For lessons on morality, ethics and how to conduct one’s life, the Sermon on the Mount, not Atlas Shrugged, is the first place to turn.
A few weeks ago, as I listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, as I am prone to do on occasion, I was amused to hear him quote approvingly from Ayn Rand's horrific novel, Atlas Shrugged.
Now I say horrific and not only because the book fails as a piece of literature. It also fails as a philosophical tract, which it yearns mightily to be. But to hear one of our leading conservatives plugging the book was ironic to say the least. A retrospective glance might be in order.
Back when the book first appeared a half century ago, William F. Buckley, Jr., asked Whittaker Chambers to review it for National Review. Chambers, a literate man of high sensitivities, was appalled by the book and wrote a devastating review.
Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal.
And that was the mild stuff.
Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!"
Rand was furious. As Buckley recalled 25 years later, upon her death, she was so angered with him for publishing the review that she would inquire, when receiving an invitation to a social function, if Buckley were also on the guest list. If so, she informed them, she could appear only after he had departed or before he had arrived. Buckley observed: "I fear I put the lady through a great deal of choreographical pain."
What does it say about Limbaugh that he chose this book to cite and applaud? It is a book filled with steely-eyed individualists, mostly beautiful and ingenious people who if they do fail only do so because of inferior minds, collectivist tendencies or institutional biases against superior man. You will search fruitlessly for children, the elderly or the mentally challenged. In Rand's world, they are inconveniences and consequently her philosophy of life made no room for them. Nor did her worldview make allowance for frailty, weakness, human compassion or tragedy.
In short, her view of life is a caricature of a world without pain, frailty or tragedy – a world that does not and never will exist. It is both utopian and instructive only to the extent that it encourages each of us to achieve our full potential with as much integrity as possible – but then Rand’s definition of integrity is suspect as well. When she first met Buckley, she exclaimed with her immigrant accent: “You are too intelligent to believe in Gott!”
Her embrace of materialism, capitalism and individual self-absorption was taken to such extremes that Buckley felt the need to read her out of the conservative movement, which he effectively did in his essay, "Notes Toward an Empirical Definition of Conservatism," which also served as his introduction to a collection of essays by noted conservatives, Have You Ever Seen a Dream Walking.
But his obituary on Rand sums it up nicely:
What did Miss Rand in was her anxiety to theologize her beliefs. She was an eloquent and persuasive anti-statist, and if only she had left it at that — but no, she had to declare that God did not exist, that altruism was despicable, that only self-interest is good and noble. She risked, in fact, giving to capitalism that bad name that its enemies have done so well in giving it; and that is a pity.
– National Review, April 2, 1982
The end of Atlas Shrugged only underscored the concerns raised by Chambers and Buckley. A new symbol is raised up around which human beings could mobilize their collective energies – the dollar sign. Out with the cross, in with the almighty dollar.
One has to conclude that Limbaugh was unaware of any of this as he read so glowingly from Rand’s book and encouraged his readers to buy it. (I hope he simply was entertained by the book and did not think through all of its implications. ) Still, it made me wonder why so many of our most prominent conservatives have never bothered to familiarize themselves with the history of the movement they claim to lead. (I recall Sean Hannity interviewing Buckley a few years ago and expressing his amazement that Buckley was a sailor. To acknowledge this, on national television no less, is to basically concede that you have failed to study the life and work of the single most important writer and conservative intellectual of the past 50 years. Much as I enjoy listening to both men, this lack of depth is disappointing and instructive as to why modern conservatism is struggling to keep its ideological sea legs.)
In any case, those interested in exploring Rand’s fiction might want to read The Fountainhead, easily her best book. As for lessons on morality, ethics and how to conduct one’s life, the Sermon on the Mount, not Atlas Shrugged, is the first place to turn.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
40 years ago the Governor of Cal had hig praise for her books. 26 Years ago the President of the US said she was a great thinker. Of course this man was a liberal. BTW his name was Ronnie. I guess Rudh has joined the libs as well. That leaves only Hillary and Bush in the Conservative camp.
Comment by Rod | January 22, 2007
I am not suggesting that to like Rand is to be a liberal. far from it.
