel Branden, her disciple, who foisted that phrase, self-esteem, onto America, btw...inspired by his studies with Rand. Thanks, Nat. At least our country has that going for us.
I read "Atlas Shrugged" during the topsy turvy transition between faithful believer to atheist. For obvious reasons I paid more attention to the religious commentary than to Rand's politics. I was also reading "Age of Reason" and many other books. I devoured them hungrily. All of these books, including Rand's, helped me to rewire my brainwashed brain and to realize I could trust my own mind. My mind was on an adventure to fill a newly created void left by the faith that had defined morality and my reality for my entire life previous to that point.
ReplyDeleteReading was my therapy, and Rand's book was a part of it. It was simply a previously unrealized joy to sift through the various philosophies and trust myself to accept certain things and flatly reject others.
Some months later I tried to read "Fountainhead." I looked forward to it with great anticipation. Although I finished it I unexpectedly found Rand's pontifications tedious, painful, and arrogant for starters. Then I discovered more information about Rand's personal life, particularly her own incredibly devout and disturbing personality cult that she maintained rabid and almost sadistic control over. I read about her "consensual" affair with Branden. She was obviously a sick person and -- as you alluded to -- she exhibited classic symptoms of drug addiction.
I still appreciate the strange but undeniable role "Atlas Shrugged" played in that crucial brain rewiring process although I reject Rand's objectivist elitist philosophies. If there was one redeeming philosophy in AS it was/is that there is no such person as a religious authority (hmmm, ironic that the religious right didn't get that one). But then I've spent a lifetime accustomed to sifting through dog sh** to find the elusive redeeming particles it might contain.
Excellent post, Nance.
Cognitive Dissenter,
ReplyDeleteSuch a brave and intoxicating journey you describe! I took a related (but much, much easier) journey in '66, growing out from under loving but overpowering dogma to begin to meet my own thoughts. It's been a journey that continues to this day and blogging is, for me, a crucial part of that process. I write as a means of learning--both about my subject and about myself.
Rand also had for me that freeing effect that you describe. She was experiencing it herself as she wrote, I imagine, and her followers experienced it. That freedom, itself, can be addicting; who would ever want to return to the world of cultural sanctions if they can follow their own "will." Rand believed in the goodness of that will, but she failed to recognize its limits or the way that, taken to extremes, it would ultimately bind and check her will.
All of which leads me to soberly consider the possibility that Rand has been having the same revolutionary effect on the folk who make up the actual grass roots of the tea party. I don't for a minute think that the Heritage Foundation's propaganda machine is still enamored and excited by Rand; I think they are cynical in their use of her quotations. But the people in Ohio, for example, who are active in politics for the first time in their lives? Maybe, for them, Rand is exactly what Shermer called her: mind candy.
I have never heard of Aye Rand until the Tea Party movement. My "coming-of-age" reading was comprised of European Buildungsroman ("angst"!) such as Hermann Hesse, and later, Vonnegut. I used to be ashamed of the number of female writers I could cite as playing a formative role in my growing-up (NONE), but now after reading this, I am thinking maybe it's not necessarily a bad thing after all... Thank you for this post. More people need to read this. And why is it that many Americans I know do not know about HUAC? It is not covered in high school curriculum?!
ReplyDeleteAbsence,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't really miss a thing. But, just so you can say you sampled Rand, here is the seminal scene from The Fountainhead that sets the stage for the relationship between the two main characters. They are meant to symbolize the strength of the individual and the...well, see for yourself:
“He had thrown her down on the bed and she felt the blood beating in her throat, in her eyes, the hatred, the helpless terror in her blood. She felt the hatred and his hands; his hands moving over her body, the hands that broke up granite. She fought in a last convulsion. Then the sudden pain shot up, through her body, to her throat, and she screamed. Then she lay still. It was an act that could be performed in tenderness, as a seal of love, or in contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest. It could be the act of a lover or the act of a soldier violating an enemy woman. He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him — and she would have remained cold, untouched by the thing done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted.”
Wasn't that dandy?
As my friend Elizabeth said in a comment on Swash Zone: "To put things in perspective, though, the cult of Rand is an exclusively American phenomenon. She's not very popular in Europe, for example, where if she is considered at all, it is as a second-rate hack and first-rate self-promoting sociopath."
Thank you for much for this gem of a paragraph. Sounds to me like some sort of "rape fantasy" practiced in a significant amount of Japanese literature and films. You know the woman being raped all of a sudden started moaning in pleasure? Yeah. That. (Disclaimer: I am from Taiwan and therefore it is very likely I am slightly biased when it comes to evaluating the complicated history and relationship between Taiwan and Japan, the colonized and the colonizer. Sorry. Can't uphold the PC standard when it comes to this because I am seeing it not as an American but as someone from Asia...)
ReplyDeleteAbsence,
ReplyDeleteExactly. You pegged it. A cheap rape fantasy at the very core of Rand's first,hugely financially successful, effort to put her philosophy out there into the world. And Alan Greenspan thought it was great stuff, based the American economy on it for nineteen years, and...voila! The rape of America by the captains of finance.
I find it appalling that she is held up as some kind of icon and idol; she seemed like an absolutely horrible and disturbed woman. I've always wondered what the mystique was about her. Does the phrase the rich are different come to mind?
ReplyDeleteYet again, I feel the weight of ignorance on my shoulders. I have simply no knowledge of this woman. I am inspired to read more, just to keep up with you all.
ReplyDeleteMeg,
ReplyDeleteNow, you've got me wondering how Rand's immigration was financed. There are gaps in the history, but I don't think she "came from money" (as we say in the South). I have the impression of sheer force of personality. Personal charisma isn't apparent, but strength of will is her claim to fame. Oh, dear; back into the stacks of history, again...
Madame,
Please, don't go to any great lengths...as in the the 1000+ pages of Atlas Shrugged; How Atlas Got a Hernia Hefting Ayn Rand's Novel. It just isn't great literature and Europe found it all something of a yawn. I much prefer your blog posts as reading!
And I leave better informed than when I arrived. That's the hallmark of a good blogger. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBack to lurk mode...
Straight Guy,
ReplyDeleteWait!
Excellent post, Nance!
ReplyDeleteI've wondered for some time why anyone would become a Randian?
But after reading your post, the thought has occurred to me that there might be a certain type of person who loves to follow, but hates to be labeled "a follower".
It further seems Ayn Rand offers such hypocrites all the pleasures of being sheep while believing themselves to be tigers.
I don't think that explains everyone of her followers, though -- just some of them.
The one good thing I will say about her is that, for a person who seldom changed her underwear, her writings certainly had a positive influence on some friends of mine in helping to liberate them from religious dogma.
Nance, their was only thing I could take from reading her works; I wanted someone to shot me if I ever became anything like her. Her writing vividly showcased a soul so devoid of humanity that I've tried to expunge as much of her from my mind as I could. That being said, I wouldn't try to stop anyone from reading her work; I'd rather they read her work and be able to decide what her words were worth on their own merits. You don't really know how fine a piece of writing can be until you've read complete trash to compare it to.
ReplyDelete