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.
Similarly, the Christian religion (of which I am a proud member) is not the single wellspring from which the ideals of the Enlightenment and the concepts of Natural Rights and Liberty flow.
I've absorbed plenty of "objectivist" philosophy, and while I may question Rand's presumptions regarding greed, altruism, etc., the conclusions regarding concepts of Individuality, Free Will, and the like are perfectly valid.
True Freedom transcends the tidy little boxes into which various "camps" feel compelled to place it sometimes. Nobody "owns" it, and many different people and "movements" have contributed to it.
IMHO, there is little cause for antagonism between Christians and libertarians, as the common ground is quite abundant.
If we fully embrace and understand the "Pursuit of Happiness", and we accept the fact that each individual must have an expansive right to to define that concept according to their own free will, the petty internecine squabbles disappear.
We are all sons and daughters of Liberty and, therefore, Brothers and Sisters whose birthright is Freedom. Nobody will ever have the right to take that away from us, and those who try will be resisted with all the force of our collective being.
Thus, whether somebody chooses to voluntarily practice an "extreme" philosophy of Christian love and service, or rather embraces an "extreme" notion of self-interested individual free will, we all have our roles to play, and we will very likely be shedding our blood together in the Tyrannical future which threatens to consume all of us who believe in this radical idea called Freedom.
But Hank Reardon had plenty of Christian charity. He gave selflessly and expected nothing in return save maybe an occasional thank you. He did not expect the guilt trip and hatred he received from the gibsmedat crowd. Dagny had compassion for Jim’s bride once the scales fell from Cheryl’s eyes. But her suicide cut short how that might have played out; she could not bear the horror revealed by James.
What bothered me at the end is that none of them came for Eddie Willers. I found that unforgivable.
~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.~
I’m kinda agree it is not the best peace of art but you have to see through if as it is a peace of philosophy, not a funny read.
I dislike Ayn on many levels and not particularly fond in her writing style but Atlas Shrugged was a life changing experience to me.
Nothing explains the perils of socialism as good as this book.
I disagree. That's a caricature used to dismiss what in many cases is legitimate criticism regarding the use of force.
There are many, more moderate, if you will, libertarians who are rather strongly in the hawkish camp when it comes to issues of war and peace, national security, and the like.
Similarly, there are numerous Christian groups who fall distinctly into the pacifist school.
These camps are not monolithic. They both have great respect for this Constitutional Republic which was formed over 2 centuries ago, and want to see it preserved and perfected. And any believer in ideal Liberty should have legitimate criticisms regarding the many specters of arbitrary authoritarianism which have reared their ugly heads throughout US history in a myriad of ways.
Anybody who doesn't have profound respect for the Constitution, and the Republic in general, I am dismissive of, because such people are truly lost.
~The problem with Rand is that she rejected the very idea of Christian charity. The very concept of self-sacrifice was abhorrent to her. The idea of sacrificing one’s life for one’s nation was to her just “collectivism.” This is the very idea that drives the anti-American isolationism of modern libertarianism. Libertarians never find any cause worth America fighting for because everything is “not our problem.” Nothing is their problem because they care only about themselves. So they just shrug and let civilization collapse.~
Look at her background. Where she came from? Rand disliked some aspects of communism such as collectivism but she was a full-blown cultural Marxist on other levels.
For a “caricature”, I have not seen too many libertarians diverge from it.
John Adams said that the US Constitution could not rule anyone who was not both moral and religious.
I read “Atlas Shrugged”. All I learned was that Rand was a self-worshipping blowhard living in a fantasy world.
Malcolm Muggeridge was talking in one of his books about Bertrand Russell and how he threw himself into great causes but cared nothing for Tom, Dick, or Harry. They are detached and heartless, driven only by their own desires. Russell was heartless. Jason Lewis, who I railed against earlier, is a cold, emotionless animal. I think that is the failing of Rand and the anti-God people who don’t know the real source of their blessings. They lament the collapse of society and fail to realize that a godless society will be selfish and mean.
I think everyone here knows what the trade deficit with Red China amounts to. Preaching to the choir on one point already accepted is omitting the other dimensions of the picture.
Furthermore, since onerous taxation and regulation are limiting our “Buy American” choices and enriching the leftist politicians here, never mind unions contributing to the detriment of the quality of American goods (which is why I’ve been driving Japanese cars for some time now), continuing to focus solely on buying American products will not enrich the country and will impoverish the consumer. So don’t forget “buy American plus” many other things.
I agree I hate Ayn Rand’s crap. Her anti-Christianity and materialism are really just the opposite side of the materialistic coin that is communism.
Re-read it. There are enough melty soft spirited folks. Grab reality.
Unless you knew her, your statement is meaningless.
No you didn’t.
Ayn Rand had and has much impact on the culture...
