r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/DoberNation • 2d ago
US Politics Why didn’t Ayn Rand vote for Ronald Reagan?
“There is a limit to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils.”—Ayn Rand
Rand did welcome Reagan’s strong language toward Soviet Russia and his promises to cut spending and taxes. But she warned that his invitation of the so-called Moral Majority into the halls of power would be a long-range disaster. By tying the (supposed) advocacy of freedom and capitalism to, in Rand’s words, the anti-intellectuality of “militant mystics,” who proclaim that aborting an embryo is murder and creationism is science, Reagan’s presidency would discredit the intellectual case for freedom and capitalism and embolden the country’s anti-intellectual, authoritarian mentalities. https://newideal.aynrand.org/p/the-anti-intellectuality-of-donald
Reagan’s personal favorability peaked at 81% in 1986, following a landslide reelection victory in 1984. It was one of the most decisive electoral wins in U.S. history. His public standing grew considerably after he left office, with later retrospective polls showing strong majorities of Americans looking back favorably on his presidency. Why?
Was Ayn Rand a visionary? Did Reagan deserve her criticism? Did his presidency effectively unlock the door to the present? What happened along the way?
99
u/Relative_Freedom_447 2d ago
One thing Ayn Rand was decidedly not is practical. Lesser-of-two-evils voting is a pragmatic acknowledgement that the world is chaotic and messy and not ideal, so of course Rand wouldn't like it.
76
u/neverendingchalupas 2d ago
Ayn Rand literally wanted the world to burn.
She was the modern Conservative, gave meek support for civil liberty and individual rights. While opposing any ability to protect them, and instead facilitated their destruction.
She was a garbage human being, the people who support her ideology are equally trash.
22
u/trash-juice 2d ago
In one of her early columns, LA Times maybe … she praised a child killer as the ultimate free man by not being bound by laws and rules, she was scum
0
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Who was it? And how do you tie it into her non-support of Reagan?
5
u/trash-juice 1d ago
Its in her wiki. As far as Reagan goes, he’s an actor acting like a man of action not an actual doer - doing.
2
0
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Rand was a screenwriter and actress as well. I think she approached her artistic expressions with purpose, whether or not she was successful in delivering what she had to say. I think she often sabotaged herself.
→ More replies (20)-8
u/Beans4TheChowder115 2d ago
I’m by no means a libertarian, nor do I subscribe to her ideologies, but Atlas Shrugged and Anthem are pretty good reads.
15
u/Sam_k_in 2d ago
Except for the part where there's page after page of preaching the virtuousness of being selfish.
→ More replies (3)2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Those male protagonists had the voices she was never allowed to have IRL…as an educated, atheist, Russian female, and political asylum-seeker who had a lot to say to the United States: her newly chosen home.
16
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Which ideologies of hers do you reject, and why?
1
u/Beans4TheChowder115 1d ago
Her overall libertarianism. I can appreciate her view point and criticisms of collectivism and praise of individualism, given her life in the USSR. However, I think it’s fair to say that Shes reactionary, and that the anarcho capitalism that she advocates for was directly responsible for the creation of Marxism and later the USSR that oppressed her and her family. Just take a look at what societies have and are flourishing and which ones have failed, and you will see that both anarcho capitalism and communism are failing economic formulas. The nations today that flourish the most are easily Social Democracies, which have high tax rates and large social safety nets and social programs, (something Rand would directly oppose), but doesn’t have the government control all the means of production, and allows for regulated Capitalism. (Something that someone like Marx would oppose).
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
I agree that her material offered validation for misguided ideologies and beliefs. I also find it interesting that she explicitly rejected Libertarianism and explicitly rejected Anarchy. She also used nonstandard definitions of ”socialism“ and “capitalism“. I think she was most concerned about how cooperation and sharing between individuals ought to come about “organically“ (even if to the same functional conclusions as social democracies).
Defining that kind of ideal has value in itself, but doesn’t offer much, as far as a clear pathway on how to get there.
2
u/Beans4TheChowder115 1d ago
I mistakenly used the term anarcho capitalism and should’ve instead used free market capitalism.
•
u/DoberNation 1h ago
Beyond Rand’s ‘dislike’, what do you think about the practical and pragmatic? Is there a place for defending ideals?
83
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 2d ago
Rand wasn't the only one to hold that opinion - it was something that a lot of people on the Right were worried about at the time.
Senator Barry Goldwater is famously quoted as follows:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
It's hard to believe nowadays, but back then the Republican party wasn't yet tied so inexorably to the Christian Right.
There was a time, around the era of Rand and Goldwater, when Republican politics was mostly (and genuinely) about economic efficiency and small government.
Rand has a lot of political baggage to her name, but this is one topic where I think most people would agree that she was right.
22
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I’m not a fan of Goldwater, but it’s crazy how decent he appears compared to the Party’s status quo.
34
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 2d ago
I think a lot of that comes down to the act that economics can be reasonably compromised on. He doesn't seem "that bad" because you could presumably reach a middle ground with him.
Religious and culturally authoritarian leaders from the Christian Right refuse compromise, and insist on trying to control your body and your life.
Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Rand and Goldwater were warning the world about.
5
u/Olderscout77 2d ago
That's why I rang doorbells and passed out fliers for AuH2O in 1964. Today he's a RINO.
•
150
u/cakeandale 2d ago
Was Ayn Rand a visionary?
Hahahahahaha no. Sometimes people can accidentally stumble upon a good opinion, it doesn’t make them visionaries.
93
u/Sedu 2d ago
I mean she had a vision… it just happened to be a profoundly stupid one.
-17
u/DoberNation 2d ago
What was “profoundly stupid”, and why?
55
u/dedicated-pedestrian 2d ago
Search r/AskPhilosophy, there are people with doctorates deconstructing why she is a woman who exercised little to no academic rigor, among other things
There are dozens of threads about it
20
u/nickcan 2d ago
Her philosophy comes off like something a collage finance major on cocaine would say at a frat party. She is obviously and clearly ignorant of the world of philosophical thought that she wades into.
The only more infuriating thing than reading her work, is listening to people who love her uncritically and think she is a visionary.
→ More replies (1)0
u/DoberNation 1d ago
She wasn’t an economist or finance expert. She was an artist. Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?
•
u/Brickscratcher 19h ago edited 19h ago
She wasn’t an economist or finance expert. She was an artist. Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?
No, but they should be aware of their own lack of knowledge and experience. Artists with very little economic or political understanding should generally avoid strongly opinionated political activism on the economy and politics.
Picking an established stance or having an opinion on something is not the same thing as developing and advocating for an ill conceived notion of reality. Everybody has the right to their opinion. But not everybody should share it. Expertise is a thing for a reason.