I am only suggesting that she is not a conservative — a capitalist libertarian who took her worship of materialism and personal aggrandisement to extremes, yes. A thinker who took herself to seriously, absolutely. But as Buckley points out, she had many useful ideas; she took them too far. As for Reagan applauding her, that is no surprise. Many conservatives/free marketers thought she brought interesting ideas to the table. I am only presenting one perspective. Others are allowed. Unless you are debating people like Rand.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 22, 2007
Seems to me it is time for Atlas to shrug! Our nation is turning into a welfare state for the entire world. Perish the thought that we should have any right to develop and enforce an immigration policy…that would violate "human rights".
If Ayn Rand was so wrong watch what happens as our elected officials attempt to pay for the increased burden of our soon to receive amnesty hordes start sucking at the public teat. When taxes become too oppressive, because don't you see people make a lot of money because they are lucky not talented and hard working.
Rush was right to push the book. Our so called compassion has bankrupted the country both financially and morally.
Comment by Mickey G | January 22, 2007
I have been somewhat troubled by the hero worship of Rand, especially by self-described "objectivists" like Andrew Bernstein. Generally speaking, Rand-objectivists do possess pretty solid conservative credentials, and Bernstein in particular is an articulate proponent of free market capitalism. But Mr. Shadroui is quite right, Rand-objectivists come up short by 1) elevating capitalistic self interest to a singular virtue, and 2) their avowed atheism.
On the first point, Rand-objectivists would have us believe that the pursuit of self-interest in a capitalistic environment is sufficient to replace altruism. They therefore disdain any moral imperative to be compassionate. While it is true that engaging in capitalism does provide much trickle-down benefit, I do not think that this relieves the individual from personal responsibility to help provide for the needs of others (absent government coercion, of course).
This also suggests that a Rand-objectivist would seem to only enter into relationships for the purpose of self-interest, reasoning that it is enough to potentially benefit the other party (even though this isn't required, since self-interest is enough). One could conclude from this that profit is the only motive for any relationship.
As to the second point, Rand-objectivists assert moral behavior as a precondition to be a capitalist (they are quite correct that capitalism is the only moral economic system), but repudiate any divine origin for this morality. This, of course, is a conundrum, because asserting something as moral requires a pre-existing moral system in order render judgments like this.
It seems to me that in order to be truly conservative, one must also acknowledge and embrace biblical morality. Atheism cannot sufficiently address the moral concerns of the free market. Atheism cannot sufficiently address any moral imperative.
While Rand contributes some interesting ideas to the conservative cause, it is right and proper for us to discuss her philosophical shortcomings.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 22, 2007
"In short, her view of life is a caricature of a world without pain, frailty or tragedy – a world that does not and never will exist. It is both utopian and instructive only to the extent that it encourages each of us to achieve our full potential with as much integrity as possible."
Which according to her later writing on the subject is exactly the intention of the book. The book was written to present utopian vision - an it is really the only one of her fictional works that does. If you found that in the book than I guess it can hardly be considered a failure, since you got from it what the author intended. (Even if you don't agree with the message.)
Comment by Stephen Macklin | January 22, 2007
[quote]she had to declare that God did not exist, that altruism was despicable, that only self-interest is good and noble.[/quote]
Interesting… If I didn't know any better, I'd have to say that she was the progenitor of the Anton LaVey Church of Satan which nearly promotes the same ideology…
Comment by Name withheld by Editor | January 22, 2007
I have read Ayn Rand: her novels, and written critiques by her supporters. I have never understood the charge that surrounds her, negative or positive. To me, she pretty well sketches out a state of mind I was in when I was 13, but outgrew. That's it. I've tried to see beyond that impression and not succeeded.
Comment by felix | January 23, 2007
I have never read anything by Rand, but this article was quite timely as within the last 4 weeks I was seriously contemplating getting one of her books (most likely, "Atlas Shrugged"). But as I looked at her books and read several reviews, I had the gnawing sense that I wasn't going to find much worthwhile from a philosophical perspective - little more than highly articulate hedonism.
I think this review perhaps cemented my decision. So, at the risk of appearing unread and unlearned, I'm going to skip her.
I also have to wonder about someone so petulant that they cannot tolerate a negative book review, as it seems she carried her grudge against WFB for the rest of her life. I find that tragic, and a telling review of Rand herself - not just her books.
