Ayn Rand Reconsidered

Accuracy in Academia ^ | March 14, 2014 | Malcolm A. Kline

[Academiadotorg]

She’s been derided in academia for decades: Panels disparaging her works are not unusual at the Modern Language Association’s annual confab.

Yet and still, her virulent atheism has made her controversial on the right, where, it would seem, she would find a more sympathetic audience.

Nevertheless, when it came to worldly matters, she was uncommonly prescient. For one thing, the Russian-born novelist had a keener understanding of the U. S. Constitution than many American Constitutional law professors do today. “The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social good,” she wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Moreover, coming to America in the roaring 20s from the Soviet Union gave her a world view sensitive to early manifestations of totalitarianism. Indeed, a warning she issued in The Virtue of Selfishness sounds eerily topical today, half a century after it was written.

“A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral,” Ayn Rand wrote. “It has to be done by a process of internal corruption.”

“Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency—so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated ‘rights’ that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these ‘printing-press rights’ negate authentic rights.”

“Consider the curious fact that never has there been such a proliferation, all over the world, of two contradictory phenomena: of alleged new ‘rights’ and of slave-labor camps…”

Speaking of money, which she touched on in the above passage, Rand had a keener understanding of it than many tenured economists. As Randians know, she liked to put her ideas into dialogue spoken by her favorite character. The uninitiated might find this literary device tedious but it’s worth bearing with her to encounter some real nuggets of insight.

For instance, in the 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, copper magnate Francisco D’Anconia gives a speech that news readers in 2014 might find haunting:

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it…

“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter…”

If you think that sounds hyperbolic, visualize Detroit.

One final time-capsule moment: Read what she said about the media in 1957 and see how current it looks. “It was their daily duty to serve as audience for some public figure who made utterances about the public good in phrases carefully chosen to convey no meaning,” Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged. “It was their daily job to sling words together in any combination they pleased, so long as the words did not fall into a sequence saying something specific.”

[ryan71]

“Yet and still, her virulent atheism has made her controversial on the right, where, it would seem, she would find a more sympathetic audience.”

Really? I sense the opposite is true. The controversy about her atheism seems to come from the left.

[exPBRrat]

Very interesting, thank you for posting this.

[Safrguns]

I always found it kind of interesting that though she was an atheist, her fictitious story prophetically parallels the events of the rapture prior to the tribulation. (John Galt representing Jesus who gathers the producers [believers] letting society crumble upon itself)

[whodathunkit]

I have heard opposition to Objectivism come from both sides.
It seems her atheism is the easiest way to attack her philosophy. Interesting to see how the word ‘virulent’ is used. If she had been a christian she would have been ‘devout’.

[Loud Mime]

ping

[Ragnar54]

I had forgotten her comment about “printing-press rights”. Thanks for posting.

[pepsi_junkie]

Ayn Rand warned us a recipe for how totalitarian societies emerge. Yes, they sometimes begin with an dictator sweeping aside a government at the point of a gun (French, Russian, Cuban revolutions) but they also sometimes start with a slow, stead, legal erosion of fundamental liberties. With each small reduction in individual liberty, the central power gains more authority, more control. Eventually it stops consenting to be ruled by the people and decides to rule them instead. And what are the people to do then?

As you read her works, it's striking how many "ripped from today's headlines" examples you will find that line up exactly with what she wrote 60 years ago.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

“The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.”

[sagar]

I don’t see any sort of irony. Galt was an ideal productive individual who did not need others to succeed... trickle down prosperity if you have to make the stretch. Jesus, on the other hand, was sent for sole purpose of saving the world. To me, polar opposites.

[Badabing Badablonde]

I was completely enthralled by every Ayn Rand book I ever read.

[libstripper]

"The controversy about her atheism seems to come from the left." Not entirely, by any means. One of her bitterest, most virulent detractors, was the late William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder and longtime editor of National Review magazine. Buckley, a devout Catholic, loathed, abominated, and despised Rand to the very bottom of his being. The issue of NR that was published immediately after she died was far more venomous and virulent in its attacks on her and her legacy than it would usually be in its attacks on deceased libs. Indeed, it was the literary equivalent of a man dancing on the grave of his worst enemy and cackling with glee while urinating and defecating all over her grave. All in all a most disgraceful spectacle by the other wise gentlemanly Mr. Buckley, who was usually at least reasonably courteous with his liberal adversaries.

[Daveinyork]

“Really? I sense the opposite is true. The controversy about her atheism seems to come from the left.”

I hope you are being sarcastic. If not, stick around, the insults against her atheism will follow shortly.

[Academiadotorg]

It’s absolutely eerie how topical they are.

[Academiadotorg]

you are most welcome. THanks for your time.

[spudville]

That never crossed my mind. Great observation. Puts her books in a new light.

[Academiadotorg]

I had never encountered it before. Startling that she wrote it a half century ago.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Rand reminds the Right that there is no acceptable form of totalitarianism - even one based on Biblical tenets. It not her atheism they hate, per se - it's her admonition that the Right isn't going to produce better quality dictators than the Left does.

This why Republicans are in no more hurry to repeal ObamaCare than Democrats have been to repeal the Patriot Act. Every politician thinks that once they get their hands on a totalitarian power structure, they can dictate benevolently and wisely. They are hesitant to toss aside the structure because of the "good they can do" with it. The Founding Fathers knew different, and gave us a framework to stave off such inane ambition. Unfortunately, we are tossing it aside.

[Misterioso]

Describing Rand’s atheism as ‘virulent’ is dishonest. More like ‘unapologetic.’

[Academiadotorg]

Yeah, there really is no way of using “big government to do conservative things.” Four words: No Child Left Behind.