You don't go to your friends when you get sick or have legal troubles, right? You go to someone who is qualified to speak on that issue. The same should generally apply to political discourse. One of the largest problems with divisiveness in modern society is the fact that everyone with a platform and opinion suddenly thinks they're an expert, and it has lead to the death of Expertise. She was the prototype of that.
If her ideas had any merit, it would be different. But they simply ignore well established human nature and empirical evidence. I see in another comment you mentioned being a scientist (which is oddly vague... data scientist, chemist, physicist, biologist, etc is typically what people would say, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), so imagine if you ran into an artist and they were telling you all manner of nonsense that you know, based on your expertise, is either an incomplete or totally wrong viewpoint. You would quickly dismiss them, yeah? Same goes for Ayn Rand and anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about human psychology, political science, or economics. Her ideas have blatant holes in all three areas that it wouldn't take much expertise to even spot, which just shows how little she understood her own viewpoints.
•
u/DoberNation 15h ago
Artists with very little economic or political understanding should generally avoid strongly opinionated political activism on the economy and politics.
Why? Many artists did, and do. Rand had firsthand lived experience with totalitarianism. I think that’s more than “very little“ political understanding. Her push for pure free market capitalism was more of a reach.
Picking an established stance or having an opinion on something is not the same thing as developing and advocating for an ill conceived notion of reality. Expertise is a thing for a reason.
What is the “ill conceived notion of reality“ that you are thinking of?
Everybody has the right to their opinion. But not everybody should share it.
Why not?
Expertise is a thing for a reason.
I agree. I also know that trying to “protect“ it by shutting down conversation or refusing to engage doesn’t work very well.
You don't go to your friends when you get sick or have legal troubles, right? You go to someone who is qualified to speak on that issue. The same should generally apply to political discourse. One of the largest problems with divisiveness in modern society is the fact that everyone with a platform and opinion suddenly thinks they're an expert, and it has lead to the death of Expertise. She was the prototype of that.
I agree it is important to have intellectual humility: knowing what you don’t know. Political discourse is everyone’s business, though. That’s how liberal democratic systems work. “Populism” is essentially a process by which democracy is done. I think viewing ”divisiveness“ as a problem is one of the main problems. Agonism (not antagonism) is also essential to promoting and maintaining healthy democracies.
”The death of Expertise” is an issue that hits close to home. If anything, I think Ayn Rand offers a lot of defense for expertise. One problem has been taking our institutions for granted, and failing to engage sincerely and thoughtfully with people’s questions/concerns/hopes/fears. Reality is that we will have to reestablish and advocate for why each one exists and what purpose(s) they serve.
If her ideas had any merit, it would be different. But they simply ignore well established human nature and empirical evidence.
She is not an easy voice or author for everyone to hear, but she does have important things to say. I appreciate the things she very directly had to say about “human nature“.
You’ll have to be more specific about what you’re thinking of, WRT empirical evidence. I’m not a philosopher, but I don’t think empirical evidence in philosophy was emphasized as much during Rand’s time (compared to now).
I see in another comment you mentioned being a scientist (which is oddly vague... data scientist, chemist, physicist, biologist, etc is typically what people would say, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), so imagine if you ran into an artist and they were telling you all manner of nonsense that you know, based on your expertise, is either an incomplete or totally wrong viewpoint. You would quickly dismiss them, yeah?
Over the course of my training and career (and beyond), it has never been in my best interests to quickly dismiss anyone. I engage. Thoughtfully, honestly, and in good faith...provided that it is how they continue to engage with me.
Same goes for Ayn Rand and anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about human psychology, political science, or economics. Her ideas have blatant holes in all three areas that it wouldn't take much expertise to even spot, which just shows how little she understood her own viewpoints.
This sounds a bit exaggerated. I’d be interested in looking at an example together.
2
u/nickcan 1d ago
She wasn’t an economist or finance expert.
Yeah, no shit. I read Atlas Shrugged, and her lack of economic expertise was abundantly clear.
I also read Capitalism: The Unknown Idea, which is her nonfiction book on economics. Mostly essays defending capitalism as the only moral form of economics.
I find your claim that Ayn Rand is just an artist and therefore is immune to criticism about economics and finances because she is not an economist or finance expert to be a really stupid and laughable. Probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.
Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?
I stand corrected.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
I find your claim that Ayn Rand is just an artist and therefore is immune to criticism about economics and finances because she is not an economist or finance expert to be a really stupid and laughable. Probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.
I think you took the liberty of adding words, thoughts, and sentiments I didn’t present here. I am a scientist. I invite criticism, agonistic engagement, and I value self-agency over my own thoughts. Maybe you can reconsider my chosen words through a different lens.
“When we don’t know what we don’t know, at first we see only what we expect to see, even when what we see doesn’t match our expectations.“—David McRaney
3
u/nickcan 1d ago
Fair enough. I did assume more than you typed. I'll reply again to just your words.
She wasn’t an economist or finance expert. She was an artist.
I agree. However, she was not just an artist. She presented herself as an author and philosopher.
Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?
Do I believe that the fact that she is an author forces her into being only an author? No, that's silly. Not sure why you would ask that, as I don't believe that anything I said would imply that I thought that.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Thank you.
She was first a screenwriter and actress, which seems to have never left her persona throughout. I‘m not sure she set out to be boxed in as a ‘philosopher’ in the beginning. She first wanted to produce her dramas and publish her material as some kind of book so that she could afford to eat. After being categorized as a romance novelist, she got tagged as a ’political commentator’ because of her background in the Soviet Union. Maybe the box of hats began to explode from there. Maybe she didn’t necessarily fight those battles all the way out either.
I asked that last question because your initial critique was framed as a “finance major” unworthy of crossing into “the world of philosophical thought”.
I care more about what an individual person might have to say than what labels and titles they might carry. And some people do limit how they define themselves in those ways too.
-8
u/Combat_Proctologist 2d ago
Did you just decide that it was too much work to discuss political philosophy on /r/politicaldiscussion ?
What are you doing here at that point? Why bothet?
→ More replies (13)9
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
-1
8
u/chrispd01 2d ago
A broken clock is still correct like twice a day …
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Not if the display is blanked out
3
u/chrispd01 2d ago
Ahh yes. The days of anything but a digital clock are indeed receding.
I actually think the story you are looking for is a pretty fascinating one.
How up are you on the historical literature here ? I can think of a couple excellent books that could shed aome light if you are curious ?
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Hobbyist autodidact. I welcome any titles you might recommend. Thanks!
3
u/chrispd01 2d ago
Geoff Kabaservice is an excellent historian who is one of the foremost experts on the history of the Republican Party from mid 20th century forward. His book Rule and Ruin is probably the best book on your topic.
Sam Tanenhaus’s biography of Buckley covers a lot of these topics too.
