I hate Ayn Rand — but here's why my fellow conservatives love her

[Buster's Uncle]

I hate Ayn Rand — but here's why my fellow conservatives love her
And no, liberals: It's not because they're greedy jerks who loathe the poor
The Week
By Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry | 6:18am ET   



It's really not that hard to understand why so many conservatives love her.  (AP Photo)



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 super-smart, super-talented 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 non-scientific sense of things, the single most 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.

http://theweek.com/article/index/265008/i-hate-ayn-rand-mdash-but-heres-why-my-fellow-conservatives-love-her

[Yitzi]

The free market system actually does not do the optimal amount to enable the "deep drive to find meaning through work, productivity, and even creativity", since not all creative works are marketable.  It has a number of strengths, but that isn't one of them.

[Impaler]

Not a bad little article, the author slips baddy when he calls Ender's Game a wish fulfillment fantasy though.  That's like calling the Hunger Games a teen girl wish fulfillment fantasy. 

Ender is exploited endless by every person he trusts and ultimately suffers greatly for his brilliance, his experience is not one that anyone would want to live through, he as a person certainly thumbs his nose at adult authority at every opportunity but it is FUTILE, he is manipulated despite he best efforts to the contrary.  To the extent that young people liked these books is was because they presented people like themselves as having real minds and emotions and DEEP ones at that about the expectations and pressures that adults put on them.  Adult society broadly belittles the minds of children and preteens, so to the extent that a fantasy is being fulfilled it is the fantasy of being respected as a mental and emotional deep individual, but that fulfillment is 'meta' in the sense that it is in the author-reader relationship not the events the characters of the story experience.  The idea that this guy completely missed that point and instead got his rocks off 'as a geeky, bullied preteen' on a story about someone who brutally murders TWO folks who bullied him is damn creepy, that is to be blunt the kind of interpretation I would expect from a conservative with a bunch of repressed vengeance fantasies.


Now as for Rand her self, I think the Revenge Fantasy fits quite well as HER personal motivation for the books, indeed for the entire 'Objectivist' world view.  Remember she was the victim of Soviet Bolshevism and she hated it with a passion, her revenge fantasy was to take every bit of Marxism/Bolshevism morale code and simply invert it, was ever is bad is good what ever is good is bad.  Hardly a very original morale code, for one it remakes a number of error in Marx's work.  Marx equated Capitalism (profit seeking business funded with borrowed capitol) and Entrepreneurialism (individual initiative in business creation), or at least felt they would always go together and was willing to sacrifice Entreprenurialism to be ride of Capitalism.  Now Rand extols the virtues of Entrepreneurialism and then says we must swallow Capitalism to have Entrepreneurialism, or more typically just assigns the virtues of the latter to the former.  Both she and Marx are wrong that these things even go together (which goes to show that opposite of a false idea is often another false idea), indeed virtually ever desirable aspect of our economy can be separated from the profit driven core that is Capitalism, indeed virtually every undesirable aspect of the Soviet economy can be separated from the equally complex idea of Socialism.  Each of these things is a collection of other social systems and ideas that have been marketed so strongly that people like Rand don't even realize their are sub systems present at all that we can pick and choose from.

[JarlWolf]

It should be obvious on my stance on Rand, but I have even further gripes with her ideal- the fact her ideology of objectivist capitalism is probably the most egotistic, empty ideal I've witnessed- an ideal dedicated to the wanton hoarding of wealth to inflate one's ego, to invest in everything and be this entire self made man is not only unrealistic it also would leave person empty feeling inside and only wanting more. Marx was a materialist, but he did not place the actual values of living on material goods- he only purported an economic system to share said material to meet the needs of people, and to contribute to the best of their ability: and stated the opposite of what Rand did essentially (where you work to your own benefit disregarding contributing to your fullest ability for all and take resources as much as you can on a first come first serve basis)- that property and exploitation of the proletariat leads to misery and corruption. And Marx may have some holes in his ideal but comparatively his work on socioeconomic systems I believe is fairly accurate- the only reason worldwide socialist revolution is prevented is through counteractive means to delay it such as social welfare programs and appeasing the needs of the proletariat.

Marx's theory was if unbridled capitalism reigned the proletariat would eventually revolt against such injustice. Which in the cases Capitalism did have such chaotic reign, the proletariat did rise up and they did revolt. It's just it has not been as on a worldwide scale as he predicted thus far.
If there was a society based on her ideals the proletarian revolution would inevitably happen.

As for this article, human creativity, innovation and expression is not measured through materialism or concepts of wealth. It can be associated with it in the sense a culture of wealth obsession can be a theme or drive in those subjects, but it does not determine how much there actually is of human will/creativity in society. Yugoslavia, a socialist nation and my own nation and other socialist nations had large amounts of great philosophers, artists, scientists- even economists. What drives human creativity and expression is the simple human need of it; and regardless of society, that is always going to be a predominant desire of people. Capitalism and its demands for profits aren't going to always allow that artist to create the works they want- they may have to paint more conventional works to make money. Scientists in the state program are not always going to develop what they want, because the requirements of the state dictates their expertise is needed elsewhere.

