If I were to run for political office and wave around a copy of L. Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics," it would no doubt ruin me. But if I waved around a copy of Ayn Rand's no less insane "Atlas Shrugged" I would find support rushing toward me from all quarters from Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul and even many supposedly liberal Dartmouth students. The Ayn Rand virus is one of the most pernicious in the world today. Politicians regularly tout her ideas yet these ideas led her to make outrageous moral judgments.
I don't mean to make an argument merely on personal grounds, but what I am about to mention is a direct outgrowth of Rand's own "Objectivism." Let's consider a few simple facts: in her diary, Ayn Rand wrote admiringly of a young man on trial for kidnapping, raping and murdering a 12 year-old girl. She called him, "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy." Anton Lavey's revived "Church of Satan" took the Randian worldview as its primary inspiration, except with the added fun of black masses. Rand once called homosexuality, "disgusting and immoral." (Is a certain picture starting to emerge?) Yet, it was perfectly acceptable for Alan Greenspan one of the principal votaries of Rand's cult to chair the Federal Reserve.
Perhaps most disturbing about Rand is her attitude towards the idea of family and interpersonal relations grossly out of step with the conservatives who idolize her. Whittaker Chambers got to the heart of what is wrong with Rand, writing in an Atlas Shrugged review: "The strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged' is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy You may fool some adults; you can't fool little boys and girls with such stuff not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily." Having been acquainted with Rand's writing, this seems right on target. Rand's male and female heroes often relate to each other through angry sex, sparked by the desire for power. They may be capable of such grotesque erotic affection for one another, but they would be angered and confused by something like simple parental affection.
Rand exalts the pleasure principle above all else. As college students, we are at our most self-absorbed and hedonistic, and it makes sense that many of us would take to this philosophy like ants to maple syrup. But I see little sense in rejecting family happiness, as it is certainly the purest form of joy I have known. Don't reject sympathy, brotherly love, the prospect of having children, natural wonder, and all of the other things Rand dispensed with, in idealizing brutal technocrats. As spiritual forms of ethical philosophy have always shown and as purely physical science is even revealing, in contradiction to Rand's own version of materialism unconditional love and charity are what actually give the most pleasure. The brain itself responds more fervently to these stimuli than to any increase in wealth or power. Yet, as Chambers observed, Rand transforms all personal worth into market exchange value thus proving Marx correct, for this was the very thing he said that capitalism would do. (I personally disagree with Marx, but Rand does not help me in my disagreement.)
I frequently receive mailings about an Ayn Rand essay contest, in which Rand's foundation hands out prizes to young people who can best parrot her views. I have yet to receive letters inviting me to participate in, say, a Mark Twain essay contest or a Herman Melville essay contest. Or, how about a Karl Marx essay contest? That would be infinitely more of an intellectual challenge. But a Library of Congress poll once revealed that Atlas Shrugged is the most influential book in America today, next to the Bible. I fear we may not be drawing from the proper sources of intellectual sustenance.
We would be better off believing in a thousand different creeds believing that we need to paint ourselves blue and avoid all condiments, dips and seasonings than in the ravings of a crypto-fascist supporter of rapist-murderers or in Sarah Palin's cliff notes version. We would be better off living in barrels and trash cans than in Objectivist Technocracies as long as we could still exchange ourselves for others, and find ourselves more truly in that act. For, in the last deduction, Rand was really quite sad and miserable. I don't think her legions of fans can expect a much cheerier outcome provided they follow her principles exactly.