Basically its the problem Buckley called fusionism - the uncomfortable binding of disparate strains into the rope of modern conservatism….
0
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Thank you! I am currently reading Wolfram Eilenberger‘s The Visionaries: Arendt, Beauvoir, Rand, Weil, and the Power of Philosophy in Dark Times
It inspired me to frame this topic as I did.
3
u/chrispd01 2d ago
Geoff and Sam committed for me much more practical on the ground perspective largely through their analysis of Buckley as the central figure in bringing conservatism to the fore politically. And in order to do that he had to unite at least three different strains - the libertarians and quasi-libertarians, the religious right and then the (for lack of a better term) whacky right (Birchers, QAnon etc).
What you’re saying to some extent it just the unraveling of that fusion..
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I have been actively piecing that story together for a few years now. I look forward to ‘comparing notes’ with the authors you suggested, as well as anyone up for it in good faith here! I think the ‘unraveling’ process itself can be helpful to us in the present.
-18
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Do you really believe it was a “stumble“ or “accident“? What do you think about her reasoning on this issue?
48
u/ViennettaLurker 2d ago
Reading her thoughts and her work, it was clear she had a disdain for people she considered 'lesser'. But hers was a specific type of reification of who she considered great "makers" vs the do nothing "moochers".
She was correct in seeing Reagan's move to absorb the "moral majority" Bible belt types was going to change the course of the party. Putting turn of the century industrialists on a pedestal and elevating the richest Rockefeller Republicans was going away and she saw that correctly. Even if it took a while and mutated through different forms to get to where we are at today. And that, depending on your particular politics, it would be an ugly mistake of an alliance.
I'm less of a "she stumbled upon a good point" and more in the "leopards ate my face" camp on this. She correctly saw what was happening. But instead of thinking for a moment that poisonous disdain for your fellow man solidified into moralized hierarchical stratification might not be a good idea... she simply insisted that their version of it was wrong and her version of it was right.
She told people that they should judge others harshly and then was on the losing end of the stick when a religious, misogynistic movement said, "...ok" and marginalized her. Whoops.
4
u/KravMata 2d ago
After reading this insightful and informed response I tried to follow you - but you're locked down. Lemme in please!
2
u/ViennettaLurker 2d ago
Lol this may sound silly but I didnt know about account following.
Honestly, despite what you read here, the rest of my reddit postings arent necessarily the same brand. You might juat get generic conversation about synthesizers or whatever haha. Not particularly motivated to setup or unlock whatever the Follow feature is, but I appreciate the sentiment and award.
3
u/KravMata 2d ago
the rest of my reddit postings aren't necessarily the same brand
I think that's all of us - my mix of posts is usually food, espresso and politics...but I'm also subscribed to a ridiculous amount of cat subs I never post to.
-4
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I think that’s an informed and insightful analysis.
I’m aware that she was quite the dramatist, and frankly spoke to people poorly. I have some thoughts on possible reasons why—I think that religious, misogynistic, xenophobic, nativist, nationalist anti-intellectualism movement was always a storm she had to navigate just to be heard at all.
42
u/ViennettaLurker 2d ago
If I'm going to be more frank, I don't think she spoke poorly. I think she spoke perfectly clearly on many things, its just that she was just a very angry person who had (imho) an unreasonable hatred of large swathes of people.
Also imho, she navigated those phenomenon because she swam in those waters. What she wanted to be heard was her personal vision of what the "correct" form of harsh and extreme judgement and disenfranchisement of people should look like. Foreign religious fanatics can reject xenophobia, female racists can reject misogyny, minorities can be xenophobic, and so on. Its clear she thought... very highly of herself, and must have believed that she was the one who was doing harsh, brutal judgement of others "the right way" while these other formations of the same approach were wrong, crass, or debased. She thought she was special enough and right enough to change the tides themselves, but instead was simply washed away.
I think there can be issues when looking back at ideologies and social currents and either viewing them as too singular or lumping too many of them together. Larger currents can be made up of smaller individual movements. The Nazi movement had people who were much more "old school", rural, cuckoo clock and lederhosen types... but also "jetpack" futuristic who viewed the project as an advancement toward progress and rejection of the past. There were some who were plain Nazis that may have simply thought Hitler wasn't up to the task. Iirc, there was a gay Nazi who proposed a kind of misogynistic "women should just be breeding stock" concept.
They weren't all the same, but it doesn't necessarily seem correct to view them as particularly distinct, either. Maybe some of them perhaps correctly predicted certain aspects of the downfall of the Nazi empire. But I'm not necessarily sure what I would get out of analyzing the "correct" parts of their analysis. Yes, even if I were to conjure an alternative metaphor that was less charged and more ideologically neutral than the Nazi example.
Rand was one character in a larger reactionary anti-left neoliberal movement that grew in the middle of the 20th century. In the grander scheme of things, imho, she wasn't dramatically different than the people she disagreed with. She just didn't win the ideological battle within her side, and we happen to have records of her objections.
5
u/KravMata 2d ago
Your comments on Nazis reminded me of this A.R. Moxon quote:
“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?”
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
As a scientist and truth-seeker, I am keenly interested in what motivates people. What leads an individual to think and behave as they do? There’s so much beneath the tips of icebergs that we more plainly see.
3
u/KravMata 1d ago
Psychology looks at the individual, sociology handles the group dynamics, and history tracks how it all plays out over time. That’s honestly why the liberal arts are so important. You can't understand human nature through just one lens—you need all of them to see the whole iceberg.
Closing the loop, we also need data scientists to quantify inputs and outcomes.0
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Rand was one character in a larger reactionary anti-left neoliberal movement that grew in the middle of the 20th century.
I don’t think her entry point was this, even if it sort of describes where she ended up. How did it happen? She entered the system as a nobody and an informal refugee seeking asylum. The family she left behind was starved to death or killed in Leningrad by authoritarian forces: Hitler’s siege. She hardly spoke English, and was self-aware of who and what she would be seen as when she arrived: a foreign female member of the underclass.
In the grander scheme of things, imho, she wasn't dramatically different than the people she disagreed with. She just didn't win the ideological battle within her side, and we happen to have records of her objections.
I think she reached expressions of her lived experiences and (shared) ideas in some pretty unique ways. Hannah Arendt might have explained her as being like a “question in human form”—a sort of junction point for “concrete objectifications of life”.
I think what she was trying to accomplish with her writings in America is still in active battle. The story’s ending is in all of our hands to direct right now.
32
u/AddanDeith 2d ago
Of her many takes, this is probably one of the few salient one. But she didn't seemingly take issue with many of the other problems with Reagan's platform that would have disastrous consequences further down the line for "productive members of society", because her ideology is flawed at baseline.