But that artist and scientist will still pursue their dreams of realizing their works irregardless of what system they live in. And that is truth of the matter. The domestication of foxes by a lone scientist in Soviet Union under Stalin's regime of anti-Darwinist principles or many artists who broke the barrier of convention in the Western world despite traditional backlashes and lack of commercial success are a testament to that.

[Buster's Uncle]

John Oliver's Last Week Tonight mocks Ayn Rand: 'How is she still a thing?'
The Week
Peter Weber  October 10



On Thursday, John Oliver's Last Week Tonight posted a withering takedown of the late Ayn Rand, and the adults who still idolize her. In case you're not familiar with her oeuvre, "Ayn Rand became famous for her philosophy of objectivism, which is a nice way of saying: being a selfish [sphincter]," the narrator gravely intones. Rand "has always been popular with teenagers," the narrator continues, "but she's something you're supposed to grow out of, like ska music."

The show then pokes fun at several of her adult fans, like Mark Cuban, Glenn Beck, and a handful of Republicans in Congress, before noting that Rand is pro–abortion rights and anti-Reagan. She also had some controversial things to say about Native Americans. Given her conservative heterodoxies, why would conservatives hold her up as their idol, the narrator asks, "especially when there are so many advocates for selfishness they could choose?" Drake for president? (There are some mildly NSFW words and images.)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Ayn Rand - How Is This Still A Thing? (HBO)

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/269673/speedreads-john-olivers-last-week-tonight-mocks-ayn-rand-how-is-she-still-a-thing

[Geo]

[sphincter]

censorese for "prick"?

[Buster's Uncle]

The opposite, actually.

[Geo]

Feel free to delete this post.

[Buster's Uncle]

Butthole - and the autocensor failing is not license.

[Green1]

Also a fallacy of Rand style objectivism fantasies: Galt set up a land where the wealthy and job producers would "disappear" to forever in Atlas Shrugged, getting away from those leeching, lesser, working people who had no ambition. Problem is, if you are a CEO or something and lived in a society only with others of your kind is that nothing would get done. Someone must do actual work. A country club or gated community in the USA is similar, but they still have working folks that work there. The members and folks that live in the Club also leave the club and go into the world.

Could you really see a entrepreneur type who delegates is/her entire life mowing acres of grass in this magical "escape place" so everyone could play golf? Or cleaning up after the Sunday brunch gathering? Being a conservative badass is meaningless unless you have some lackey willing to do the boring, non visionary stuff for you. Power and vision are nothing without something to be in power or have vision for.

[Yitzi]

Also a fallacy of Rand style objectivism fantasies: Galt set up a land where the wealthy and job producers would "disappear" to forever in Atlas Shrugged, getting away from those leeching, lesser, working people who had no ambition. Problem is, if you are a CEO or something and lived in a society only with others of your kind is that nothing would get done. Someone must do actual work. A country club or gated community in the USA is similar, but they still have working folks that work there. The members and folks that live in the Club also leave the club and go into the world.

Could you really see a entrepreneur type who delegates is/her entire life mowing acres of grass in this magical "escape place" so everyone could play golf? Or cleaning up after the Sunday brunch gathering? Being a conservative badass is meaningless unless you have some lackey willing to do the boring, non visionary stuff for you. Power and vision are nothing without something to be in power or have vision for.

Which is why I think that Galt's real genius in the book was persuading everybody that they needed him and his sort more than his people needed everybody else, despite it being a clear absurdity.

If Galt's group were an actual faction, it would probably be something like this (same social engineering preferences as Morgan):

Starts with Social Psych
+1 talent per population (All members are brilliant leaders)
+2 research per base (Constant innovation)
+2 ECONOMY (Experience with entrepreneurship)
-2 SUPPORT (population not used to details of logistics)
-5 INDUSTRY (population not used to physical labor)

This does not seem like a very viable faction; while it clearly has its strengths, the weaknesses are simply too strong.  (If, however, it were to ally with  , they'd pretty much steamroll everybody...)

[Green1]

Actually, Yitzi, I do not even think it would even form a faction!

Someone tried this in Chile!! Theresults were predictable and they ended up defrauding not only the local workers building the place, but potential "elite escapists" as well!!!

But all is not so sweet. Wendy McElroy, a "Canadian individualist anarchist" of some note, bought a 1.25-acre plot in Galt's Gulch Chile last year, or so she thought. She wrote a blistering post Monday suggesting that the Real Men of Genius behind the settlement are grifters, or incompetents, or both:


Shortly after purchasing, I received an unsigned email through the webform of a site I maintain. It informed me that GGC was a fraud. One reason: GGC lacked water rights. In Chile, purchasing surface land and water rights are two separate processes. GGC is desert terrain, rather like California, and water rights are absolutely necessary for a community to be established.

