Having recently read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead for the first time, I came away unimpressed. There were small sections of Atlas Shrugged that I thought were fantastic, but overall I don’t think I could recommend either book. I marked the few good tirades against liberalism for my wife to read and told her she would be better off skipping the rest. She did.

I can’t imagine the movie will be much better.

.

I’m suprised you didnt mention Rand. He seems to be the biggest Ayn Rand supporter of all. I always wondered if he was named after Ayn Rand. Seems like something Ron would do.

with any of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers is bizarre and baseless, not least of all her rejection of any form of charity or benevolence. For Rand, generosity and charity created a relationship of dependence that was ultimately hurtful to the person benefiting from the selflessness of another. It surprises me that people like Glenn Beck so often cite Rand in one breath while urging generosity and charity in the next. Her materialistic, merciless philosophy can in no way be translated into a life characterized by integrity; rather, it seeks to bring about a Godless, ruthless, cutthroat society with no room for compassion or grace.

is that had she written this post, it would say the same thing, but be three times as long.

I would also agree though, I wouldn’t attempt to use her books as a basis for any kind of conservatism, whether fiscal or social.

While I don’t agree with Rand’s atheism or pro-choice stance, I found a lot that was inspiring when reading Atlas Shrugged. Most of all, her calling out liberalism as a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom was prescient if not prophetic.

I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time last year and found myself unconsciously substituting current liberal names for the characters in the book. That’s how closely I think society today reflects the culture Rand wrote about.

The idea that the “moochers” in the book feed on the efforts of the successful and always demand more is a perfect metaphor for the modern liberal victim-o-crat culture.

I guess my main point here is that we can find instructive ideas in Rand’s writings without elevating her – or the writings – to the level of veneration.

BTW, the trailers and reviews I’ve seen don’t say “trainwreck” so much as they show that the writers and producers were trying to stay true to the book – a rarity in literature-based movies these days.

The major flaw in her tracts is her belief in the perfectibility of mankind; that there can be an elite who are wholly incorruptible. Those shall be the rulers, she declares. All others, no matter how noble their sentiment (like Eddie Willers) will only and ever obey, and that from a worshipful distance.

It is interesting that our big question to our government today (in reference to raising taxes on the wealthy) “What next?” is never addressed in her writing. Her heroes can leave no legacy, because everything is on individual merit. Ms. Rand hated Religion, but she has only a pointless and ultimately futile existence to offer her disciples. When the individual dies, the mantle that that individual was carrying is automatically and necessarily dropped. Strict reliance on individual merit prevents a continuation.

She never knew how big God is.

with making the social conservatives justify themselves (along with everyone else who deigns themselves super-men)?

Religion can be just as vile a tyrant as any dogma (ha) that expects to be blindly followed. Rand, Marx, Lenin, Mao, Wilson, Roosevelt, Pelosi, and a host of others are guilty of seeing individuals as identical machines, for whom there is one superior mode of operation.

Following Rand’s individual-based ideals up to the few last steps are far superior to the herd-based tyranny of the leftists. While Rand might not want there to be room for morality, there is ample room for economic objectivism and morality. It is in attempting to force another’s morality onto one’s objectivism that the dictators arise.

and while parts of her ideology were right on the money, the moral egoism espoused by her and hers should be rejected by conservatives and libertarians alike (and in large part, has been). Her anti-religion screeds, likewise, are useless. Personally, I find her fiction to be poorly written, but I did find much of her non-fiction to be enjoyable and interesting (especially her article on racism). At any rate, I don’t see any reason to fear the emergence of Randism in Republican circles — a favorable mention or two in the context of the current crisis is apropos, and I can think of plenty of other authors who influenced conservatives who held more repellent views that Rand’s (George Orwell, for instance).

I believe the quote above is from an intro she wrote to either ‘We the Living’ or ‘The Fountainhead.’

I too have been extremely puzzled by all of the Christian Conservatives I know who have “discovered” Rand (had they seriously never heard of her before Beck told them about her?!? I read her for Literature class in the 10th grade) and find some deep meaning in her writings and philosophy.

Oh, and let’s not forget that Paul Ryan is such a Rand-head that he REQUIRES all incoming staff to read ‘Atlas Shrugged.’

My personal opinion is that she was a pretty terrible writer and espoused a “philosophy” of Objectivism that was at its core just plain lazy. Seriously, how much thought really needs to go into a philosophy that basically just preaches selfishness?