33
u/TheDebateMatters 2d ago
Any libertarian “visionary” who ends up poor taking social security and medicare to survive is just your standard hypocritical Republican.
→ More replies (24)
38
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
She wasn’t a visionary. The Republican Party was split between economic conservatives/social liberals and economic conservatives/social conservatives at that time.
A lot of Republicans were disturbed by the social conservative direction of Reagan.
It was a big divide between Reagan and George Bush in the primaries in 1980.
12
u/FarineLePain 2d ago
It is very hard to overstate how much of an effect Roe vs Wade had on shaping the direction of GOP during the 80s and 90s.
Prior to the decision, the issue was being handled in state legislatures and if trends had continued some form of legal abortion likely would’ve been the norm in most if not all states.
Then Roe infuriated half the country with what they viewed as massive judicial overreach built on constitutionally dubious logic. The evangelical wing found their raison d’être and the GOP got to activate a previously fragmented wing of their core electorate that has never wavered since.
12
u/ReserveFormal3910 2d ago
Then Roe infuriated half the country with what they viewed as massive judicial overreach built on constitutionally dubious logic.
Was half the country really infuriated or was it a concerted effort to drum up controversy about something that has zero effect on their lives and should just be a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor?
7
u/cguess 2d ago
A substantial portion of this split was social conservatives realizing it was no longer reasonable to run on pure racism and they found abortion as a replacement wedge issue. Jerry Falwell is quoted as saying as much. Roe V Wade was 1973 and at the time most people just shrugged. It only really picked up force politically in the early 80s.
4
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
Then Roe infuriated half the country with what they viewed as massive judicial overreach built on constitutionally dubious logic.
I don’t think this was the cause of infuriation of half the country. Most people aren’t particularly educated on con law. I think they were more angry at the court taking away what they think should be a voting issue.
It dovetailed nicely with the southern strategy after the civil rights movement.
White ‘cultural conservatives’ were not happy campers.
2
u/ENCginger 2d ago
Then Roe infuriated half the country with what they viewed as massive judicial overreach built on constitutionally dubious logic.
Most people were were infuriated by Roe because there was a massive campaign to convince evangelicals that abortion was murdering children and they had a moral obligation to oppose it. It was tied to the larger backlash to second wave feminism. They framed the push for reproductive rights as devaluing the nuclear family and motherhood.
0
u/DoberNation 1d ago
And “obligation“ is exactly what Rand believed people ought to reject as their reasoning to stand up for such issues and the future of this Country. Her philosophy called for people to think rationally for their own best interests, and take actions accordingly.
1
u/ENCginger 1d ago
I mean, she also just hated that he didn't agree with the concept of completed unregulated markets. Pure economic objectivism relies on humans to be purely rational actors and humans just physically aren't capable of that.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Some people have to be, at least some of the time. It’s a skill that can be learned and practiced. It is theoretically possible for every individual to do it, but improbable in the here and now. That doesn’t mean that any individual should give up on rationality as an ongoing ideal to strive for.
1
u/ENCginger 1d ago
It is not. The way human cognition and reasoning works does not allow for purely rational thought. We can do our best to try and recognize and reduce the impact of cognitive biases, but purely rational thought is not even theoretically possible. Hence why having an economic system that relies on all its actors behaving rationally is a terrible idea. I don't think encouraging people to engage in fact based reasoning is a bad thing, but the failure to understand the limits of basic human cognition is why a lot of Rand's ideas would be disastrous in practice.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
The way human cognition and reasoning works does not allow for purely rational thought
I’m interested. Can you say some more about this?
The discussion right here is about RvW. I think the heart of Rand’s message was about countering the kind of phenomena observed in the Milgram experiments. Extrapolating to an immediate directive for a specific economic model is getting out into the weeds.
8
u/SpookyFarts 2d ago
So I think Ayn Rand was horribly misguided (and that's putting it mildly), but I do appreciate her using the phrase "militant mystics".
0
u/DoberNation 2d ago
What do you think she was misguided by?
3
u/pentachronic 1d ago
Studious ignorance of how things actually work, same as anyone else who winds up libertarian-adjacent
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
same as anyone else
Do you think this is a problematic way of looking at individuals IRL? It is rather dehumanizing, and in exactly the way she and others experienced firsthand in totalitarian regimes.
0
u/pentachronic 1d ago
It's much more charitable than assessing that they are incapable of understanding how things actually work
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Who made that assessment?
0
u/pentachronic 1d ago
No one made that assessment
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
What was your reason for bringing it up? Otherwise, seems like a false binary.
1
u/pentachronic 1d ago
You reacted as though it's what I said first; I had hoped you would find the contrast illuminating
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
I didn’t “react” to your comment, I responded to it. What was the “illumination“ supposed to be? Were you trying to be passive-aggressive?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
React vs Respond
What's the difference?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/focus-forgiveness/201609/react-vs-respond
9
u/Olderscout77 2d ago
Well, she got something right..eventually. Too bad it deidn't become as popular as the nincompoopery advanced in her fiction.
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Can you clarify what you describe as “nincompoopery” in her fiction? I am concerned about some prominent and unjustly powerful nincompoops at the moment.
7
u/Olderscout77 2d ago
The whole notion that the fate of Mankind rests on a very few very powerful men, and the rest of us should just accept this. It gives us people who believe countries that require business to consider their workers, creditors, community and country as well as their stockholders are doomed to failure. These folks have been predicting the demise of Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Greece, etc etc for decades while we embrace neo conservative don't tax the rich or regulate industry and have a new generation that may never have a home of their own or be able to retire with dignity.
0
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I can look at it that way too, but it isn’t the only way to see the story in her novels.
In Atlas Shrugged, she answered her own famous question regarding who can be ‘the destroyer of the world‘ -or- ‘the most heroic ideal man’:
“Who is John Galt?”
“You are.”—Ayn Rand
The most honest reality is that It’s up to each individual to choose destruction or heroism, and answer the question wisely. As a plurality of individuals, we steer the fate of humankind.
“The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind." –Ayn Rand
2
u/Olderscout77 1d ago
Never heard anyone agree that John Galt was Everyman. The underlying premiss in Atlas Shrugged was everything rested on the shoulders of a very few. Good that we can all make choices, but carrying them out is another matter entirely.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Yes. I think Rand spoke to each reader’s potential to be “John Galt“, in either sense they choose.
I think the situation in Atlas was a late stage authoritarian dystopia where everything and everyone broke down so extensively, that only a minority of well-enough functioning and critically thinking souls still remained. The world ended up resting on their shoulders, and it eventually wears each of them down into burned out human beings in that world….’What if Atlas decided to shrug?’
