It's been a little over two weeks now since Paul Ryan (R-WI) was chosen to be Mitt Romney's VP, and in those two weeks, something miraculous has happened: Ayn Rand has been thrown into the spotlight. This is due in part because Ryan once said Rand was "the reason I got involved in public service.” That’s the good news.
The bad news, however, is the utter mudslinging against Rand, her philosophy, and her character on behalf of the media, bloggers, and pundits who have become fixated on her and are on a mission to put a nail in her coffin, lest their entire fantasy world collapse around them.
This, nonetheless, has given me the opportunity to go through some of the smears I constantly come across and to appeal to the reasonable who otherwise wouldn’t know the real Rand.
Let’s explore a few examples of such attacks and I’ll turn to Rand’s own words and philosophy throughout to vindicate her.
The Attack
I’ll start with this hit piece since this was one of the more blatantly dishonest ones. In George Monbiot’s article, he explains how Rand believed “empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die,” and “the rich deserve unmediated power.” He goes on to say Rand “described the poor and weak as ‘refuse’ and ‘parasites,’ and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them.” Of course, he provides no concrete examples to back up any of these claims, and if you are familiar with Rand and Objectivism, you know why: there aren’t any. It’s a clear character assassination in order to discredit Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism.
The Truth
When it came to compassion and empathy, Rand said “I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.”
In regards to the poor, Rand was their biggest advocate, because she was an advocate of individual rights. She championed a system, Capitalism, which leaves people alone and allows them, especially the ambitious poor, to prosper. On the issue of poverty, she wrote “If concern for human poverty and suffering were one’s primary motive, one would seek to discover their cause. One would not fail to ask: Why did some nations develop, while others did not? Why have some nations achieved material abundance, while others have remained stagnant in subhuman misery? History and, specifically, the unprecedented prosperity-explosion of the nineteenth century, would give an immediate answer: capitalism is the only system that enables men to produce abundance—and the key to capitalism is individual freedom.”1 As is obvious, Ayn Rand had enough respect for the poor to advocate a system that would respect their rights and leave them free and allow them to prosper. Does this sound like a woman who thought the poor were garbage?
Ayn Rand “excoriated anyone seeking to assist [the poor],” Monbiot suggests. On charity, Rand affirmed “There is nothing wrong in helping other people,” and elaborated by saying “The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.” Bottom line, Ayn Rand was not against charity, she was against forced redistribution of wealth. Monbiot’s argument is nothing less than a classical straw man argument, suggesting that because Ayn Rand was against government forcefully robbing Peter to pay Paul, that she was against voluntary charity to Paul on behalf of compassionate individuals.
Monbiot also suggests Rand viewed the poor as “parasites” and the rich as people who deserve “unmediated power.” Although Rand often spoke of parasitism and of hero worship, as they are major themes in Atlas Shrugged, she never made such a generalization of the poor being parasites and the rich deserving unchecked power. In fact, one of the villains in Atlas, Orren Boyle, is a rich industrialist who is the owner of a steel company that produces inferior metals. She considered him a parasite because Orren Boyle relies not on his mind to produce products that offered value to his customers in order to become rich, but his political connections to line his pockets and pass laws in favor of his business at the expense of others. She elaborated upon the concept of parasitism by saying “Economically, the forced demands of one group create hardships for all others, thus producing an inextricable mixture of actual victims and plain parasites.” Notice how nowhere in that quotes does she single out the poor as the parasites or suggest that it is the rich who are the victims. She merely said that those who demand the unearned and advocate for the forced redistribution of wealth in order to gain the unearned are parasites, rich and poor alike. Atlas is a tale of the “moochers and the looters” vs. the producers. If he actually read the book, which I assume he hasn’t, he would have noticed there were rich moochers and looters and productive citizens who were materially poor.
Lastly, I’ll touch upon this notion that Rand believed the poor and their helpers “deserve to die.” Referring to an event in Atlas Shrugged, he claims “In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate [for helping the poor].” I can’t tell you how many times Statists reference this particular event in the book as “proof” Rand hated the poor and those who tried to help them. But truth be told, they miss the point of the passage entirely. As Rand describes the passengers in the train cars, it’s easy to understand the message she was trying to convey: that their deaths were no accident. She is simply illustrating the Law of Causality and that A + B = C. The people on the train died as a result of embracing a philosophy inconsistent with the furtherance of human life. This could not have been clearer when, before she describes some of the passengers, she writes (as Monbiot conveniently leaves out) “It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them.”2
She then expounds on this point by detailing the views held by the passengers, writing:
The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.
