Intro: "Ayn Rand is a cult figure for Tea Party types, but if a bad movie gets them reading, they may be surprised by her ideas."
Author and Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand. (photo: Hulton Archive/NYT/Getty Images)
The Tea Party and Ayn Rand
24 April 11
The Tea Party and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand is a cult figure for Tea Party types, but if a bad movie gets them reading, they may be surprised by her ideas.
f Ayn Rand were alive today, would she be a member of the Tea Party?
The controversial writer - whose philosophy, Objectivism, advocates the "virtue of selfishness" - has long been something of a literary hero to American conservatives and the rise of the rightwing populist movement has only worked to increase Rand's popularity.
Tea Party members can't get enough: references to the writer's works appear on their protest signs; political favourites such as Rand Paul namedrop her; and they seem staunchly devoted to promoting the first instalment of the three-part film adaptation of her epic tome, Atlas Shrugged, which opened modestly, if not quietly, last weekend in around 300 theatres across the US. The conservative grassroots group Freedomworks took the helm in promoting the film, sharing the online trailer with its mailing list and hyping the movie's opening day - 15 April, America's tax day.
The low-budget movie with its cast of nobodies received resolutely scathing reviews - it garnered a dismal 7% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes - yet, through conservative support, it still managed to pull in enough revenue to justify expanding the film to more screens. By the end of April, Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 could be on as many as 1,000 screens.
Despite the buzz, rigorous devotees of Objectivism aren't likely to appreciate Atlas's big screen treatment. For the uninitiated, Atlas Shrugged depicts a dystopian US where irrational government officials work with greedy socialist corporate heads to impose draconian regulations and taxes on those who have achieved success through hard work and natural talent. The novel's heroine is Dagny Taggart, an ambitious railroad executive, who teams up with Henry Rearden, an innovative metal manufacturer, to set out to save the country from being crushed by the collectivist government. Along the way, they partake in rambling diatribes about the glory of achievement and the nobility of pursuing greatness. It's rousing stuff - the first time, anyway - until it's belabored again and again throughout the novel. Sound familiar?
The sections of the book that made it into Part 1 certainly seem written directly for current conservative interests, namely that a small section of the population must fight against the oppressive restrictions and heavy taxation of a socialist government. Yet, probe beyond the triteness of Rand's plot and the fragmented rendering of her philosophy, and striking discrepancies between her Objectivism and conservative sentiment become apparent.
Yes, Rand was a staunch advocate of capitalism and limited government. She was also a staunch advocate of abortion rights and sexual hedonism, and an atheist to boot, which her conservative admirers have largely ignored. Rand and her characters maintained that morality wasn't something that could be imposed by outside institutions, rather should be a consequence from individuals acting in their own rational self-interest. Which, obviously, steps way out of line with the thinking of the Tea Party, which encompasses the religious right .
As Jennifer Burns, the author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, has said, today's conservative pundits have found that they "can use the parts of Rand they want to use and not engage the rest". Which is where one of the most glaring incongruities between Tea Partiers and Rand's philosophy appears: Rand, almost above all else, championed the individual over the collective. The notion that a populist movement is using her name and economic philosophies to mobilise their broader political goal is laughable. During her life, Rand was outspoken in her disgust for Republicans, feeling that they were soft on individuals' rights. Today, it is only Randians who can argue that her philosophy is being inadequately promoted.
However, there is a silver lining for Rand purists: while the movie's publicity has managed to stir up paltry interest among cinema-goers, it has succeeded in awakening a larger interest in the literary work. Rand's novel has sold around 100,000 copies a year in the US since its publication, and since the financial crisis and the rise of the Tea Party, that number has increased five-fold. The movie's publicity has only propelled sales yet higher - the opening weekend saw the book version of Atlas Shrugged shoot to the No 4 spot on Amazon's bestseller list.
So, while the Tea Party's promotion of Rand has made a splash, Objectivists can take comfort knowing that the impact has largely been on book sales. If one has to delve into Randian territory, it's better to go straight to the master's words rather than a choice interpretation of them or convenient soundbites.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
And then they had to graduate to the fourth grade.