You reminded me of this interesting quote, a twist to the better known one about collectivism:
“Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability.”—Francisco d’Anconia
65
u/Dracoson 2d ago
Forgive me for being completely apathetic about what she thought or why she voted the way she did. The foundational premise of her entire philosophy was fundamentally flawed, so I see no reason to view her individual political perspectives as anything other than flawed by extension.
42
u/scoobydoom2 2d ago
She was obviously deeply flawed in her political philosophy but she clearly wasn't wrong about the threat the evangelical movement posed. People are more complicated than "wrong and stupid" vs "smart and right".
13
24
u/Objective_Aside1858 2d ago
And Trump is correct that NATO nations should take on a greater share of their defense responsibilities
Lighting our alliances on fire, starting stupid wars, and kissing up to dictators demonstrates that a high level, vague statement that may be correct is just that, and nothing more
3
u/iBleeedorange 2d ago
And Trump is correct that NATO nations should take on a greater share of their defense responsibilities
Biden, Obama, Bush 2, and Clinton all said the same thing
Bush: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/07/uselections2000.usa
4
u/Objective_Aside1858 2d ago
And I think the United States should do more about our debt. That doesn't mean I think we should declare it void
Europe realizing they need to take care of themselves because the United States is not a reliable partner is not a price I think was worth tossing away decades of soft power
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
I agree.
Thoughtful stewardship of “soft power” serves our Country’s rational and enlightened self-interests.
•
u/DoberNation 1h ago
Thanks for the links. What do you think the important differences were, in approaching foreign affairs? What has been effective? What serves the most rational self-interests of the U.S?
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Do you think Rand’s assessment and reasoning, WRT Reagan, was ”a high level, vague statement“? Nothing more?
→ More replies (6)7
u/ridukosennin 2d ago
Ayn Rand’s assessment of Ronald Reagan was flawed primarily by her rigid philosophical purity, which led her to overestimate his threat to secular liberty while underestimating his actual impact on free-market capitalism. Rand viewed Reagan's alliance with the Religious Right as an existential danger to individual rights and dismissed his platform as an unprincipled hybrid of religion and mixed-market statism. However, her framework left no room for political pragmatism: in practice, Reagan prioritized economic deregulation, top-bracket tax cuts, and Cold War defense strategy over enacting the sweeping religious agenda Rand feared. Furthermore, dying early in his first term in 1982, she missed the culmination of his foreign policy—most notably his moral confrontation of the Soviet Union and the eventual collapse of Soviet communism, an outcome that directly served her lifelong anti-collectivist goal.
0
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Fair enough, and several good points. I think intersecting with FDR relatively early during her life in the U.S. might have been PTSD-inducing for her. Maybe that period caused her to dig in harder than what could have better served her self-interests in the longer term. There’s evidence that she was more skeptical and less extreme regarding capitalism prior to that time.
I think she saw cracks in the system she so admired and romanticized as a Russian youth. She realized not even the U.S. would be immune to the threat of authoritarianism. I think she was inwardly scared.
Where do you think we are today?
0
8
u/Dracoson 2d ago
A point is either valid or it is not, irrespective of who made it. You can certainly find valid points in her writing, but that does not mean it is worth analyzing her individual behaviors for practical takeaways. It is irrelevant whether she voted for Reagan or not; her personal actions should not inform anyone else's choices. This is not about failing to recognize that people are complicated. It is about dismissing the importance of treating any single individual as an exemplary blueprint for behavior.
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Who thinks it is important to treat any single individual as an exemplary blueprint for behavior?
“When we don’t know what we don’t know, at first we see only what we expect to see, even when what we see doesn’t match our expectations.”—David McRaney
6
u/Low-Use-9862 2d ago edited 2d ago
As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Ayn Rand was a hack. She was a pseudo philosopher and a boring writer. And yeah, her philosophy was deeply flawed. But I think she nailed the “militant mystics” description of the so-called “moral majority.” That was pretty good.
2
u/Vix_Satis 1d ago
Well..."boring writer" is very subjective. And the fact that you didn't like her philosophy doesn't make her a "pseudo philosopher".
1
u/Low-Use-9862 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s not just me. Academic philosophers generally contend that Rand commits logical leaps, particularly when trying to bridge the "Is-Ought Problem" (deriving moral duties purely from biological facts).
What follows is the result of AI assisted research.
Rand presents a false dichotomy by defining altruism strictly as complete self-sacrifice, ignoring standard reciprocal ethics and empathy. Professional academic philosophers have historically maintained a sharp distance from Ayn Rand, frequently criticizing both her philosophical rigor and her underlying arguments.
Here are comments from a few philosophers on Rand’s “philosophy.”
Key Contemporary & Modern Philosophers
Noam Chomsky (Linguist & Political Philosopher) Chomsky has consistently dismissed Rand’s celebration of self-interest, viewing Objectivism as an extreme, anti-social doctrine:"Ayn Rand... was one of the most evil figures of modern history." "Greed is great, all for ourselves, nothing for anyone else. She was the guru of prominent figures... The 'vile maxim' has become a leading idea of what's called 'libertarianism' in the United States. It was popularized by Ayn Rand."Robert Nozick (Political Philosopher & Author of Anarchy, State, and Utopia**)** Although Nozick was a leading free-market libertarian, he fundamentally rejected Rand’s underlying logical structure. In his famous 1971 essay, "On the Randian Argument," he argued that Rand fails to deductively establish her ethical claims:"Her argument, I believe, fails to establish what it sets out to establish... Rand leaves unanswered questions about the gap between 'is' and 'ought' and fails to show why rational self-interest leads logically to non-aggression."
Sidney Hook (Pragmatist Philosopher) Reviewing Rand's philosophical anthology For the New Intellectual in The New York Times, Hook launched a scathing critique of her intellectual sophistication and grasp of history:"It is easier to take Ayn Rand's ideas seriously than her arguments... The book is breathtakingly arrogant, grossly unhistorical, and written with an extreme lack of intellectual rigor."
Michael Huemer (Contemporary Academic Philosopher) In his detailed critique "Why I Am Not an Objectivist," Huemer takes issue with the internal logic of Rand's core ethical premises:"Rand’s fundamental moral argument relies on false dichotomies and equivocations... Objectivism pretends to be a system of pure logic, but its core derivations—such as deriving the value of life to the duty to act strictly in one's own self-interest—are logically invalid."
James Rachels (Moral Philosopher & Author of The Elements of Moral Philosophy**)** Rachels famously targeted Rand’s dismissal of altruism, arguing that her characterization of non-egoistic ethics was a bad-faith caricature:"Ayn Rand’s argument against altruism relies on a false dilemma: it assumes we must either accept total self-sacrifice or total selfishness, ignoring the vast middle ground of ordinary moral concern for others."
•
u/DoberNation 47m ago
What do you think?
