Posted on 07/24/2014 7:25:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
And no, liberals: It's not because they're greedy jerks who loathe the poor By Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry |
Many of my fellow conservatives love Ayn Rand. And many of my liberal friends love to hate her.
You can understand why progressives enjoy blasting Rand's presumably nefarious influence on the conservative movement. She makes for a convenient punching bag for progressives, because she embodies the caricatured version of what progressives imagine conservatives really think: that egotism and greed are good and that the parasitic weak deserve to be trod upon by the capitalistic powerful.
And then there are people like me: Conservatives who view themselves as Christians first. To us, Rand's worldview is repellent, and the fact that her works are so widespread on the right is beyond annoying.
I hate nearly everything Rand stands for. I find her prose unbearable. But I also, unlike Rand, believe in the virtue of empathy, and have decided to apply it to people who like her work. To that end, here are a few different perspectives on why so many conservatives like Ayn Rand.
1. It's a wish-fulfillment fantasy
In Ayn Rand's books, the main character is typically an implausibly awesome version of the person many conservatives would secretly like to be. Wish-fulfillment fantasies exert a powerful influence on us. There is something in our souls that tells us that we are inadequate, that reminds us of our many failures and the ways the world fails to appreciate our precious gifts. Works of fiction in which the main character unleashes our fantasies touches something deep.
For me as a geeky, bullied preteen, Ender's Game fulfilled this need. Here was a book about a supersmart, supertalented kid who is recognized for it, whose skills are groomed and appreciated, and who eventually goes on to save the world. (Dune was also great for that.) Even now, as I find all sorts of inadequacies with the Ender books, I can't help but retain a deep fondness for them, and will probably recommend them to my teenage kids.
Ayn Rand's fantasy stories work the same way for young conservatives. A figure like John Galt reaches into deep places inside yourself, and produces intense feelings.
This type of fiction is the ice cream of art: Harmless enough if we don't mistake it for a nutritious meal but, if we're honest with ourselves, we probably recognize that we're a bit too attracted to it. And remember, there's almost certainly a piece of schlock that does for you the same things that Atlas Shrugged does for many conservatives, so cut them some slack.
2. It's possible to dissociate a book from its politics
According to my totally nonscientific sense of things, the singlemost popular work of fiction among Silicon Valley geeks is The Lord of the Rings. (And even if it's not the MOST popular, it's still undeniably popular.) Much has been written about the techno-utopianism of Silicon Valley culture. But Lord of the Rings is profoundly and explicitly anti-technology; Tolkien clearly associates the forces of evil with industrial modernity, and his picture of Eden, whether the Hobbits' Shire or the Elven realms, is pre-technological. Peter Thiel, who may be the most techno-utopian futuristic billionaire in Silicon Valley, has also named not one, not two, but three companies after items or characters from Lord of the Rings. How does he reconcile these contradictions?!?!?!?!?!
It's probably very easy for him, because you don't have to love a piece of art's politics to love the piece of art itself.
In the case of conservatives and Ayn Rand, then, if you combine this with point one, a narrative falls into place: A young conservative finds an Ayn Rand book; because it is a wish-fulfillment fantasy, it exerts a powerful pull on her and she starts to love it, perhaps a bit too much; as the conservative grows up and reads more (and better) conservative books, her politics hopefully separate a bit from Rand's extreme and insane Objectivism, even as she retains a great fondness for the books.
3. There are too few works of art in popular culture that have conservative values
Progressives often obsess over the notion of "checking your privilege," and I believe by and large it is a healthy instinct, because many of us are indeed beneficiaries of privilege. But here's one type of privilege I wish progressives would check: The privilege of growing up in a world where the vast majority of culture, both high and low, reflects your worldview.
I was amused when the blogosphere collapsed in a heap of disbelieving LOLs when it was revealed that Paul Ryan (also frequently indicted for his love of Ayn Rand) loves the band Rage Against the Machine. I too love RATM. Tom Morello is a musical genius, and Zack de la Rocha indisputably has a gift from God.
To grow up as a conservative with an omnivorous yet discerning aesthetic palate is to get a never-ending, and I mean never-ending, education in the sometimes-difficult process of appreciating works whose political (if not metaphysical) worldview is deeply at odds with your own. This is an education that progressives (especially if they don't study the classical liberal arts) by and large don't get.
I think the shock that so many progressives experience when they find out a conservative can love RATM and, conversely, the implicit notion that if someone likes Ayn Rand that automatically makes them a Randbot, is due to this form of privilege. There remains a deep strain in left-wing aesthetics of judging a work's value by the politics it promotes. (Case in point: the Academy Awards.)
This dearth of conservative values in popular culture, then, doesn't just mean that conservatives will latch onto comparatively inferior cultural works that reflect their worldview, although it surely plays a role. But even as a conservative's politics deviate from Rand's, she will be more able to maintain her enjoyment of Rand's works, to an extent that may seem inexplicable to a progressive.
4. Rand's work does get at a crucial truth that almost everyone misses
Again, as a Christian and as a conservative, I find Rand's Objectivism, to use a word she so liked, despicable. But I still must recognize that Rand's work emphasizes one crucial truth about the world that almost nobody else does: Free enterprise is key to human flourishing, not just because it enables the most material prosperity, but because it encourages human creativity.
Most defenses of free market capitalism are typically made in a utilitarian lens; partly because it's such an easy case to make and partly because that is the lens of most academic work in economics. And it is most certainly true that, yes, with some important caveats, the freer the markets, the more prosperous the polity.