Whats Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry done lately.. or ever?..
A piss-ant bitching about a cultural giant..
The boy needs to “Go GALT”...
I get tired of Conservatives that support choice, open borders and RINOs in general.
I'm a libertarian (and a Christian) and I heartily diverge from such extremes. So, too, do several of my libertarian friends, some of whom are only marginally Christian at best. Too much broad-brushing occurs here, just like the secular crowd likes to broad-brush the religious crowd regarding certain issues.
The nice thing about policy disagreements is that it's perfectly acceptable to express one's opposition to a given viewpoint, and even offer a well-reasoned rebuke in many cases.
Well-intentioned people who believe in Freedom will always have disagreements about war and peace, "foreign entanglements", hawks vs. doves, policing the world, the legitimate use of force, preemptive self-defense, what's in the national interest, and so on.
That's ultimately a healthy thing. As long as we each keep our eye on the goal, which is defending this Republic, we should accept the reality that there will be real disagreements even between well-meaning individuals and groups.
John Adams said that the US Constitution could not rule anyone who was not both moral and religious.
That's a valid opinion, but even some of his Founding Father peers undoubtedly disagreed with that sentiment.
Adams also harbored nostalgia for some of the vestiges of monarchy and aristocracy which echoed through the times in which he lived. Even his romantic notion of what the US Presidency should be displayed some of those lingering biases.
Notwithstanding the sentiments of our 2nd President, and although IMHO the Constitution doesn't really need to "rule" anyone (other than those with Tyrannical aims) I believe it is adequate to the task of governing a nation of widely varying religious, political, and secular paradigms, at least inasmuch as each maintains a profound appreciation for every individual's Unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Tyranny, in all its insidious forms, is the thing that is truly incompatible with the Constitution and Declaration. To the extent that there is tolerance (and even advocacy) of mob rule, demagoguery, unsustainable entitlements, corruption, and endless laws which oppress, impoverish, and even criminalize peacable citizens, that is where failures in government will occur, regardless of which rights are recognized or not, who is in power, or what the structural details might be.
Merely because other Founding Fathers allegedly disagreed with Adams does not mean that Adams was wrong. The Constitution is wholly inadequate to the governing of the immoral and irreligious, and those who disobey said Constitution display that fact in multifarious abominable ways.
Given that many libertarians (who are not generally a monolithic group, but in this respect they seem to be) disparage what they term “social conservatism”, I don’t see any compatibility with Christianity, with all due respect.
This idiocy the writer of the article expounds on fails to recognize that men and women desire to have heroes that do not have feet of clay, who CAN achieve great things, and make a difference, and because they have lived, made the world a better place. A hero to which the reader can aspire to be like, to model their actions on, to hold as the ideal they want to achieve, regardless if it is possible or not.
The author’s NEO-deconstructiveness is pure dreck. He judges from HIS lofty perch. . . where he claims he no longer needs superior role models. That’s childish, he implies. He judges that conservatives are too stupid to see these things and cannot recognize the idealization in Rand’s work. The implication is they must be stuck in childish thought. In other words, he’s saying “oh, grow up!” The Liberal simply DELIGHTS in finding the feet of clay in every hero. . . to destroy the heroic, to bring them down and trample them beneath the feet of mediocrity. “See! They are no better than the least of us, or even the worst of us! Don’t aspire to be like HIM (voice dripping derision), he’s not worthy of your attention! How about this pop-idol singer over here, instead? What arrogance. He drips it.
Claiming LOTR is anti-technological is another conceit. . . Think about it. Anti-technology? No way! Superior technology won the day. Gandalf was a practitioner of a technology so advanced it was indistinguishable from magic. As were the Elves of Rivendelle. Gandalf got better at it. LOTR is a work about appropriate technology and it’s appropriate use where needed and as needed. It IS a cautionary tale about the misuse of technology. . . One we are learning. Pointing out the bucolic Shire as the ultimate level of tech in LOTR is ridiculous. There were other societies in MiddleEarth that had other and higher tech. The Shire even traded with them. More snarky superiority.
What this idiot fails to understand is that what Rand wrote is not a prescription, but a diagnosis, an examination and a warning of and about visible trends in society and political thinking. . . and actual events that were already starting. Has he ever visited Bedford-Stuyvesant in New York? He would have found many of what Rand described in The Fountainhead existing in REALITY in the public housing projects. She knew what she was writing about and carried to its logical conclusions. Yes, her objectivism offered a prescriptive way to attempt to avoid what she saw coming. That does not in any way deny her astute observations of the Liberal nature. So far, I see nothing proving her wrong.
“The Fountainhead”....liked the book and the movie with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal (the latter...va va voom!). Started reading “Atlas Shrugged”.....started snoozing after three pages. Haven’t seen the movie yet.
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.