| Ayn Rand: Conservative Heroine? | | Print | |
| Written by Joe Wolverton, II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tuesday, 03 November 2009 21:00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That’s putting it mildly. Ms. Heller illustrates Ms. Rand’s rank humanity with what reads as a zealous fervor. That is to say, with friends like Anne Heller, Ayn Rand needs no enemies. Whether she needs them or not, Ayn Rand has a lengthy and distinguished roster of enemies. While it is true that many of Rand’s most ardent and vocal enemies are to be found on the left side of the political spectrum, there are those on the right who disagree with her philosophy and the published pronouncements of it, as well. One of Ayn Rand’s most noted and respected conservative critics was Whitaker Chambers who in a 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged published in National Review described Rand’s most influential and best-selling novel as “remarkably silly,” “preposterous,” and full of “wickedness.” Apart from anything written in Rand’s books, Anne Heller’s own book lays out a pretty damning catalog of Ayn Rand’s personal wickedness, as well. According to Hirsch, Heller recounts the story of a 44-year-old married Rand falling in love with a 19-year-old fan named Nathan Branden. Shockingly, Rand follows Brand to New York, insinuates herself into every aspect of his personal life, and begins a sexual affair with him, despite instructing him that he should marry his girlfriend. Heller further describes how this despicable relationship was the genesis of a group of cult-like Rand worshipers who called themselves “the Collective.” According to a passage in the book quoted by Kirsch, the members of this fan club were so captivated by Ayn Rand that she “charmed so many young people into quoting John Galt [the capitalist hero of Atlas Shrugged] as religiously as clergymen quote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” Famously, Rand herself had no use for the authors of the Gospels or any other iteration or practice of Christianity. She was proudly atheistic and railed ceaselessly against what she perceived as the useless distractions of Christian morality specifically, and the fanciful delusions that results from worship of deity in general. Ayn Rand argued explicitly for the replacement of revelation with reason and regarded as nonsense the cherished traditions of Christianity. There was but one absolute truth to whose dogma Ayn Rand was faithful — reason. Faith, hope, and charity were bugaboos invented to stifle the self-interested, unabated capitalistic zeal she believed was the ideal. Ayn Rand’s literary expression of this ideal was John Galt. Galt was the hero, in a manner of speaking, of Rand’s most popular novel, Atlas Shrugged. Kirsch describes him as “an inventor disgusted by the creeping American collectivism.” Sounds good. All true conservatives are revolted by the daily march toward the sacrifice of American sovereignty to the will of globalists and other absolutists. Americans protective of their hard-won freedom rightfully reject all attempts to subvert their right of self-government. To that end, there are many self-styled conservatives who look to Ayn Rand and to Galt — her fed up capitalist archetype — for guidance and inspiration. In fact, according to a report published in the Washington Times, sales of Atlas Shrugged have tripled through April as compared to the same time last year. Among others, Kirsch lists Glenn Beck as a prominent Rand promoter, as well as Republican Representative John Campbell who reportedly commented that “people are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in Atlas Shrugged.” There is undoubtedly an air of truth in Congressman Campbell’s assessment of the desperation felt by so many Americans. Indeed, given the specter of socialized medicine, the collapse of the dollar, and the extension of welfare benefits to millions of illegal aliens, few conservatives could find fault with Galt’s declamation pronounced upon the announcing of a capitalist shut down, “We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.” There is much about Ayn Rand’s “style of vehement individualism” with which conservatives can and should find fault, however. It must never be forgotten that no matter how relevant or inspiring some of her prose might be, Ayn Rand was more profiteer than prophet, and those Americans of faith, of any faith, must be wary of supplanting that which is sacred with that which at its core is shamelessly profane. Rand created worlds and situations that suited her narrow, selfish concerns and reflected her objectivist worldview. To wit, Rand’s close friend and the heir to her estate, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, proudly proclaimed that of all the players invented by Ayn Rand, Rand most closely identified herself with a character in her first novel, We the Living, whom he described as an “egoist, an individualist, a man of arrogant self-esteem who lives for his values.” These values may be Ayn Rand’s, but they undeniably do not represent the core values of conservatives and patriots. For these dedicated men and women recognize that this nation is a nation built upon a solid irrefutable foundation of faith. More than with any captivating passages written by Ayn Rand decrying the ill-effects of the meddling of religion and God in American government and the poisoning effect of charity on the otherwise sweet water of capitalism, they identify with the following stirring words of President John Adams: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Photo of Ayn Rand: AP Images
Set as favorite
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (7)