Whether folks disagree with her skill as a writer or Objectivism as a useful philosophy, you CANNOT disagree with the fact that she was utterly contemptuous of Christianity.

The fact that Beck lemmings have so eagerly jumped on his Rand-love bandwagon attests to their lack of intelligence, IMHO.

These discussions bother me a bit as people are viewing others as some type of savior to be wholly embraced or not at all. Let’s take the approach of taking certain good ideas from a variety of sources and cobbling together an unbeatable platform.

Let’s stop the circular firing squads on our side and instead, start circling the wagons.

Aiding and abetting a strategy of “divide and conquer” is neither conservative nor libertarian. Why not emphasize the common ground with Rand-influenced compatriots and leave the differences for after the 2012 election? There are kooks to be found in every cohort of the Republican coalition. How many would you like to run off before you call it a day? Or perhaps you’d rather make that Koran-burning pastor in Florida a poster child for your vision of what’s an acceptable level of distinction?

Based on personal observation, it seems it is difficult if not impossible for a Christian to fully come to grips with what Rand has to offer. This is not by any means due to a lack of intelligence or even understanding of what she writes — it is rather due to the most fundamental philosophic construction. Someone who embraces Reason and Reason alone as the guiding principle in life constructs their personal philosophy on that basis, that foundation. A Christian can embrace Reason, but only to the point he must employ Faith, and thus seems to often end up in a constant internal debate exemplified by Aquinas. A Fundamentalist who believes the Earth was created 4000 or so years ago confronted with carbon dating provides an extreme example, as does a more realistic Christian confronted with the notion of someone leading a perfectly happy, fully Moral life, while not embracing Christ in any way. When Christianity fails to offer concrete answers, Faith is the safety net. And when finding people who live lives as Moral and decent as any Christian — and there are plenty of us to be found — the reaction is steeped in confusion, and the odd anger which permeates this piece.

And remember: those of us who appreciate Rand are aware of her flaws. We aren’t looking for perfection to worship. Just damned sound advice about how to construct one’s personal philosophy and way of looking at the world. Are there zealots? Of course. But I’ve always felt they of all people should know better. Also, citing a reformed Communist to attack someone who escaped Soviet Russia is questionable at best, and the man’s homosexuality — in this context — just makes it lean towards the funny. Chamber’s realizations are well and good, but you have to wonder about a man who could buy into Communism to begin with, do you not? The same of course cannot be said of Rand.

Liberalism is destroying our system. Rand’s hypothesis may seem extreme but it is all to make a point that freedom of thought and deed enrich us all and a government that takes away our freedom destroys progress. Considering all the effort the liberal establishment expended to stop this movie from being made, WHY would someone on Red State pan the movie before its release or before they even saw it. Don’t listen to Leon Wolf, see the movie. Show the liberal elite they are losing control of our culture and the message the entertainment industry projects. Time for the return of the freedoms our founding fathers envisioned for us and time to reject the liberal/socialist philosophy that has infected our society. Remember, WE ARE THE MAJORITY

Considering all the effort the liberal establishment expended to stop this movie from being made

Snort.

Show the liberal elite they are losing control of our culture and the message the entertainment industry projects.

Have fun with that.

Time for the return of the freedoms our founding fathers envisioned for us and time to reject the liberal/socialist philosophy that has infected our society.

You understand that Rand’s philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophy of the founding fathers, right?

Ayn Rand was a stark libertarian. And libertarianism, as liberalism and communism, as a false view of human nature. Human’s are not basically good. We are fallen creatures. As such, we need both constraint AND our government who is run by humans needs constrained as well.

As one who, were it not for finding Rand, the Founding Fathers (as well as Marx and others) only after being on the Left for a number of years and looking further into what we were espousing, I would likely still be on the Left.

I’ve never considered Rand to be the subject of cult-like worship anymore than I would Jefferson, Paine, or others. Inspiring? Yes. Cult? No.

This is not to deny that there are those who almost deify Ms. Rand–however, that is in opposition to what she personally espoused.

Insofar as Whittaker Chambers is concerned, Michael Berliner covered this back in 2007 here:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/literature/5069-whittaker-chambers-s-review-of-ayn-rand-s-novel-atlas-shrugged-in-the-national-review.html

It is true that Ms. Rand was an atheist and, in fact was rather vocal against all matters of faith. However, nowhere that I’ve ever read (fiction and non fiction) did she advocate people not having the right to worship as they see fit.