Simply to discover how easily melodramatic simplification will sell so easily to the American public.
When I was a freshman in college, I read both in a fortnight and was a complete devote of Ms Rand.... but then that nasty education began to dissolve my devotion and make way for a more realistic view of the way the world actually works.
Rand successfully created a Utopia that harnessed all the values of western capitalism without any of the drawbacks that inevitably occur.
Alan Greenspan as her publicist insisted this was the wave of the future -- and has proved to be.
It is a horribly simplistic view of humanity and considerably boring at that- since art and appreciation of environment in non-existent and at odds with her one track philosophy.
When I was a freshman in college, I read both in a fortnight and was a complete devote of Ms Rand.... but then that nasty education began to dissolve my devotion and make way for a more realistic view of the way the world actually works.
I LOVE it -- SCATHING, and comprehensive!
It's especially crazy since Rand herself, old and broke and abandoned by her cultish followers, collected Social Security and Medicare when she was dying of lung cancer, effectively tossing most of her selfish Objectivist philosophy in the trash bin. When push came to shove and Rand was faced with living on the streets and starving, she signed on to the 'evil socialist programs' she abhorred. Of course, you won't hear that from her Republican admirers like Paul Ryan, and I'm sure it won't appear in this crapola movie.
And who's really to blame for the financial crisis? "I would say Stan Getz, the eminent jazz musician who died [in] 1991," writes Bengt Säve-Söderbergh for Sweden's Dagens Huyeter (Daily News). "People who have read the memoirs of [Alan] Greenspan published last autumn know that Greenspan started his professional career in various Big Bands in the New York area.
"One day he had to sit next to Stan Getz and he heard him play. He then realized that he would never achieve the musical level Getz already was on so he decided to change course and become an economist instead. The rest is history. And even now there are still people who don't believe jazz is important!" Bengt concludes.
-- From Phil Proctor's Planet Proctor 2008-22, Nov. 19, 2008.
http://www.planetproctor.com/
BTW, I like jazz, too, and John Coltrane was a rare genius; Alan was just a groveler to the wealthy, bolstered by a philosophy only a half-wit would believe.
Exactly. In my earliest years on AOL I debated eco issues on their message boards, and was faced with the dominant Libertarian spouting the same quasi-Randian nonsense back then. I simply countered: "If John Galt were alive today, he'd be the leading conservationist on the planet." Questioned why, I explained that if the pursuit of good works was the highest aspiration of man, the concept of squandering resources would be the greatest crime imaginable.
Said Lib conceded the point. Rand lived in the heady times such market Utopianism was possible. Other utopians considered other, equally unlikely or under-informed realities. The idea of finite resource banks and pollution sinks shrank the world to decidedly less Randian proportions... though not so small as to fit in the mind of the average Lib or Repub. There is still value there though it must be teased from her inadvertent or purposely constrained mindset.
I recently sat beside a guy on a plane who was glued to "Atlas Shrugged." When I asked the dweeb why he was reading it he said he reads it once a year. The guy was a loser in a cheap suit, somewhat rude and distant, yet lip-reading Rand, his new gospel.
I don't believe they know what they are asking for. And know they could not comfortably live with the results they so desperately seek.
I Love it!
Every pampered child believes in selfishness and Ayn was no different; she just had a larger vocabulary than the average 10-year-old and had read Nietzsche, without quite comprehending all the nuances of his work.
That she would lionize and romanticize a child murderer like William Hickman as a free-spirited, independent 'superman' shows the shallowness and sickness of her psyche.
Yes, I'm very cynical when it comes to anyone that would be a tea-partier or back a GWB or Palin for the White House. These are not the brightest among us.
Too bad we can't harness their fear into fear of the people who use them for their own political/power plays.
Look back four years, to when it was started by libertarians. That could be the Ayn Rand reference! She would also hate what it has become!!
Check the websites of the sincere Tea Partiers who didn't want to be an adjunct to the GOP -- they were forced out of the various Tea Party groups.