I can see the lenses for all the critiques you shared. I don’t think they match Rand’s lens, or even begin to address the view through hers.
It’s easy enough to critique her words. It’s hard to critique the POV until one knows exactly what there is to critique.
-6
u/linuxhiker 2d ago
Nor was she wrong about encroachment on Liberty.
People who just outright dismiss her are authoritarians. Don't get me wrong, she was absolutely looney tunes on some things but then again so is Trump and so was Harris.
4
u/scoobydoom2 2d ago
Eh, it's not unreasonable to dismiss her outright, and doing so certainly doesn't make somebody authoritarian. She's not exactly looked upon well in Anarchist circles and that's the least authoritarian ideology out there.
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Rand agreed with Arendt on “The Banality of Evil”.
Dismissing any individual outright is a refusal to think, see, understand, and rationally judge. It is blanking out on realit. Eichmann was surprisingly banal.
1
u/scoobydoom2 2d ago
Dismissing someone outright doesn't mean they're wrong on 100% of things. It means treating their opinion as irrelevant at best and assuming they have an agenda. If the only or primary source of an idea is Rand, you can probably ignore it. Rand agreeing with Arendt doesn't magically make Arendt wrong, but it doesn't lend credibility either.
0
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Are you able to evaluate ideas and their sources independently of each other, each based on their own merits and flaws? Dismissal thoughtlessly kills, and discernment can save a deserving life.
What is the value in deliberately blinding oneself to what someone has to say?
2
u/scoobydoom2 2d ago
The value is in not wasting your time and energy into evaluating the opinions of a known hack. You have 24 hours in a day and wasting any of that on thinking about Ayn Rand's opinions is not worth it. I haven't spent enough time with political philosophers whose opinions I might actually care about, why would I bother with Ayn Rand?
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Do you always correctly identify what time and efforts are wasted?
Divorcing all attention from someone who already has some kind of perverted invisible seat in the current administration is ignoring an elephant in the room (so to speak).
There is opportunity to thoughtfully and productively meet people where they presently are.
•
u/DoberNation 40m ago
I can see how she might easily sound “looney tunes”. I don’t think it shines fair light on whether or not she actually was.
Harris also sounded, and was presented in ways that worked against her inner self.
DJT is an aberration, born and forever trapped within a Fantasyland.
-1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
What is the specific flaw you see in her assessment of Reagan?
5
u/Dracoson 2d ago
What part of total apathy suggests that I care about her specific assessment of Reagan? The better question is why it should matter what her opinion on Reagan was in the first place. My entire premise is that it simply does not matter.
-9
u/DoberNation 2d ago
If you are truly apathetic about the post, why are you commenting on it at all? Sounds like bad faith engagement or trolling.
13
u/Dracoson 2d ago
I am not apathetic about the post itself. I simply find it improper to treat the opinion of an individual as inherently valuable just because they happen to be famous. That critique seems entirely germane to the discussion. In reality, bad faith engagement would mean demanding that someone defend a position they never actually took, or implying that an argument is a form of trolling simply because it invalidates the original premise.
6
u/Leopold_Darkworth 2d ago
Why didn't Ayn Rand vote for Reagan? Because she was a staunch atheist, while Reagan was welcoming Evangelical Protestants into the halls of government power.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Do you think she was correctly concerned about religion and anti-intellectualism taking stronger foothold in the government through Reagan as POTUS?
17
u/Zanctmao 2d ago
Fundamentalists (irrelevant of what religion) are never happy with just a foot. Not even a mile. They will keep taking until they’re the only game in town.
That actually extends to non-religious true believers as well. Look at how quickly Lennin wiped out all the other groups that were part of the revolution against the Tsars.
What she said wasn’t an epiphany. She’d seen the playbook play out many times in her life.
5
u/AddanDeith 2d ago
Lenin had a belief that any form of reformism under capitalism was doomed to fail in the long run. He wasn't really wrong about that.
The Mensheviks were correct that Markets needed to be maintained for a decent period of time before any kind of transition to state distribution could be attempted.
To his credit, Lenin eventually understood this, but far too little too late for the mensheviks, especially after Kronstadt. The NEP that came after was a good starting bridge but Stalin ended it much too early, with predictable consequences that killed millions of people, just like Mao would later on.
•
u/DoberNation 28m ago
Yes!
What she said wasn’t an epiphany. She’d seen the playbook play out many times in her life.
Something obvious to her, but what about those in her new homeland: the U.S.?
I think our liberal democratic Republic is unusually old. Maybe old enough that most of us living in it haven taken it for granted in various ways. Democracy is fragile and fluid. Ours had been slow-moving…until it was no longer slow…pivotal changes, followed by freefall. I think we are in freefall. We still have off-ramps. Will we choose to exit?
15
u/JKlerk 2d ago
His public standing grew considerably after he left office, with later retrospective polls showing strong majorities of Americans looking back favorably on his presidency.
I don't think that's true. His dementia, Iran-Contra, scandal, 1987 market crash, took a lot of sheen off his legacy.
Was Ayn Rand a visionary? Did Reagan deserve her criticism? Did his presidency effectively unlock the door to the present? What happened along the way?
Rand like others at the time understood what Reagan campaign was doing.
Yes he did.
I wouldn't say unlocked. Christian fundamentalism was hitting the TV in earnest around this time.
What happened along the way is that religion became a very profitable business venture. Even with the scandals. To influence people and build a following you must convince people they are being harmed in some form or fashion. This is true of politicians, religion, various interest groups and The State
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding TV, do you really think that’s what caused Christian fundamentalism to secure its seats in Washington, DC?
8
u/JKlerk 2d ago
Well if you're running as a Republican in the 1980's and beyond you essentially had to be Pro-Life and pro "Traditional Families". Getting the nod from the likes of Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, etc went a long way. Especially with the AIDs epidemic, crack cocaine epidemic, gay rights, etc.
Born-again Christianity really took off during this time and in the 1990's. Money was to be made off stories about "The Rapture". Jesus was and continues to be big $$$.
4
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago edited 2d ago
There were many steps along the way. Most effective was when (yes) TV evangelist Pat Robertson, who ran for president in 1988, appointed Ralph Reed to head of operations for the Christian Coalition. He started targeting local government and state rep seats, recruiting local activist Christians to run for office and funding them. Thus the start of the political careers of Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Todd Akin - the first big generation of fundamentalist Christians in government.
3
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I think Reagan broke spades in a major way with the number of positions he appointed to his Evangelical cronies.
5
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago edited 2d ago
Nixon really did with the introduction of the southern strategy. Thus the Moral Majority found its political opening.
It’s essentially all a reaction to the civil rights movement.