In addition, Ms. Rand was not against charity. She was against making it a ‘duty’ or moral imperative that one must give to charity. Her position was simply, if you want to give, that is your right. However, for you to demand that people give, that is morally wrong.

While there are things that people could disagree with the Objectivist movement, (abortion is the biggest one that I have trouble reconciling), I think the following statement could be said of most philosophies (or religions):

…her philosophy is simply not something that can be consistently lived, and to try is to invite a life of misery and madness.

I have never met a person who lives his/her philosophy (or religion) 100% consistently, but I have met many who lived in glass houses and self-inflated moral superiority. [One traveling preacher, in particular, who spent his life staying at people's homes (mooching), then proceed to tell them what bad and sinful people they were. Eventually, people would get sick of him and kick him out and he would move onto someone else's doorstep. I heard he died in 1992, but I have never been able to verify it.]

Also, I’m not sure how the advocation of individual rights (vs. collectivism) could in any way lead to “results just as monstrous as communism..”

Lastly, as having seen the movie Atlas Shrugged, Part One, it is a faithful adaptation of the first section of the movie. Considering it was shot over six weeks, with one entrepreneur funding it, it was remarkably well done.

If you read and liked the book, you’ll like the movie. If you didn’t, then don’t waste your money.

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/03/28/first-look-atlas-shrugged-dagny-confronts-the-union/

With regard to practical politics, Rand favored the American system — a republic.

She rejected democracy as mob rule and believed that there are timeless, objective principles of individual rights and liberties that cannot simply be voted away by a majority (life, liberty, property). But she would have equally rejected the notion of an unelected “aristocracy” ruling a country.

The notion that Rand would reject “anything that stood in the way of the accumulation of wealth and pleasure” is similarly misguided.

She believed that people should live for their own sake; determine for themselves what they find worthy to live and work for. If that is “wealth and pleasure,” than that’s what they should seek and no one has a right to force them otherwise. That is not to say that Rand believed there are no other things important in life. In fact, she would argue that “wealth and pleasure” are not proper goals of life as such. Wealth and pleasure are gained with purpose and through productive work.

Finally, she did not reject conservatism as a concept. She rejected conservatism if it was fused with religion and altruism and didn’t forcefully and proudly seek to “conserve” individual liberties, republicanism and capitalism.

Mr. Wolf is a brave man to provoke the Cult of Rand. I applaud his courage and his article. It seems that few remember that Chambers and William F. Buckley both rejected Rand and her philosophy.

I am surprised by how many “conservatives” have embraced Rand as the guiding light of conservatism. John Nolte, over at Big Hollywood, recently claimed that the Atlas Shrugged movie was the first Tea Party movie. I posted a link to the Chambers’ review at Big Government and was immediately “thumbed down.” A gentleman who asked a neutral question about the review received the same treatment. Cultists do not like to be questioned.

To quote Mr. Wolf: “While Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy had many useful things to say about liberalism, when applied as a positive philosophy to life, it leads to results just as monstrous as communism.”

You are employing the progressive/Left’s melodramatic, self-contradictory and recklessly false analogies Mr. Wolf — which, in turn, makes your commitment to liberty questionable.

I think what people fail to realize is that Rand’s philosophy is more akin to fascism than anything else. While I applaud her attack on liberalism, the rest of what she says is quite disturbing. I seriously doubt most of the grassroots Tea Party people are big Rand fans.

Another thing to point out is how wrong she was about Christianity. Christianity is all about an individual, personal relationship with God vs a collective one. I think what she hated was the compassionate and merciful part of Christianity. What a miserable person she must have been.

Leon, you seem to be persistently worried about libertarians “taking over” the conservative movement. Well you need not worry, it is happening lol. We need more than just Bible Thumpers, we need everyone who supports the goals of Constitution, re. limited government.

It is a good thing that people can draw inspiration from Rand if that leads them to belief in liberty, capitalism, and support for the Constitution. We need as many people was we can get.

I think this thoughtful diary is basically a straw man. The Cult of Ayn Rand is infiltrating the Tea Party movement? Didn’t you just say you are not part of the Tea Party movement? Didn’t you just say you read Rand’s works? I am a libertarian-conservative yet I have not read her works, I came to my beliefs by reading the Founders and understanding the Constitution.

My point is this seems to be an attempt to paint libertarian-conservatives with some new, scary sounding label; ooh, look at those Objectivist Atheists! In the end, it is the same old internecine fight, some social conservatives can’t stand libertarian-conservatives, news at 11.