The libertarian Tea Party of 2007 started by Ron Paul's followers were not connected to the current Republican-run and Koch-funded Tea Parties.
You let them take it. Why don't you take it back?
At its heart even true libertarianism is anti-democratic so its going to be pretty hard to convince people how "wonderful" and "noble" it is to take away their right to demand things of their own government.
In a sense it was a political awakening. I finally realized I was a left-wing radical. I read this low brow fantasy in 1980. Apparently not many others had the same awakening as I.
I read Atlas Shrugged as an a-political freshman in college. So I read Rand with an open mind as I wasn't even aware of its political or social ramifications at the time. But I succinctly recall how lousy a piece of writing it was. I could not figure, for the life of me, why this was such a highly regarded book in some circles. (This was right around the time Reagan was elected.-The political winds they were were a changin'.)
In a sense it was a political awakening. I finally realized I was a left-wing radical. I read this low brow fantasy in 1980. Apparently not many others had the same awakening as I.
You can promote the whacked out notion that the Tea Party reveres Rand and her ideology, but I for one don't believe it. I'd like to find one Tea Partier, outside the relatively very small educated cliques that worship Rand Paul or Paul Ryan and their ilk, that could explain Ayn Rand to me or anyone else, let alone buy and read her voluminous novel "Atlas Shrugged". The mass of people that showed up on the DC Mall for Beck's convocation in 2009 looked like the most reading they could handle was a McDonald's menu, or a coupon circular for Winn Dixie. Or the Holy Bible, natch.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the corporate media telling me what is going on in national politics, because 1) they really don't have a clue and 2) anything progressive is ignored or suppressed. One thing I do know is that most Tea Partiers are right-wingnuts, NOT idea people.
Back in the 60's, when I was coming up, Rand was required reading amongst young intellectuals - it did not take us long to realize that she was full of s**t, and grinding a personal axe.
Collective bargaining is, after all, the basic premise of Atlas Shrugged: a collection of people agreed to not work and Galt organized the strike
I have to guide my friends through milder stuff before they can handle what he sees and is outraged by. "Inside Job" is a more manageable introduction, as is "All the Devils Are Here", before you get to Nomi Prins, or Yvez Smith who take you through detailed trails that should raise your blood pressure on exactly how portions of the biggest swindles in history were done. Brad DeLong has the Shrillblog that I first saw as "The Ancient, Hermetic, and Occult Order of the Shrill!" Apparently the wisdom (or lack of it) has nothing to do with getting into the "order" but being ignored like the hospital alarms does. There are so many "alarms" out there, many that are critically important, that few are ready to, or capable of responding to them. I do hope we can wake a few up, though,before the batteries (and patient) die.
Matt sounds loud alarms too many ignore. Brad DeLong provides many deeper peeks at the problems, but, I think considers himself one of the "shrill", since so many ignore the deeper, much more authoritative stuff politicians so studiously avoid like that at http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/01/sensible-economists-letter-on-the-affordable-care-act.html
I read her in high school and started having real questions about her after doing my part to murder millions of SEA communists.
So you agree with previous posts that the T-Party folks just picknout the parts of Rand's writings that they agree with. It's obvious when they claim to adhere to the writings in the Bible. Apparently you home-schoolers and graduates of Liberty, Oral Roberts or any other "Christian Academy" have a problem with comprehension. Look it up!
Only that this country was founded as an anti-oligarchical Champion of the Common Man!
Somehow, the Social Darwinism of the late 19th century seems directly linked to 1) the wholesale appeasement of the re-invented, psychopathic house painter turned dictator in the 1930's by, among others, many American corporate elites making a fortune from the re-building of Nazi Germany and turning a blind eye to the massive scapegoating of Jews, and 2) the current "Tea Party" movement, with its transparent emphasis on white supremacy, guns, fearmongering, stupid birtherism, and dismantling the New Deal under the guise of "spending cuts".
3 degrees of separation.