Comment by nevadamistermom | January 23, 2007
I read "Atlas Shrugged" a few years ago, and was quite enchanted by the story itself. Its characters, as the write of this article noted, beautiful, rugged individualists, took responsibility for their lives and made no apologies for their need to build, to make something of themselves. It was quite a breath of fresh air in a world where people valorize cowardice and make virtue of vice, where those who succeed are supposed to be shamed into a disproportionately high tax bracket. In fact, her illustration of how the "looters" took over seem, in light of recent events, almost prophetic.
The only fault I found with the book was that the moralizing and preachiness of the book often obscures the superior storytelling. Fascinating characters and ingenious plot twists are the norm in this book, but it's difficult to keep these foremost in one's mind while slogging through John Galt's 300-page radio address. Rand definitely overestimated man's attention span, and the story would benefit from some editorial pruning. In fact, I would like to see it made into a movie.
My issue with Rand's philosophy is that Galt's creed ("I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask him to live for mine") is diametrically opposed to warrior ethics, as a warrior does not live for himself alone. Indeed, the warrior's greatest strength is in living for a greater good, and allows him to become greater than just a man. For this reason, I deem Galt's creed and this part of Rand's philosophy to be cowardice.
However, I believe that both this article and the criticisms thereof lose sight of a very important point: "Atlas Shrugged" is just a book.
Comment by Lane Russell | January 23, 2007
As an addendum to post #7, hedonism is not really the word I was looking for. It has the wrong nuances of seeking only pleasure. I don't think that's what Rand is espousing. Her philosophy seems to be more an elevation of self-interest to the position of universal imperative.
I would perhaps be better served to read the Cliff Notes and then decide if I want to spend my time on this author or not.
Comment by nevadamistermom | January 28, 2007
Well there you go…I see a book by Rand being advertised on this website: The Virtue of Selfishness. The title would seem to sum up her philosophy quite aptly, and more elegantly than in my posts #9 and #7. And again, this is why I will probably avoid extensive reading of Rand. If this is her worldview, then it is very different from mine and I don't need a treatise on the Kingdom of Self. I am wondering what exactly she said that makes her an important part of 20th century philosophy? Is it simply because she opposed communism and used her self-first philosophy as the basis for the opposition?
Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
Nevada,
No one said she was an important part of 20th century philosophy. At least, I don't think she was. She expoused some interesting ideas, but I doubt you could find anyone in your church or your poker game that has ever heard of her.
I think most people who have embraced the 2 greatest commandments (love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor) find the foundational reasoning she employes to be repugnant.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 29, 2007
I would not have known about Rand were it not for a co-worker who had read "Atlas Shrugged" many years ago and just casually mentioned to me that it had some "interesting ideas." This was more than 10 years ago, and her name had just stuck in my head. Then when I saw this column, it provided a bit more insight as to what those "interesting ideas" might be.
As I said, I'm probably going to skip Rand, particularly since her novels can be quite long. I think I read somewhere that her "John Galt radio address" in the book rambled on for 300+ pages. That translates to something like a 6-hour radio address. No thank you.
I don't mean to be the Reader's Digest kind of guy, but I'm also not too interested in digesting hundreds of pages of a philosophy that I already know I'm not in agreement with.
Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
I've done a bit more reading about Rand, but have still not read anything she authored. Apparently, her school of throught was given the name "Objectivism" and it elevated the individual and self-interest above altruism and community.
I think the problem with Rand's thinking was one of balance. Scripture teaches us to "love others as ourselves" which implies equal parts self love and love of others. A life of only self-sacrifice is unbalanced and wrong, but so is a life of only self-interest.
It also sounds like that while several of Rand's novels were quite popular in their time, her philosophy of "Objectivism" was never taken too seriously by all but a handful of people.
Comment by nevadamistermom | January 30, 2007
Nevada,
Check out http://www.andrewbernstein.net. Mr. Bernstein is an objectivist, as I mentioned in post #3. He gets a lot right, but on the issue of morality and God he is flat wrong.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 30, 2007
"The only fault I found with the book was that the moralizing and preachiness of the book often obscures the superior storytelling."
That's putting it mildly. I've never read Atlas Shrugged, but I did torture myself with The Fountainhead on one occasion. Rand is not a storyteller but an ideologue; every character is essentially a caricature, an embodiment of some feature of her ideology.
At root her ideology is a denial of the value of any organic bonds among human beings — both family and religion she lumps into the category of "collectivism", as if human beings were meant to be atoms isolated from one another, with nothing tying them together except for enlightened self-interest.
Comment by J.D. | February 2, 2007