Pick of the Day: “Ayn Rand Nation” by Gary Weiss
Could a book be more timely than journalist Gary Weiss’ “Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America’s Soul?” The Republican vice presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, is an unabashed fan of the “objectivist” philosopher and novelist Rand. Simultaneously, another Rand fan, blogger Pamela Geller, has made headlines by purchasing ad space in San Francisco and New York City to promote a barely modified quote of Rand’s about Israel: “In any war between civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” (For the record, in Rand’s original comment, “man” and “savage” were pluralized, and “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” are added on by Geller. But the spirit is the same). Furthermore, Rand is often cited as the intellectual inspiration for the Tea Party.
In this context, Weiss’ book is a welcome effort to sort through her intellectual legacy in the U.S. In journalistic fashion, Weiss describes many facets of the Rand phenomenon, including the author herself, who comes across as thin-skinned and traumatized by her family’s fate in post-revolutionary Russia. There is also the inner circle which she gathered around her, “the collective,” riven by purges sparked by her own extra-marital affairs. Among the most notable members of the collective was Alan Greenspan, the former chief of the Federal Reserve, who Weiss portrays as unrepentant about his Randian past. Weiss also describes those who have preserved and promoted Rand’s intellectual legacy. And certainly not least, he describes her growing prominence among the grassroots of the American right. Here Weiss directs attention to the contradiction between Rand’s atheism, considered a core tenet of her “objectivist” philosophy, and the religiosity of the American right. He suggests that if this contradiction can be reconciled, Rand’s influence in American life will deepen. It should be noted here that Paul Ryan does in fact both embrace Rand and the religiosity that is so essential to the contemporary American right. The gulf between Rand’s objectivism and libertarianism, once vast, has already shrunk, although the hostility towards neoconservative military adventures among libertarians remains a source of tension.
I can’t say reading “Ayn Rand Nation” left me with greater respect for the author of “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.” However, it did alarm me to learn of the growing extent of her influence in the U.S. Weiss has a point in urging left and liberal critics of this influence to sharpen their arguments against her philosophy, and promote them widely. It would also be relevant to examine what has happened in the U.S. that a “philosophy” that amounts to a tribute to selfishness has taken hold so widely. It is all the more ironic given the widespread religiosity of the American population. Not only her atheism, but her moral perspective is utterly at odds with all major religions, including the forms of Christianity most prominent in the U.S.
Short URL: http://www.lefteyeonbooks.com/?p=5340
Posted by Left Eye On Books
on Oct 21 2012. Filed under News Blog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
What are the arguments that liberals have to sharpen against her philosophy? In Rand’s lifetime she faced every sort of argument imaginable against her code of values and ethics, and she had a rational response and cogent counter-argument every time. And any Objectivist who really practices their philosophy can provide the same counter-arguments when called to the task. If the criticism in this review is that Rand is anti-religion, then what is the Liberal issue? Liberals are anti-religion in the realm of politics, as is Rand. The difference is, I think, that most liberals still hold the same basic premise as religious people: that they are their brothers’ keepers, and that they have a responsibility to each other, that their moral purpose in life is to serve others, and that all are equal under the eyes of god (though most liberals would omit the ‘under the eyes of god’ part). So, like I said- what are these arguments that you’ll be sharpening?
Insightful?:
1 
1
Ayn Rand was not a philosopher. She was an imbecile, peddling childish delusions. She was not much of a debater, either. I leave it to more patient people to construct the argument against someone who has no understanding of the fundamentally social nature of human existence, or any sense of what governments actually do, except when she by necessity turned to medicare to remain alive.
Insightful?:
3 
1
Have you read any of her books on philosophy? I think it’s rather outrageous to suggest that someone who wrote extensively on philosophy, was well-versed in all of the major areas of the field, and was able to recall every sentence in philosophic works by writers she hated (she some interviews or documentaries about Rand) was not a philosopher. If Rand is able to offer a logical metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political theory, what should be called if not a philosopher? Just because you’ve been conditioned to hate her does not mean she does not deserve her title– she was as much a philosopher as a novelist.
As for your suggestion that her ideas were childish and delusional– by what standard? Her premises were, essentially, that the universe is not unknowable, that mankind survives by way of the use of reason and logic, that it is proper for a person to practice self-interest (if they are rational about it), and that the ideal political system for protecting peoples’ self interest is laissez faire capitalism. Is it delusional that the universe is not some unfathomable concept, and that we do not live in the matrix? Is it delusional that the use of the mind and of rationality is the key means of survival for a human? Is it delusional that people should own their lives and live for the sake of their happiness? Is it delusional that people should be allowed to deal with each other by way of free-trade rather than compulsion and force? If you’re going to attack her, you should explain what it is about her that you think it is delusional, otherwise you come across as toothless.
If you are too impatient to construct the argument then you have no business arguing against Rand in the first place. Leave it to “more patient” (aka people who’ll actually read and try to understand the person they’re attacking) ones to criticize her– you should just say ‘I don’t like Ayn Rand for some reason which I may or may not understand” and leave it at that. Rand never argued against social behavior— she in fact advocated in favor of cooperation and trade– provided that it was willing and mutual for all parties. You fundamentally misunderstand her, as do most of her critics.
Finally, as for the thing about Medicare (which all of her detractors parrot, so there’s no reason you had to join in on the chorus): 1) she did not turn to medicare to “remain alive”. Rand was very wealthy after the publication of her novels and was not desperate for some public handout to keep herself going. She accepted medicare and social security (and advocated that others do the same) on the basis that she had been forced to pay into these systems, so it would be moronic and irrational of her not to get some of her money back. In fact, Rand moved to the U.S. in the early 20′s— before Medicare and SS were implemented— and so paid into them since they started existing. She was legally obligated to pay into them— aka. forced. Would it be just as outrageous for Soviet citizens to stand on a ration line? Or for someone to walk on public roads after they were forced to pay for them via taxes? Get real.
Insightful?:
0 
0
Fine–She was technically a philosopher and a novelist, terrible as both. Of no interest to any serious scholar of either philosophy or literature, but worth investigating, as Weiss does well in the book described above, because of her unfortunate influence in the United States, a country, perhaps not coincidentally, with a strong anti-intellectual tradition, and one where both philosophy and literature are taken seriously only at the margins.
Insightful?:
0 
0
You’re entitled to your opinions about her philosophy and her writing, but consider that some opinions (ie: ones of any substance at all) are much more meaningful than others. By what standard is she a terribly novelist, incidentally? By all accounts Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are gripping novels and very well-written: Rand’s understanding of the nuance of the English language was perfect and she created a well-structured novel in both cases. Do you mean to say that you don’t like her novels? It’s ok to offer an opinion of an author’s work without calling them a terrible novelist, you know.. I hate Charles Dickens’ style and messages, but I don’t think he was a terrible novelist.
What determines what should be of interest to a serious scholar of either philosophy or literature? Do you make that determination? Does Weiss? I was under the impression that EVERYTHING is of interest to a serious scholar— a scholar who purposefully ignores something because it does not fit their agenda is a hack. As for Rand’s influence in the United States— if it is so strong, than why does half the country support the Democratic party line, and why does less than half of the other half openly acknowledge that their own happiness is a moral imperative? And as for the accusation that the U.S. has a “strong anti-intellectual tradition”— besides the fact that this is a blanket generalization, you are invalidating your criticism as Rand as of being of no interest to serious scholars: if these scholars are part of the country’s so-called “anti-intellectual tradition” that you claim exists, then it must be because Rand is too intellectual that she is of no interest to them
Insightful?:
0 
0