Oh no you are mistaken,sir. There are many great things about this country that most of us liberals are quite fond of -(and perhaps some conservatives also-but they won't admit it)...Social Security Benefits, Medicare, public schools, a decent highway system, unemployment compensation benefits, the Environmental Protection Agency, and my personal favorite-Pell Grants. Many decent progressive programs to love about this country...Did I mention the national park system, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FAA, the Center for Disease Control......
But religious institutions, and here I mean ALL religious institutions, routinely pick and choose who are the winners and the losers in their charity game, and often the winners are those who choose to accept the same god and the same bible.
Government, on the other hand, as an expression of the democratic will of the people, is designed to discriminate against no-one, and to ensure that all who are needy have equal access to charity. It doesn't always work that way because it has been perverted by religionists and corporatists, but it still works in a far more egalitarian manner than what you are suggesting.
No, if you were true Christians, you wouldn't eat shell fish because it's an abomination. You would have enslaved a neighboring town and it would be ok... Read your damn book. All of em.. They just don't make Jews like Jesus any more and there isn't one hanging around today. Cpl. Pierson,101st Airborne,Vietna m, Son of the American Revolution, Pvt. Shadrack Ray Pierson, 1st Virginia, Valley Forge. Brother of Meashack and Abindigo, All fought. Abindigo died and Meshack went on to be one of Washington's guards.. All 300 some odd of em...
Of course, the eating of shellfish and pork would still be banned, although I don't recall Jesus actually condemning it, but the slaughters of the OT would not be allowed according to the Sermon on the mount.
I really do wish there would be a socialist revolution soon.
Shame on her for jeopardizing her health through a life-long nicotine addiction, causing her to require assistance from socialistic institutions supported by a collectivist state. But even more shame on her for her arrogant, social-Darwinist values that the sick, hungry, ill-clad, and ill-housed are only reaping the rewards of their personal lack of industry and creativity. Her compassion rating is a big, obese ZERO!
Tea Partiers are naught but Koch-brother shills who have this strange idea that their god (Jesus) loves rich people more than poor people and so therefor - so must they. And they are, quite frankly, not intelligent enough to make it through the first two paragraphs of an Ayn Rand book and come away with the slightest understanding of what they just read.
And this should be a surprise to whom?
It is exactly the way they use the bible and what parts of U.S. and world history they do not actually fictionalize. It is their characteristic thought process.
These symbols of rugged individualism which defined the currently passing age are rapidly giving way to the understanding of interdependence - the keynote of the dawning age. Seeing with new awareness the limitations of these symbols best relegated to museums can help us to see where we have been and the urgency for new ideas of an inclusive, sustainable nature.
1. This post just highlights the conflict in the Republican party between the social conservatives and the economic conservatives. But as much the social conservatives would like to take over the Tea Party (and the Left thinks they already have!) the Tea Party remains primarily an economic conservative movement, the source of its popularity.
2. Rand was certainly a flawed individual, and there are elements in her philosophy that many would consider extreme today. That said, her predictions in Atlas Shrugged 50 years ago were eerily accurate. She described a government that tried unsuccessfully to spend and tax its way to economic growth, where government leaders scapegoated the rich and took control over individual wealth for "the greater good" but somehow everyone, except the "well-connected" were worse off. And she foresaw massive government debts, stagnant growth, persistent unemployment, and looming economic collapse. These things seemed like fantasy in the 1950's, but they are the world we live in today.
Rand predicted this would be the result of a progressive agenda run wild. I see nothing in the Bush agenda that promoted any thing near a progressive agenda. In fact history will show an agenda that would make Rand proud.
Ayn Rand was a contemptible human. That the Tea Party worships her uncritically and unreservedly just proves that the Tea Party is intellectually deaf, dumb and blind, not to mention lazy. Objectivism is a lovely fairy tale. So are the Ten Commandments. Neither one works except in the abstract.
