Ayn Rand should remain in her grave - William White

[TomSea]

GUEST COLUMN: Ayn Rand should remain in her grave
Thursday  Posted at 2:00 AM

For decades our Libertarian leaning Daily News, really our only local paper, sat dutifully in my driveway. Like most media, clearly tilted toward its customers. The Reagan/Thatcher team found ample comfort here claiming government was the problem. Odd, considering our huge government attachment!

Then Libertarian ideas took hold, moving Southerners into the Republican column. Where they remain. Paradoxically Red States with their social/financial shortcomings would appear most in need of government props. Not overlooking sea to shining sea DoD dependence. Okaloosans? Obviously.

Perhaps the parallels to socialism are obvious, uniformed and otherwise. Still the religion-like lure of Libertarianism runs deep here. Even within the federal government itself. Secretary Tillerson, Speaker Ryan, Congressman Paul, son Senator Rand Paul. All devotees of trickle down economics. Such thinking directly traceable to economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. Not to overlook the Fed’s keeper for many years, Allan Greenspan. Understandably left sobbing by the fall of ’08! Incidentally Greenspan was a contemporary and disciple of Ayn Rand herself.

Ayn who?

Continued: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20170525/guest-column-ayn-rand-should-remain-in-her-grave

[EC]

Yes, she should.

[endicom]

I think William White to be fairly clueless. Of the people mentioned, only Rand Paul and Milton Friedman could be called libertarian much less Libertarian.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

My commitment to freedom and liberty has not wavered at all, in the 15 years I've been a libertarian (or libertarian conservative).

[EasyAce]

I think William White to be fairly clueless. Of the people mentioned, only Rand Paul and Milton Friedman could be called libertarian much less Libertarian.

He seems---and he's hardly alone in this---even more clueless about the point that Randians aren't the only libertarians, or
even very libertarian themselves in certain regards. (Those who fume about the cult of the Presidency ought likewise to fume
at the cult mentality Rand herself inspired and fostered until a huge schism in her Objectivist movement between the late
1960s and early 1970s)

Indeed, the second best-remembered piece of writing by Whittaker Chambers (behind Witness, of course) is probably
his beatdown of Atlas Shrugged when the book was first published in 1957:

. . . One Big Brother is, of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands
are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her
own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps
for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-
financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls “productive achievement”
man’s noblest activity,” she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by
such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we
can freely entertain her objections. But, in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in
reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast with fiction, this can only head into a dicta-
torship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand
believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals,
vicious (as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be). Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship.
I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern
world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that the impulse
toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.

Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism
of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend
each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there,
at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler’s National
Socialism and Stalin’s brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view
from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The
question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who
can run it more efficiently?

Something of this implication is fixed in the book’s dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking
feature. 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. In
addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It
consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture
of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. 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!” The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results,
too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture-that
Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind
has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the
difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon
we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some
exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house.
A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

[Night Hides Not]

He seems---and he's hardly alone in this---even more clueless about the point that Randians aren't the only libertarians, or
even very libertarian themselves in certain regards. (Those who fume about the cult of the Presidency ought likewise to fume
at the cult mentality Rand herself inspired and fostered until a huge schism in her Objectivist movement between the late
1960s and early 1970s)

Indeed, the second best-remembered piece of writing by Whittaker Chambers (behind Witness, of course) is probably
his beatdown of Atlas Shrugged when the book was first published in 1957:

Ayn Rand was a brilliant, though deeply flawed individual (aren't we all?). Atlas Shrugged has stood the test of time as a great novel. Although verbose in several spots, her development of the characters has few peers.

Chambers opines

From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful
necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber–go!”

Good thing he never penned a review of Lord of the Rings, he would have wasted hours looking for Orcs.

I heard no such voice. John Galt was all about exercising free will and being responsible to one's self.

My liberal alumni friends used to question me about my enjoyment of Rand's novels, i.e. "how can a good Catholic like Rand?" My reply was simple, and it boiled down to the exercise of free will. She would have had no problem with my charitable contributions, as I make those from money I have earned, and I do it because I want to.

Just my $.02.

[dfwgator]

Officer Barbrady was more succint...



"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s___, I am never reading again."

[Lando Lincoln]

Like many, I have read every word of Atlas Shrugged more than once.  For me, reading it was never about entertainment.  In fact, I always find it to have an unpleasant sterility to it.  Rather, it has always been the admonishment - the warning - of the collectivist's ideology and its threat to our being.  That alone makes it worth the read; to take the time to understand immutable laws - of economics, production of "wealth", the impacts of over regulation, taxation and the politics of it all.  Yes, it worth the read.

[EC]

Never read it - not more than the first 40 pages, anyways. It's turgid prose bored the crap out of me and offended me in equal measure. Calling her characters one dimensional is an insult to mathematics. It's one of the very few books I've physically thrown away.

[catfish1957]

Never read it - not more than the first 40 pages, anyways. It's turgid prose bored the crap out of me and offended me in equal measure. Calling her characters one dimensional is an insult to mathematics. It's one of the very few books I've physically thrown away.