... The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.
…The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind — how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? — no reality — how can you prove that the tunnel exists? — no logic — why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? — no principles — why should you be bound by the law of cause and-effect? — no rights — why shouldn't you attach men to their jobs by force? — no morality — what's moral about running a railroad? — no absolutes — what difference does it make to you whether you live or die, anyway? He taught that we know nothing — why oppose the orders of your superiors? — that we can never be certain of anything — how do you know you're right? — that we must act on the expediency of the moment — you don't want to risk your job, do you?
…The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, “The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.”2
There are several more passengers she describes, but I think you get the idea. There’s a huge difference between saying a group of people “deserve” to die and explicitly outlining the reasons and causes that led to their deaths. It was nothing less than a warning to those who wish to live, to reject such destructive anti-life philosophies.
The Attack
Since most of Dominowski’s out-of-context quoting of Rand deals with topics already addressed above, I’ll cut to a few that were not. In his piece, he writes “But Rand was rife with contradictions, not just in her philosophy but in her personal life. She famously abhorred government-administered social programs such as Social Security and Medicare, yet unhesitatingly availed herself of both when she became eligible to receive their benefits.” Dominowski also labels Rand “a sociopath” who idolized “a serial killer named William Edward Hickman, who, in 1927, butchered a 12-year-old girl simply because he wanted to. ‘A real man,’ she exulted. While the nation was shocked, Rand was so delighted to have found someone who adhered so completely to her do-your-own-thing philosophy that she modeled one of her literary characters after him.”
The Truth
Anyone who knows Rand and her philosophy knows she absolutely unequivocally was against any type of welfare state program, including Social Security and Medicare. It is true, however, that she did receive such payments, but this hardly makes her a hypocrite. The reasoning is quite simple: she was forced to pay into these systems and morally deserved every cent of that back. It was, after all, her money. What Dominowski is suggesting is that if you are against theft and a criminal steals your stuff, it would be a contradiction of your values to take it back. Rand further clarified her position, saying “[T]he victims, who opposed such [welfare state] laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.”
Now, in regards to Hickman, the murderer Rand allegedly idolized, it just doesn’t seem consistent, and oddly out of character, for Rand to worship such a guy who gained notoriety by violating the rights of others. I’ll admit I had to do some research about this. Although, it wasn’t the first time I had heard this accusation, I thought it so ludicrous that it would just be a waste of time to investigate. It’s one of those things you just know is not true and can stand on its own as such, especially for someone like myself who has vast knowledge of Rand and Objectivism, which I came to accept in part because of its flawless consistency. But since such allegation has surfaced yet again, I figured it would be worth sometime, at least for me, to find out what this is all about. And of course, I came across some interesting words from Rand herself. In Rand’s private journals (first published in 1997) regarding the similarities between a character, Danny Renahan, in her play, The Little Street, and Hickman (which is the source of this accusation), she states that Renahan is “very far from [Hickman], of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.”3 She goes on to describe Hickman as “a purposeless monster.”3 So much for that.
The Attack
Stanley Crouch, a columnist at the New York Daily News goes on the attack by saying “[The Republicans’] hustle is all about the self. Forget everyone else. Nobody embodies this line of thinking better than Romney’s vice presidential nominee, Ryan, who was mentored intellectually by Ayn Rand, one of the most fraudulent ‘thinkers’ of our time. Rand, however, is perfect for a GOP taken over by loudmouths and cartoon toughs who are better at callousness than anything consisting of deep meaning.” Tell me how you really feel, Mr. Crouch!
The Truth
Although the fact that he feels Rand is a “fraudulent ‘thinker’” is his opinion, he does not opine what leads him to this conclusion. I’ll just stick that in the “ad hominem” box and leave it at that (also, see Rand’s quote on compassion above in regards to his “callous” remark; noticing a pattern yet?). His last sentence in the quote, however, is very telling. It reminds me of when Paul Krugman wrote that Republicans embrace free-market theories because they are “intellectually easy” while Keynesian economics is “intellectually hard,” all in an attempt to paint rightists and their sympathizers as unintelligent. Now, I’m not gloating here, but I’ve been described by many people as smart and intelligent and I’ve been studying Objectivism for 3 years now, and there are still aspects of it that require further study on my part. It is not an exaggeration to say that Objectivism takes brain power and a huge commitment in order to understand it fully and integrate its principles concretely. To say Rand’s philosophy lacks “deep meaning” suggests to me he never picked up her works or even tried to understand who she was. Regardless, it is also important to point out here that the simplicity or complexity of a given statement or idea has no bearing on its truth-value. Most adults would find 1+1=2 to be “intellectually easy,” to use Krugman’s words, but it also happens to be logically true! Crouch and Krugman’s argument as such is entirely pointless and fallacious, plain and simple.
