"Yes, at first, I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this -- Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage and because of this piece of ----, I'm never reading again!"
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.
Same question does it have enough of a synopsis to follow or will I have to re-read Atlas to follow it?
That pretty much sums up my view on it/her. She may have abhorred communism, but she was still a product of the culture that was prevalent.
I disagree with his statement: “But Lord of the Rings is profoundly and explicitly anti-technology”.
While The Two Towers scene with Sauruman building his army could be interpreted as anti-tech I see it more as anti-corruption. He makes the urakai (I know the spelling is wrong) through a corruption of nature.
I could even reach and say he’s trying to make something better than God, and obviously fails due to his own faults.
Plus - If it were anti-tech wouldn’t he have made the dwarfs bad guys too? I could agree that Tolkien argues for a simpler life, but not that he was anti-tech.
As to Ms Rand... Love the works for the pro-freedom stand, hate it for the free-love take...but I just ignore that part of it as I do with other stories and movies where the overall story is good enough... like ignoring Jar Jar in Star Wars I-III :)
You've lost me. Your comment above has what to do with the discussion at hand?
Ayn Rand is like a combination of Anton LaVey and L. Ron Hubbard.
This might interest you.
There are elements of conservatism within her novels and her overarching philosophy that we should celebrate. Her grasp on the two primary economic systems, capitalism and socialism/communism leaves no room for question. As a human rights issue, as a contrast between freedom and slavery, and as a contrast between good and evil is pretty much unquestionable.
We don't have to buy into all that Rand preaches to find the good--the great--in some of it, perhaps a great majority of it. We shouldn't fall into the trap that liberals set of having to accept everything a person is for, else there's nothing of merit to be found. We can pick and choose. We can say, "Yes, I like her views on economics, but I don't care for her views on organized religion or right to life issues."
If Ayn and was such a horrible writer with so many wrong ideas, why is Atlas Shrugged still the number one subject of both liberal and conservative discussion? She should have faded away into obscurity by now... :)
Didn't Dagny try to talk him out of going to the West Coast? By then, she knew it was over.
I think Eddie also left because he knew, once and for all, that the woman he had loved all his life would never be his.
Protectionism isn’t competing. Protectionism makes us less competitive.
How many zillions of times do Freepers have to explain to you that coercion of business resources is un-American, and the solution is to fix our burdensome tax and regulatory systems?
Yet, thread after thread, year after year, you advocate the most shallow and ineffective and oppressive of economic arguments.
All I am saying is our biggest competitor in the entire globe, is a massive communist nation where imports are very controlled.
China has four or five times, and requires businesses to build stuff IN CHINA.
We need to compete. All it appears we are currently doing, is selling out.
The country we are busy selling our industry to, is a huge and enormously enterprising country, with the complete capability to replace us.
What are we doing to avert that?
Who is working to avert that?
Who?
Republicans? Democrats?
Who?
IMHO, We The Living is Rand’s best book. And the movie was very good.
"Yes, at first, I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this -- Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage and because of this piece of ----, I'm never reading again!"
I hear that a lot from fellow Christians, but I would challenge them to consider the financial & charitable proverbs of King Solomon. Rand herself abhorred the Christian view of charity, but her financial view of society was actually startlingly Biblical...even if she herself did not realize it.
King Solomon taught us to be charitable with our friends and neighbors. They too were told return those 'charities' and to not be dependent on them, for the person who gave them may need them one day. Rand came from a communist country where self-sacrifice was at the point of a gun. I can see where she would have learned to abhor the idea of giving of oneself in both mind/body and get nothing in return would repulse her. Christians are taught to give for heavenly rewards, but King Solomon taught a different perspective that includes both the giver and recipient.
Which if one applies Christian Charity to say...the border crisis...many here on FR would have to agree with Glenn Beck. Whereas King Solomon would require us to consider the entire matter carefully. The church says ...give, I ask what would King Solomon do? The answer might be more Randian than one would suspect.
That statement rings so true that anyone who disagrees with it is, in my opinion, incapable of understanding the reality of politics. I find so much undeniable truth in what Rand said in Atlas Shrugged that I simply look past anything I might not agree with. I am fairly certain that if I were to reread it now I would be astounded at how closely it describes the situation we are in now. Look closely at Rand’s greatest critics and you will find hardcore leftists mainly, people who do not wish to see the truth.
“Notwithstanding the sentiments of our 2nd President”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What sentiments did Thomas McKean express that you disagree with?
“She knew what she was writing about and carried to its logical conclusions.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree totally, she saw what was happening before most of her critics were even born and she wrote about what must be the inevitable outcome of following such misguided ideas and when I look around me now I do not recognize the nation into which I was born in 1944 but I do recognize the world described by Rand in Atlas Shrugged. I even recognize some of her characters but they go by different names. I am sure you can read the book now and find a Bill Clinton, a Hillary Clinton, an Eric Holder, a Jesse Jackson, an Al Gore etc., maybe even a Barack Obama.
To get attention. to be noticed, to stir up strife , because we see what it is we look for in all things. Good or bad, we are in constant decision or judgment, about things interesting to us.
Ann Rand grew up under the government she wrote about.
Our government is increasingly doing what other governments have sought to do ... be in total control of the peoples. God forbid.
Who was it that commented ‘we get what we deserve?’
Watch out what we are accepting bit by bit and incrementally on going.
WE ARE IN DANGER OF BEING OVERWHELMED on several levels. nearly worthless monies, too many immigrants entering too quickly. Not allowing integration time. Too much welfare. Allowing the shredding of our laws, especially the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. ETC. PRAY sincerely and “without ceasing”.
Excellent points. Thank you.
Do we NOTICE the good and the bad? Both are there. All works contain good and bad.
God is real. Satan is real. Why we are tested by Satan is a bit of mystery to me. Still we are tested.
God is full of tender mercies, loving kindness, grace, forgiveness, love, goodness. Hallelujah!!!
PRAISE the LORD!
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.