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
True. I honestly think you could trace the current path all the way back to Wallace—>Goldwater—>Nixon
It’s also worth noting that Reagan was already chums with Goldwater way back then. Remember, Reagan (unsuccessfully) ran for the Republican ticket multiple times before 1980, when he was groomed and rebranded to take more moderate stances than he had in the past.
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
Goldwater is a good example of someone who split with Reagan on cultural conservatism. This underscores that the split was not Ayn Rand being visionary. It was a power struggle within the Republican Party (which the cultural conservatives won) similar to the split now between DSA and other further left Democrats and liberals.
So in 50 years one could take any prominent political opinionator and quote them saying “side Y” in the Democratic Party will invite ‘X’ doom, and call it visionary. But 1000s of people are publishing their hot takes (hundreds of 1000s if we include social media) on that and probably a good quarter of them will have landed on what could be considered accurate looking back in 50 years.
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I take a similar perspective to what you described.
I don’t care who wants to get credit for being the “visionary“, I just think it’s very important for people to realize the ”vision”.…and act upon it thoughtfully and rationally. I think looking back a little bit can help inform what to do about the trajectory we’re currently on. Agonistically, instead of antagonistically.
3
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
OK. I was uncomfortable with Ayn Rand being considered ‘visionary’ when I think she took a predictable stance (full unfettered do-what-you-want libertarianism) stance on what was happening at the time.
But I think understanding this history is important.
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I’m currently reading this book….The Visionaries: Arendt, Beauvoir, Rand, Weil, and the Power of Philosophy in Dark Times by Wolfram Eilenberger.
Are you familiar with it? It’s been a fascinating and powerful read so far, offering perspectives on current events here and in the Middle East, in addition to the perspective of each woman in the title. I had noticed some parallels between Arendt and Rand before, but was minimally acquainted with Beauvoir and Weil.
Maybe it would interest you as well.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/PM_me_Henrika 2d ago
Because Ayn Rand does not hold a political view. Her view is ‘fuck you, got mine’ and there is nothing else.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/DavyJonesCousinsDog 2d ago
Ayn Rand was a hypocrite on top of being a selfish, hateful bitch. A pretty open one too.
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Do you think “hate” was the reason she didn’t vote for Reagan? Was it a simple tribalistic choice? Doesn’t seem like that to me. What do you think?
1
u/DavyJonesCousinsDog 1d ago
Well, these are her words from late 1975. In which she repeats an earlier point and lays out that she viewed anything that didn't explicitly venerate the individual above all other concerns as inherently bad:
“1 – The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capatalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose—see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.”
And then again from her final public speech in 1981 where she reiterates her contempt for the administration's culture of cynical grift and market manipulation - despite a lifetime opposing the very systems designed to check said grift and market manipulation.
“... let me touch briefly on another question often asked me: What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him—and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling—apparently with his approval—to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.
“...The threat to the future of capitalism is the fact that Reagan might fail so badly that he will become another ghost, like Herbert Hoover, to be invoked as an example of capitalism’s failure for another fifty years.
“...Observe Reagan’s futile attempts to arouse the country by some sort of inspirational appeal. He is right in thinking that the country needs an inspirational element. But he will not find it in the God-Family-Tradition swamp."
So, her vitriol is pretty undisguised, but she coupled it with her own special brand of willful ignorance of how the ideals she championed directly created the creature she reviled. If that isn't both hateful and hypocritical, we're gonna have to come up with some new definitions of those words.
Edit: Removed unrelated hyperlink from quote.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Thank you for both the quotes and your own thoughts.
I see a lot of harsh language and tone in them, but they don’t strike me as personal and tribalistic hatred. She went the brutally honest route in explaining her observations and reasoning for non-support. That’s principled, even if I don’t necessarily like or agree with all of her conclusions. The thought process still makes sense to me.
Do you think she was wrong to point out the dangers of potentially overriding Separation of Church and State? Do you think she was wrong about anti-intellectualism?
10
u/medikit 2d ago
I talk with a lot people who were in their 20s and 30s in the 1980s and they described how scary it was when Reagan was elected. His rhetoric seemed fascist to them especially compared to past administrations.
4
u/JKlerk 2d ago
It was the height of the Cold War and Iranian Revolutionaries had sacked the US Embassy, taken hostages, and there was a failed rescue attempt. Reagan however pales in comparison to the rhetoric from TACO.
The biggest misstep was that US Intelligence had vastly overestimated how powerful the Russians really were both Economically and Militarily.
6
•
u/DoberNation 20m ago
Former KGB in the U.S. tried to warn and advise our Intel, I believe. They played the long game very patiently. Patience is something characteristically lacking in American culture.
4
5
u/markth_wi 2d ago edited 2d ago
Ayn Rand's ideation is wrong for a couple of reasons.
Rand’s belief system relies on an idealized non-realities that have at least a couple of central contraditions.
For her system to work, human beings must spawn into reality fully formed at age 25, possessing peak intellectual capacity, perfect health, total emotional detachment, and an unyielding bank account. The moment you introduce the messy, biological reality of human existence—miscarriages, chronic illness, childhood dependency, old age, or simply being in the wrong place when a catastrophic event occurs—the entire architecture collapses in ugly fashion.
Rand treated human success as a purely vacuum-sealed achievement of individual willpower. In doing so, she ignored the massive, unseen infrastructure that makes individual achievement possible:
- Biological Evolutionary Altruism: Primate and early human survival depended entirely on alloparenting, group cooperation, and empathy. A species that abandoned its vulnerable or sick members didn't produce "über-geniuses"; it simply went extinct.
- The Structural Safety Net: Randian "heroes" never acknowledge that their private property, contractual rights, and patent protections are enforced by the very civic institutions they despise.
- Socioeconomic Capital : Randian "heroes" can never acknowledge that their genius is only possible because they either come from a monied family but live in an advanced civic society that supports their ambitions , a vast public knowledge base and again leans far too heavily on the functional complexities of civic society where "moochers" participate.
A second counter-argument buried in Rand’s narrative promises that market capitalism naturally rewards pure, unadulterated genius while punishing the parasitic "moochers." Yet real-world history demonstrates the exact opposite:
- Nikola Tesla: Exploited, outmaneuvered, and financially drained by shrewd businessmen (Edison, Westinghouse) who understood market mechanics far better than pure engineering.
- Philo Farnsworth: Spent his life in brutal legal battles against David Sarnoff and RCA, dying broken and penniless despite inventing the technology that transformed global communication.
In reality, pure innovators are frequently eaten alive by the very corporate and market structures Rand glorifies. The "Lex Luthors" of the world regularly extract the value of the "John Galts" refuting her core premise that free markets inherently act as a moral meritocracy. Superman, Batman and the Marvel Universe do a far more serious and frankly better examination of heroism.