You’re treating marginal people who only exist in proportionately large numbers on internet comment boards and at FreedomWorks as even remotely relevant to the national conversation. Shame on you.

If Ayn Rand’s fables brought some people to the right, so be it.

But her writing is best taken sparingly, and only in desperate need.

As usual, people get stuck in labels and camps. For simplicity, I’ll play the game. This shouldn’t be about “libertarians” and “social conservatives”. Since we have to labeled then I will label myself, and I will label myself a traditionalist.

If people have to choose between selfish, egotistical libertarianism, and self-righteous, authoritarian, theocracy, then just let me know so I can start my survivalist cult on Cuttyhunk.

You don’t have to choose between ego-centric individualism and statism. There is a thing called voluntary communitarianism. Like many of the founders, we choose to be members of our towns, our neighborhoods, our faith communities. Much of this thread is predicated on the false choice of being a controlling statist or being a selfish egoist.

On that note, people got to get a grip of levels. Objectivism is rather insidious on a personal on cultural level. But with respect to the federal government, it pretty much aligns well with most strands of conservatism. It aligns a little less at the state level; a lot less at the local level ; and absolutely has nothing in common on a personal and community level.

I think Leon Wolf’s warning is well heeded. Unthinking allegiance to this growing strand of libertarianism must be put in context. But as a matter of federal governance, we are all on the same side, and there is no need to get all twisted about it.

Ayn Rand is a genius. To say that she rejected conservatism by not being religious is a joke. Religion has no place in the conervative movement.

Bah. So what? You call objectivism sophomoric because it promotes economic liberty as well as social liberty.
Well, I guess the founding fathers were sophomoric for emphasizing economic liberties as well social liberties (albeit within a religious context).
I guess you think people who wish to adhere to the constitution are cultish?

BS. You are rejecting the most important aspects of her philosophy because Ayn was an atheist. I guess Jews, Buddhist, and Sikhs should reject the US constitution on similar grounds.

Your objections are bigoted and sophomoric.

Donald Luskin was surprisingly intelligent on the topic of Rand. Good insight right here.

But it’s a misreading of “Atlas” to claim that it is simply an antigovernment tract or an uncritical celebration of big business. In fact, the real villain of “Atlas” is a big businessman, railroad CEO James Taggart, whose crony capitalism does more to bring down the economy than all of Mouch’s regulations. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576256782014528702.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

It’s at least less emotionally driven either way on her and is a fair assessment.

I had trouble with a book by Ayn Rand, a fact based book, featuring some articles by Alan Greenspan from when he was a practicing objectivist, called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

If you wish to know if she considered any relationship between ones actions and the good they do for society, get this book instead of relying on fiction and those who write in relation to that fiction. The fiction is not the tell all tale of ones views, but the tell all tale of the fiction they are meant to portray. Leave some room for differences to reality, on the basis of what makes a story, as that is a part of what an author must consider, as well as the movie maker in relation to the screenplay version of it.

I submit that her view of Capitalism is grand, but her social views, toward war, and yes being an atheist were well pronounced, yet, her understanding of what this means to in the larger scheme of things, and, to be able to recognize simple truths, such as psychology providing analysis without assuming the patient is conscious, are worth having the opportunity to contemplate in context of the subject of her statement’s leftist origins.

I do not agree with her vehement objection to war, yet, I appreciate that its based on the idea that in freedom the State has no right to take your life for the State’s ideas, as another example. With the Government we have right now I am sure many would agree not to let the State decide the best purpose, the best use, of our life over our own desired use. It would seem having a volunteer military has solved this objection of Ayn Rand’s in America.

I do not care if she lived her life completely by her philosophy for I have found only one who does entirely, however, He, Jesus Christ Our Lord And Saviour was crucified for it, and Saved the rest of us by His Resurrection.

Atlas Shrugged or Cat’s Cradle – I chose Cat’s Cradle over Atlas.

While I liked Cat’s Cradle (and other works) by KVJr, I would not try to hold his Philosophy in the story as my way to organized repudiate religion or (to a smaller degree) defense research (and not that I would WANT to do either.) The author’s politics and mine do not mesh entirely (or even a little), but his prose is easy and the message relatable – a must in any good story. I suspect as much is true regarding Atlas and Ayn.

This is why books will always trump video – the medium of TV/Movies is the screen, the storyteller is the Director. A book, the medium is your mind, the storyteller is the Author.

Take, reject, apply or discard from a story all that you will, but the philosophy remains that of the author.