Nicholas
said:
|
In the Sunday New York Times, Adam Kirsch, senior editor at The New Republic, writes a 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed |
Kirk's assessment still right on the money Russell Kirk called it right 21 years ago: http://www.heritage.org/resear.../hl158.cfm |
Pat
said:
 |
... Mr. Wolverton writes, "...this nation is a nation built upon a solid irrefutable foundation of faith." That is true for modern-day Iran. America, on the other hand, is a nation built on the principle of individual rights, and its Founders - most of whom were deists - added the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") because they recognized that only reason, not faith, can adjudicate conflicts among men. Most of the founders opposed religion; read their own statements here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177 As to Rand biography, its' obvious that neither Heller nor Kirsch has read Valliant's book, "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics," which reveals Rand's own private journals and shows how the Brandens and other "cultists" duped her to cash in on her name, then tried to save their reputations through massive lies after Rand was no longer living to defend herself. It's also obvious that Whitaker Chambers reviewed but never read Atlas Shrugged. Rand showed how values like rights and virtues like honesty can be objective - based on man's nature as the being who must think in order to live. Her work forever destroys religion's monopoly on morality, and shows how religion's standards of morality - living for others and living for the next life - are responsible for the pain and death of millions of victims over the millennia. Her morality - the new ethics of rational egoism - provides man with an objective standard (that which furthers his life qua man) and provides the heretofore missing ethical foundation for the political concept of individual rights. |
Lee Gonzales
said:
 |
No not deists- the Founding Fathers and Mothers were men and women of faith the Founding Fathers and Mothers were men and women of faith. Pat says "...- most of whom were deists." Not true, the Founders were influenced by men of the cloth like John Witherspoon. http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/658 John Eidsmoe who wrote the linked article says: "...Some have suggested that the Founding Fathers used the term "Providence" as an impersonal term for a deistic god who is not involved in human affairs, but in fact its meaning is the opposite. Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary of the English Language defined providence as "1. Foresight; timely care...; 2. The care of God over created beings; divine superintendence." Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defined providence as "3. In theology, the care and superintendence which God exercises over his creatures. He that acknowledges a creation and denies a providence, involves himself in a palpable contradiction; for the same power which caused a thing to exist is necessary to continue its existence."  |
Naumadd
said:
 |
Ayn Rand and Liberty I and many others so often associate Ayn Rand with the likes of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, etc. because they, even in the context of their personal errors of judgment, have all concerned themselves with one unwavering goal - what is irrefutably right for a human life versus what is irrefutably wrong. As others familiar with Rand's entire body of work would point out, she was as much opposed to the right-wing as to the left, as much opposed to conservatism as to today's liberalism but very much a proponent of classic liberalism - primary reverence for personal liberty guided by reason. She would be personally appalled, annoyed and no doubt wrathful toward those who would attempt to claim her as a "heroine" of anything but human passion guided only by reason (not apathy, not faith, not tradition) and an individual's need for and right to personal sovereignty (not the dictatorial tribalism of the so-called "common good"). One thing is certain, Ayn Rand is no friend to the infantile, weak and often mean-spirited arguments for control from the conservative right or the liberal left. She is a hero to those who love and desire a passionate and liberated human life guided by accurate observation (fact) and logically consistent reason. She was also ultimately a great advocate of empathy for one's fellow man. One has little argument for one's own liberty and well-being unless one also argues for the liberty and well-being of one's neighbor. It is the irrefutable basis of a thriving civilization. Predatory poor-thinking superstitious barbarians need not apply. |
Rob Quinn
said:
 |
The Pursuit of Happiness is Selfish An aspect of this article that I agree with is that Conservatism is anti-self and anti-reason. There is definitely no way that today's conservatives could ever have written the Declaration of Independence, which sets the individual free from the group, and has the most selfish line ever written: That man has a right to "the pursuit of happiness" - his ownhappiness, not his neighbors, not his religions, his own. |
matin
said:
 |
Flawed Article The moment a columnist delves into the subject's personal life as a means to criticize their philosphy (to demonstrate purported hypocrisy), the crtique is a failure. Are Jefferson's ideals any less valid because he held and fornicated with his slaves? Why is everyone so afraid of Ayn Rand? |
uglypuss
said:
 |
rand a real ann coulter liberal rand 1. anti war -- no one to initiate violence or force 2. 350 ppm co2 again no one to initate injury espically to children. 3. anti feedlot vegitarian .. as above |