Sometimes substance trumps style.  Yeah, it's a dry read, but probably the most accurate likely dystopian scenario our society faces.

[catfish1957]

Officer Barbrady was more succint...



"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s___, I am never reading again."

SP stated that?  I thought these guys (Trey and Matt) were avowed Libertarians

[Bigun]

Never read it - not more than the first 40 pages, anyways. It's turgid prose bored the crap out of me and offended me in equal measure. Calling her characters one dimensional is an insult to mathematics. It's one of the very few books I've physically thrown away.

It IS hard reading! No denying it but it's worth it to endure as she KNOWS what she is talking about and proves it time and time again.  Not only Atlas Shrugged but every thing she ever wrote is a testament to her deep understanding of the human spirit!

[rodamala]

I think William White to be fairly clueless. Of the people mentioned, only Rand Paul and Milton Friedman could be called libertarian much less Libertarian.

Glad that someone else instantly pounced on the use of big L.  Big L Libertarians are merely potheads that don't want to pay taxes.

[endicom]

Never read it - not more than the first 40 pages, anyways. It's turgid prose bored the crap out of me and offended me in equal measure. Calling her characters one dimensional is an insult to mathematics. It's one of the very few books I've physically thrown away.

It's been decades but...

I thought her villains all too real and her heroes all too unreal.

[Night Hides Not]

Never read it - not more than the first 40 pages, anyways. It's turgid prose bored the crap out of me and offended me in equal measure. Calling her characters one dimensional is an insult to mathematics. It's one of the very few books I've physically thrown away.

To each his own. Considering that John Galt is not introduced until page 700 (+/-), I understand your position.

I found a good audio book of AS, 63 hours long...lol. It's great when I go for one of my 2-3 hour walks. It brings more life to the story.

[anubias]

I've read it multiple times.  I can't imagine anyone finding it boring as it is a timeless book that I always hate to put down until finished.

[Night Hides Not]

I've read it multiple times.  I can't imagine anyone finding it boring as it is a timeless book that I always hate to put down until finished.

So have I. There are a few parts I'll skim through, but there are a number of chapters I never get tired of reading. The Concerto of Deliverance, and the meeting of Ragnar and Hank are two memorable sections.

If you haven't tried the audio book, I recommend it. The last hour of Galt's speech is inspiring. The reader really brought the last argument of James and Cherryl to life...James was one nasty dude.

[EasyAce]

Ayn Rand was a brilliant, though deeply flawed individual (aren't we all?). Atlas Shrugged has stood the test of time as a great novel. Although verbose in several spots, her development of the characters has few peers.

Her character development is the best thing about her novels. Though I did remember reading The Fountainhead
and determining she'd written an excellent novel on behalf of horrible architecture. (To this day I think it's a better novel
than Atlas Shrugged.)

My own take on Rand is this: She was eloquent in arguing against statism and she should have left it at that. Trying
to catechise it into a formal, almost (dare I say it) religious movement proved her downfall, in hand with a pecadillo
or three that helped wreck her original movement.

I wouldn't speculate what Chambers would have thought of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I got why he felt
as he did about Atlas Shrugged. In college years, when I wrote for my campus bi-weekly, I had a round or
two with the Randians on campus over a Rand-related event and wrote rather critically of it. But I remember this
above most regarding those exchanges: As you could almost expect from any one of them, I was reminded
personally and verbally of Rand's mantra: "A = A." When I replied by quoting one from James Burnham---"Who says
A, must say B"---the Randian who confronted me personally was stuck for an answer.

[EasyAce]

I found a good audio book of AS, 63 hours long...lol. It's great when I go for one of my 2-3 hour walks. It brings more life to the story.

Sounds almost like a potential television series. ;)

[Gefn]

Her character development is the best thing about her novels. Though I did remember reading The Fountainhead
and determining she'd written an excellent novel on behalf of horrible architecture. (To this day I think it's a better novel
than Atlas Shrugged.)

My own take on Rand is this: She was eloquent in arguing against statism and she should have left it at that. Trying
to catechise it into a formal, almost (dare I say it) religious movement proved her downfall, in hand with a pecadillo
or three that helped wreck her original movement.

I wouldn't speculate what Chambers would have thought of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I got why he felt
as he did about Atlas Shrugged. In college years, when I wrote for my campus bi-weekly, I had a round or
two with the Randians on campus over a Rand-related event and wrote rather critically of it. But I remember this
above most regarding those exchanges: As you could almost expect from any one of them, I was reminded
personally and verbally of Rand's mantra: "A = A." When I replied by quoting one from James Burnham---"Who says
A, must say B"---the Randian who confronted me personally was stuck for an answer.

I agree with you. I loved both books, The Fountainhead is my favorite. I guess I was lucky. I had a philosophy prof who was one of her inner circle who introduced me to her work. She read parts of "Atlas" to that group every Saturday night in her apartment over dinner. She had cats - I remember  that. When she died, he had cancelled class to attend her funeral.