The emailer was apparently an ex-employee who demanded payoffs from Galt's Gulch's two main developers. Which, according to McElroy, he got, after "many unpleasant details," and after GGC did get some land that included water rights. But then, the whole thing deteriorated into a power struggle and lawsuits over "maze-like transfers of cash and authority," and at some point McElroy learned that she didn't actually own her plot, because the development wasn't authorized to sell lots that small:


I had the opportunity to ask a question of the salesman who showed my husband and me "our property." I claimed it because I fell head over heels for the most beautiful tree I've ever seen. I felt an instant connection as though the two of us were old souls who had found each other. I could believe it, I could see it... waking up each morning and having coffee under that tree, telling it about my plans for the day. Months later, in a Skype conference, I asked the then-GGC-alienated salesman, "When you 'sold' us the property, when you printed out a photo from your phone that read 'Wendy's tree,' did you know you could not legally sell us the lot you were offering?" He said, "That is correct."

That silence you hear? That's the sound of Atlas shrugging.

The upshot, McElroy learned, is that Galt's Gulch also "owes hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to hardware stores [and] service providers" in the nearest town, "ordinary Chileans who are acutely harmed by the project's malfeasance."


Even so, GGC developers will still sell you a 1,200-acre "Master Estate" for a mere $500,000. As long as you're also willing to extend GGC developers a $2 million "Founders Club" loan along with that $500,000, which they'll totally pay back, they swear.

In other words, Galt's Gulch Chile sounds exactly like the sort of plan you would expect from a a bunch of fans of a crotchety old millionairess who wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

source: http://gawker.com/ayn-rands-capitalist-paradise-is-now-a-greedy-land-grab-1627574870

[Yitzi]

Actually, Yitzi, I do not even think it would even form a faction!

Someone tried this in Chile!! Theresults were predictable and they ended up defrauding not only the local workers building the place, but potential "elite escapists" as well!!!

But all is not so sweet. Wendy McElroy, a "Canadian individualist anarchist" of some note, bought a 1.25-acre plot in Galt's Gulch Chile last year, or so she thought. She wrote a blistering post Monday suggesting that the Real Men of Genius behind the settlement are grifters, or incompetents, or both:


Shortly after purchasing, I received an unsigned email through the webform of a site I maintain. It informed me that GGC was a fraud. One reason: GGC lacked water rights. In Chile, purchasing surface land and water rights are two separate processes. GGC is desert terrain, rather like California, and water rights are absolutely necessary for a community to be established.

The emailer was apparently an ex-employee who demanded payoffs from Galt's Gulch's two main developers. Which, according to McElroy, he got, after "many unpleasant details," and after GGC did get some land that included water rights. But then, the whole thing deteriorated into a power struggle and lawsuits over "maze-like transfers of cash and authority," and at some point McElroy learned that she didn't actually own her plot, because the development wasn't authorized to sell lots that small:


I had the opportunity to ask a question of the salesman who showed my husband and me "our property." I claimed it because I fell head over heels for the most beautiful tree I've ever seen. I felt an instant connection as though the two of us were old souls who had found each other. I could believe it, I could see it... waking up each morning and having coffee under that tree, telling it about my plans for the day. Months later, in a Skype conference, I asked the then-GGC-alienated salesman, "When you 'sold' us the property, when you printed out a photo from your phone that read 'Wendy's tree,' did you know you could not legally sell us the lot you were offering?" He said, "That is correct."

That silence you hear? That's the sound of Atlas shrugging.

The upshot, McElroy learned, is that Galt's Gulch also "owes hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to hardware stores [and] service providers" in the nearest town, "ordinary Chileans who are acutely harmed by the project's malfeasance."


Even so, GGC developers will still sell you a 1,200-acre "Master Estate" for a mere $500,000. As long as you're also willing to extend GGC developers a $2 million "Founders Club" loan along with that $500,000, which they'll totally pay back, they swear.

In other words, Galt's Gulch Chile sounds exactly like the sort of plan you would expect from a a bunch of fans of a crotchety old millionairess who wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.

source: http://gawker.com/ayn-rands-capitalist-paradise-is-now-a-greedy-land-grab-1627574870

That was an out-and-out fraud, though.  I'm talking about if Galt's Gulch were not only done honestly, but actually attracted the elites and only the elites.  (Essentially granting Rand pretty much the exact situation described in the book, despite it being a horrible mismatch to reality.)  Even that would not form a useful society.

[JarlWolf]

Ayn Rand and objectivism is a system of failure from the start, as its restricting the proper flow of wealth and resources to those who actually need it because of bloated greed and individualism, and its inevitable collapse is from the stagnant hoarder culture it'd develop where no one would have motivation. If anything, for all the arguments against Communism they directly apply to Objectivism more so- Communism has motivation to work, you get what you need and you develop a mindset of communal progression and pride. Work harder, you have better ability, and you'll also have bigger need due to your energy expense.

[Yitzi]

Ayn Rand and objectivism is a system of failure from the start, as its restricting the proper flow of wealth and resources to those who actually need it because of bloated greed and individualism, and its inevitable collapse is from the stagnant hoarder culture it'd develop where no one would have motivation. If anything, for all the arguments against Communism they directly apply to Objectivism more so- Communism has motivation to work, you get what you need and you develop a mindset of communal progression and pride. Work harder, you have better ability, and you'll also have bigger need due to your energy expense.

It tries to deal with that by the assumption that whoever works harder will get most of the wealth.

If only that held...