The Attack
Grant Ferowich, writing about how Paul Ryan’s own mother received welfare, says “[A]ccording to strict anarchist Randian ideals, this mother and family [would] simply be weaker, and thus undeserving of any help they do not generate themselves. Rand championed ‘rational self-interest,’ integrity, productivity, and pride as the primary philosophical virtues. The single-mother family does not fall within this domain.”
The Truth
I was getting worried. It’s been a while since I actually heard someone refer to Rand’s politics as “anarchy.” I thought the left had finally embraced reason pertaining to this issue. No such luck, apparently. I would suggest to Ferowich, no offense intended, to pick up a dictionary. Not because Rand did not embrace anarchy (although it’s true she didn’t, as I’ll explain in a bit), but because a few lines prior, he writes “In essence, Rand instilled a sense of minimalist government….” Since when does limited government = no government?!?! His lack of understanding of such simple concepts is scary. But back to the crux of my argument, Rand was very much a proponent of government. She believed “If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.”4
With that said, I’m quite perplexed by the last sentence in his quote above. Weren't the Republicans engaged in a “war on women”? Suddenly, single-mothers (including their family members) lack integrity, productivity, and pride?!?! What an ignorant thing to say, not to mention it's flat-out insulting to all single-mothers. There are plenty of them out there who work hard to provide for their children. He clearly lacks any and all understanding of the concept of “rational self-interest.” A mother who provides for her child is not being selfless if she values her children, as rational mothers do. She is acting selfishly, with the utmost integrity to her values (her children) to sustain their lives via her work.
The Attack
James Zogby writes that “Rand's philosophy holds a particular appeal and is especially attractive to the developing adolescent mind. It is self-centered and certain -- traits appreciated by adolescents. And Rand's heroic individualists could be angry and dismissive of others, seeing them as burdensome and obstacles to be overcome on the way to self-fulfillment -- again attitudes quite compatible with adolescent behavior.”
The Truth
This seems to be what Ayn Rand would call an “Argument from Intimidation,” a logical fallacy, a sign of intellectual weakness substituting reason for psychological pressure. What he’s saying is “only the immature buy into this Objectivism nonsense.”
For more insight into the ridiculousness of this argument, I’ll appeal to Dr. Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. He writes:
It remains, however, all too common for a young person to be told that his interest in Ayn Rand is a stage he will soon grow out of. “It's fine to believe in that now,” the refrain goes, “but wait until you're older. You'll discover that life is not like that.”
But when you actually consider the essence of what Rand teaches, the accusation that her philosophy is [a] childish over-simplification stands as condemnation not of her ideas but of the adult world from which the accusation stems.
The key to Rand's popularity is that she appeals to the idealism of youth. She wrote in 1969: “There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days--the conviction that ideas matter.” The nature of this conviction? “That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one's mind matters. And the radiance of that certainty, in the process of growing up, is the best aspect of youth.”
Final Word
So why the blatant calculated dishonesty in regards to a philosophy that is premised on individual rights, that advocates a political system that protects those rights (of everyone, the poor included), that says happiness is attainable here and now, that their is no need to suffer, that prosperity, not hopelessness, is the result of rational behavior? If ignorance is their excuse, I certainly hope this post has clarified a few things. But it seems just from the nature of the attacks that there is something larger at play here; an intentional “war on reason,” if you will, with fear as their weapon of choice. One just does not evade reality on such a scale and purposely twist the facts of reality unless reality is one’s enemy, unless reality does not serve one’s own political agenda, an agenda premised on the exact opposite of what Rand advocated, an agenda advocating Statism and the violation of individual rights.
Objectivism is “the good” and this, as Ayn Rand would have said, is a classical hatred of the good for being the good.
Fear may be their weapon of choice, but those of us who know better have something much more powerful–reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
1Rand, Ayn. “Requiem for Man.” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Centennial ed. New York: Signet, 1967. 308. Print
2Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. Centennial ed. New York: Signet, 1957. 558-560. Print.
3Rand, Ayn, and Leonard Peikoff. The Journals of Ayn Rand. New York, NY: Plume, 1997. Print.
4Rand, Ayn. “The Nature of Government.” The Virtue of Selfishness. Centennial ed. New York: Signet, 1964. Print.