On your second point, it was the conservative Republicans, beginning with the 'voodoo economics' of Reagan, who tried to spend and tax their way to economic growth, using the ludicrous formula of cutting taxes and praying for increased revenues to offset the tax cuts -- it didn't work under Reagan, Bush I or Bush II and, under Junior, the capitalist system collapsed, requiring government to rescue it. If the rich have been 'scapegoated' in this process over the past 50 years, I'd like you to tell me how. In fact, they've been coddled and rewarded repeatedly and their individual wealth has certainly not been absorbed by the government -- it's been increased. The taxpayers have been underwriting the undeserved bonuses of the wealthy, and I don't recall Rand predicting that.
They are also long.
Many of these GOP books are purchased, and few, I think, are ever read.
Fox is more action-packed.
But what Charles seems to have missed is that Rand's vision was of the Bush administration.
There was plenty in the Bush administration to disgust Rand supporters. We agree on this. The only difference is you think your guy (Obama) is somehow different because the money he steals is for good causes.
Like I said, the only difference between you on the Left and Bush Republicans is that you don't mind government corruption as long as it supports your pet causes, e.g. "climate change", ethanol subsidies, Union monopolies
A vast majority of scientists agree climate change is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. You can ignore that if you wish, but look at a recent photo of the North Pole sometime -- it's an island now. Then there's air pollution. I want the govt to intercede for the betterment of all of us, not just my individual health.
BTW, I don't think ethanol should be subsidized.
Union 'monopolies' are being helped by the govt? Really. Cite some examples.
I agree -- I don't want govt to enrich private enterprise, but to work for the general welfare of the public, as it should, according to our Constitution.
The reason that Rand appealed to so many of us when we were about 19 is simply proof of her effectiveness as a propagandist. It takes some maturity and depth of character before the reader even recognizes the political brain washing being so effectively accomplished in the guise of a "good story".
Yes, the woman was "wrong". Yes, the woman had a *sublime* command of English and a penchant for good (not great) fiction. People priding themselves for not "falling for" Rand were either mature at their first encounter with the works, or were simply unable to comprehend Rand's vocabulary at around age 19.
It is foolish and dangerous to deny the power of an "enemy". There is no way to counter Rand without reading Rand. And note, if you will, there is still no intellectual that can simply ignore Rand, even after all these years.
The "objectivists" whom I met in College were a little bit like Mensa members, pretty disfunctional failures.
The "tea party" though has much more to do with traditional rightwing U.S. politics funded by traditional rightwing business interests operating through the Republican party and seeking to target key progressive politicians and remove them from office or undermine their influence. There "celebration" of Rand is a kind of reactionary chic, the way some new left radicals in the U.S. and Western Europe (who had no big money backers) celebrated Mao
Funny you should mention "1984" since it was Orwell's portrait of the ultimate progressive society - a tyranny of government, business, labor, and the military all acting for the "common good" (everyone has a job and health care) where the rights and freedoms of individuals are necessarily extinguished. We are closer to it than you would like to imagine.
Socialist democracies, such as those currently existing in Europe, afford the people individual freedom and personal rights, and the ability to replace socialism should they desire. So far, not one socialist democracy in Europe has availed themselves of that opportunity.
Even Margaret Thatcher's 'reforms' in the UK have mostly been struck down.
'1984' was hardly a picture of the perfect progessive society -- it was not progressive at all, and not what progressives want for America. A shame you believe the lies of the right on this point.
Eventually, socialist economies stagnate and wither with the average standard of living lagging behind other countries. But at least it is a "fairer" kind of poverty, because it is shared by everyone (except those in the governing elite).
At that point, the economy is either replaced by a more free-market system, or maintained by a totalitarian regime, as in Cuba.
The final stages of a socialist society are often totalitarian, as we've seen in so many places from Russia to Venezuela. That's because when capital wants to leave and individuals don't want to be productive, increasing amounts of coercion become necessary for the government-provided benefits everyone comes to depend on.
I'm sure '1984' is hardly a picture of a perfect progressive society, but it is where such policies lead. And yes, it's a great irony that the most powerful portrait of the decaying effects of socialism was written by a socialist himself.