But that is not the whole truth. The whole truth takes into account that part of our human nature is a deep drive to find meaning through work, productivity, and even creativity, and that the free enterprise system enables this. That makes free enterprise morally, not just empirically, superior. From the Etsy merchant and the blogger to Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the free enterprise system, more than any other system that has ever been tried, enables people to express their creativity and flourish by producing work that other people want and makes their lives better.
This means that, much like democracy, capitalism is a deeply morally righteous system.
This discourse is almost never heard in contemporary society, certainly not in the realm of culture. And yet, for all its many shortcomings, it is found in 500-proof form in the works of Ayn Rand. And I think this is a key reason why so many experience her books as a revelation, despite all their shortcomings.
Oh Thank you. How big of you. How - how, um - condescending. ("to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity. ")
I have been reading Rand for over 60 years. I find her personal life abhorrent. I find her writing brilliant. I find her postulations solid.
And I am puzzled why a 'Christian' would "HATE" Rand, the person. Maybe hate her work, hate her ideas, etc - but HATE HER?
Bears repeating, screamed at full volume from each mountaintop until every single human being has heard it.
Nothing against Rand, but I have about 15 other books on the "still need to read" list.
Here's something from Ayn Rand's 1936 "Autobiographical Sketch."
"If a life can have a theme song, and I believe every worthwhile one has, mine is a religion, an obsession, or a mania or all of these expressed in one word: individualism. I was born with that obsession and have never seen and I do not know now a cause more worthy, more misunderstood, more seemingly hopeless and more tragically needed. Call it fate or irony, but I was born, of all countries on earth, in the one less suitable for a fanatic of individualism, Russia."
Now, I can't speak for the author, but for my post to which you were replying, I think I clearly stated, "Like the author, my problems with Rand are her views of altruism and empathy." That does not mean there aren't a lot of things of value in her writings, but there are also some pretty odious ideas that emerged from her mind as well...
I guess the ones that aren't worthwhile are the ones she vocally advocated aborting.
“The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.” —Ayn Rand
I am not of the absolutist point of view that one must love everything about Rand in order to appreciate her work. Atlas Shrugged is the best effort of a brilliant woman to tell it exactly as she saw it, and in doing so we have a work where the characters are true to their personalities and whose narrative occasionally conflicts with Rand's overall philosophical case. I find that delightful enough to restate: Rand's characters behave in ways that occasionally contradict the philosophy they're espousing. It is that - and nearly only that - that makes them human.
One rather back-handed testament to the power of Atlas Shrugged is the hysteria with which it is received on the Left. Noam Chomsky called it the most evil thing ever published, a statement that is so rich in irony that it ought to be the topic of an entire volume of its own. What Rand most certainly got right was that the tool of the moochers and looters was and is the ability to make the rest of us feel guilt, and that someone who does not feel guilty for achievement is beyond the power of those for whom it is their only tool. "You didn't build that" is a perfect example, and the preening cretin who uttered it could have stepped right from the pages of the novel. Rand nailed that one and will never be forgiven for it.
Thanks to all who helped Publius and I shape our book. It is HERE, available for Kindle as well. It is not a paean to Rand; in fact, it is likely to infuriate certain of her over-earnest followers. It is certain to annoy her detractors. We think that's good ground to stand on.
sorry - my post was meant to the author = who states “I Hate Ayn Rand ...”
This dude is way too full of himself
True in only the emotional respect. I feel absolutely no guilt over anything I've ever accomplished, yet I'm not safely beyond the reach of the gibsmedat crowd and the rest of the moochers (witness Obamacare).
Nice analysis, but this:
“Tom Morello is a musical genius, and Zack de la Rocha indisputably has a gift from God.”
Just, no.
The American consumer is only obligated to buy whatever brings him the most value. If I have to choose between a POS Government Motors vehicle and a BMW, I will chose the Beemer every time.
chose = choose
Right there with you. Atlas Shrugged is a horrible diatribe, poorly written, and pompously pedantic. My guess is that most of those who proclaim it the greatest work of literature ever have never gotten as far as you or I did.
See my tagline and buy the book. (Billthedrill and I need the royalties.)
See post 10
It’s what is making radio host Jason Lewis to become more and more obnoxious too. Every time I turn him on, he seems more anti-religious than the last time. A couple of days ago, the took the opportunity to take a slam at Christianity. While making the point that resources are worthless while lying dormant in the ground until someone works and digs them up and processes them to make them into something, he told a typical unfunny Jason Lewis joke about a preacher who went by a farmer’s place several times and each time he was saying, “thank the Lord for all the bounty he’s giving you.” Lewis said the farmer grew tired of hearing this daily “thanks to God” business and told the preacher God didn’t do much of anything until he got busy and worked the land. Lewis and his stupid galt website can crash for all I care. Lewis thinks he’s a self-made man. That man was just a local hostile jerk of a radio host who continually berated even fans until Rush Limbaugh let him fill in for him. That gave Lewis a leg up. And Lewis has benefitted these years by appealing to his conservative Christian audience and they have given him a great deal of support. Now that Lewis has taken to mocking Christianity, going Galt, I think he’s going to be suffering a little bit. Good grief, he’s insufferable. For example, when he has a guest on the line for an interview. Jason feels he has to dominate the discussion. There he has an expert in some field and Lewis comes across as an arrogant know it all. Insufferable.
Indeed democracy is not a morally righteous system. Government itself is a necessary evil. Our form of government is not morally righteous, it is merely the least evil form of government. Since power corrupts, it is better to have many little tyrants fighting each other for power, rather than one all powerful tyrant.
Capitalism is also not inherently morally righteous. It can be but it doesn’t have to be. For every person who finds meaning through work and productivity there is also someone else who doesn’t. Both winners and losers are necessary to the capitalist system because, “there can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.