Sweden, Norway, Germany and other European states have both socialist democracies and individual freedom and they are not, as you insist, withering and stagnating and contending with a lower standard of living than other countries. In fact, they have weathered economic crises much better than the U.S.
Cuba is not a socialist democracy, and didn't begin as one, and neither did the USSR, China or North Korea. Whatever they call themselves, they are/were just dictatorships with a ruling elite. That's a different animal than a socialist democracy where the majority can change the government if they so desire.
Incidentally, since you mentioned Venezuela, would you like to get into the history of South and Central American where the sort of 'capitalism' you seem to support was imposed on the people? The reason Hugo Chavez, et al, are in power is a reaction to the rapacious capitalism practiced by those who preceded him, which left a majority in the country in desperate poverty. Let me guess that you wouldn't be such a strong advocate for 'free market' capitalism if you were one of the poor.
Who am I? An elderly woman, maintaining her life-long interest in history and politics, a supporter of Franklin Roosevelt in my youth. I often wonder what he would think of what's going on today in our political scene... As a mother of 3, grandmother five, great grandmother of 3, I say to all: Consider the principle of truth in your research and thinking as your guiding light as you raise your kids. It will stand all of you in good stead as you develop and live your life, blessed as we are by our citizenship in this democratic (small d) country!
First, I point to a quote from Fitzgerald: "An artist is someone who can hold two opposing viewpoints and still remain fully functional."
Second, I try to remind everyone that Rand was creating an ideal she wanted to see manifested in the world, much as a philosopher like John Rawls tried to imagine how a group of individuals would set society's laws if none of them knew where they placed in society: at its heart, the work is speculative, and idealization. Rand was trying to portray the ideal attributes of a creative world-changer; but as much as I admire the character of Howard Roark, it seems improbable that any person could spend every minute of every day making decisions based on his abstract world view. It just doesn't seem like an enjoyable life.
Rand might say he was aiming for a higher joy, a noble, more uplifting joy, that of creative manifestation, seeing your ideas realized out in the world, but it's hard to imagine this joy applying to every aspect of life.
Rand believed in healthy competition, that the best should rise to the top on merit and perseverance alone. If you read Atlas Shrugged, you see how much she rails against cronyism, against back-door dealings and corruption.
Unfortunately, cronyism is exactly what the Republican Party stands for today. In order for the GOP to champion your cause, you first need to bribe them with campaign donations. Having the best product or service doesn't necessarily mean you will prevail; your competitor might simply bribe the right politician, who then changes the game in your competitor's favor. The GOP champions tax cuts and deregulation because they know they wouldn't exist without corporate backing. It has nothing to do with ideology.
The Dems take that money too, but at least they defend the rights of the poor and disenfranchised , and it's not like the poor are swimming in cash.
The bottom line is that if Rand were alive today, these politicians would never use her name, because she would call them out as corrupt, second-hand leeches.
I wish people would just read the books and take them for what they are. In fact, it would have been nice if Rand herself did that, and let the work speak for itself. I intrepreted the books the way you did as a teen, as a defense of creativity, of artists, of individuals who believed in themselves and their own ability to judge what is right and wrong. I still see "The Fountainhead" this way. Unfortunately, Rand went on to devise a philosophy out of it, and followers built up her ego, and people who could never be called "first-hand" individuals have used it to justify anything and everything under the sun.
I do think that "selfishness" has gotten a bad rap, though. Even Socrates believed that when people do good for others, it is for selfish reasons: it makes them feel good. They are happy with themselves for helping others. And so being guided by self-interest, in my mind, is still a healthy idea.
The more that wealth concentrates in the hands of the few, the higher the walls and lines of barbed wire go up to protect the wealthy from the have-nots. Who wants to live in a society where you can't leave your house for fear of being attacked by someone with no other motive than that he's trying to feed his family? This is what many countries in Latin American and Africa have degenerated into, and its not a pretty sight.
It's in everyone's self-interest to have a vibrant, healthy democracy. You'd think these Tea Party fakers would remind themselves what the founding fathers were aspiring to when they tossed the damn tea off the boat.
RSS feed for comments to this post.