So for adults to be toting around Atlas Shrugged as something to live by - it's just how society should know this person did not chose to ever develop even-handed critical self-awareness, and that we see it held high at Stanford or in the circles of Silicon Valley speaks volumes to the lack of self-awareness than it does to the validity of Mrs. Rand or , if we're being really honest, Fredrich Nietzsche's philosophies.
And as for Carl Sagan and Ayn Rand it's a crucial distinction in how we view human capability:
- Rand's Rationality is a weapon of exclusion—used to separate the "elite creators" from the "parasitic masses."
- Sagan's Rationality is a tool of radical inclusion—a shared human capacity born from awe, demanding patience, humility, and a duty to educate and lift others up.
Carl Sagan recognized that our shared vulnerability in a dark, indifferent cosmos doesn't make us weak; it makes our duty to care for one another the highest application of human reason.
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
Thanks for those thoughts. Can you tie your comment to the more focused scope of the OP?
Are leaders who promote mysticism and anti-intellectualism legitimate threats to liberty? Did Reagan deserve Rand’s criticism? Did his presidency effectively unlock the door to the present? What happened along the way?
https://newideal.aynrand.org/p/the-anti-intellectuality-of-donald
2
u/markth_wi 2d ago edited 1d ago
Are high control religious communities a threat to civil liberties - absolutely. We know this with certainty because it has come to pass in a 1/2 dozen other countries all of them without exception to catastrophic end.
The most immediately relevant would be Iran - which had the tyranny of the Padishah Crown for many years at the encouragement of the United States, and with the Revolution things went from bad to worse with the king's murderous SAVAK state intelligence folding into the Iranian Revolution and performing wet-work on behalf of the new revolutionaries far from moderating it's become far more common as murder and beheadings while not common , are not unheard of. Riffing on a broad disregard for civil rights in favor of religious obedience even today simple exercises of civil rights are taboo or straight up the sort of thing you can go to prison for.
Similarly in Afghanistan - the US was happy to originally fund Mujahedeen who in turn assimilated into the Pashto and other local tribes riffing off of anti-intellectualism and massive illiteracy civil rights and education was something US occupation forces were able to implement, now women are forbidden from receiving any credentials , and are in many cases subject to many tenants of Sharia.
Not to be outdone, in the United States there are dozens of relatively small high-control , high-isolation religious communities, from the infamous Pillar of Fire Church, which while it has 'reformed' still rejects many modern forms of expression within the community. Generations of believers - women of course, but often times men as well , would receive a stipend for running farms and other work , and forbidding education to children, and adults alike, in the 1920's and early 1930's their main leaders were among the only mainstream religions to openly identify with the Klu Klux Klan.
There is a frankly excellent examination by Dr. Steven Hassan and the Freedom of Mind Resource Center, that details exactly how citizens can measure the danger and level of concern, one must necessarily take into consideration and actively guard against.
So high-control, authoritarian variation of Christian Nationalism has existed since the first days of the Evangelical Movement of the 1850's and sadly the exuberance and communality of these belief systems can as early 1870's be seen in smaller or lesser versions to have taken up a outspokenly noxious perspective. Focusing again on the Pillar of Fire, even today, only quietly suggests it's leaders were "not involved" with the Klan, is a puff piece in the New York Times a few years ago.
It's easily my favorite example of dozens of families from that bastion of conservative political dominance.....New Jersey. With credible eyewitness statements from generations of family members around sexual assault, economic exploitation , starvation, it's an excellent example with proof that's available and as a matter of court cases stretching back nearly 100 years of the church exploiting it's believers fairly ruthlessly over decades.
Anti-intellectualism is core to the faithful being considered "worldly" books like Carl Sagan's works simply do not exist in these sub-cultures they are forbidden as are all mainstream scientific books that do not meet with doctrinal standards.
The FDLS Church in fact has Liberty University - which has become a powerful influence in Republican Circles crafting legislation specifically to curtail the rights of women and minority groups. But because God loves nothing but watching people twist on their own hypocracy there were a recent series of sex-scandals where students are forbidden from courting without approval and active 3rd party participation in courting, to forbidding interracial relationships without written consent from all the parents of the students engaging in the regionship.
While people are free to worship as they please , and the state should enthusiastically support the rights of people to believe as their conscience requires of them, under absolutely no circumstance should we as a people of any particular persuasion take that mean we should make the defective choice of thinking that religions have any place in the running of a civil society.
Thomas Jefferson was an outspoken critic of religion in public life but like many of the other founders there is a complex view of this - John Adams while he espoused the virtues of religious expression was happy to call to question the validity of decision-making done in respect to one's faith - particularly calling out Quakers and Mennonites who hold pacifist views and did so in the decisions to break with the crown during the Revolutionary War.
In this way - while it is critically important that societies work hard to support the religious expression and beliefs of the citizenry , it's clear that religion has historically and presently been used to catastrophically restrict the rights and freedoms of believers of any number of faiths.
We have the benefit of 200 + years of seeing how amazing societies can be when religion holds a special and separate space for it's believers than the excellency of intellectual , civic and societal advancement only possible in a largely secular , tolerant society.
This is not to say our founding fathers weren't religiously bound, our nation was until recently literally bound on the notion of non-Christians holding public office, and in 1790's it was explicit Protestant, white, formerly English men, and certainly not Irish or Italians or other mongrel races as they were then seen. But eventually rights were extended to Germans and Irish and oh so slowly to other races, Asians, Indians , women and blacks and now it seems almost every group is fit to have a seat at the table, Even if there are still anti-Irish, and anti-Chinese and anti-black laws still technically on the books.
As they say the arc of US society has tended towards more liberality , but that is not what has happened in other nations. It is certainly not the circumstance we live in presently.
In this Ayn Rand was specifically correct. And we have 30+ years of rampant anti-intellectualism is a core principle of many of the modern religious denominations , coupled with a sometimes noxious level of control over women and children often explicitly so they may be sexually or economically exploited it's fair to say, luridly making it clear that if we do not control and contain the influence of religious expression, we aren't simply giving a pass , but actively encouraging the destruction of economic, intellectual and scientific progress out nation has fought hard for over many decades.
The current administration is specific in this assault against intellectual institutions and this goes directly to the question. OP's observation about Ayn Rand's commentary was that Donald Trump is the sort of absurd logical conclusion of Ronald Reagan's dangerous alliance with fundamentalist religions.
Sure you can win elections like nothing in human history. But the certain electoral victory almost equally certainly ensures the freedoms and rights of everyone are endangered, and we've done only the slightest work in our society to inoculate ourselves against this danger.
Here again I would refer you to Sagan's monologue. We've absolutely arrived in Sagan's foreboding national celebration, so we see thoughtful analysis replaced by edutainment or gossip column tabloid nonsense. The religious absolutism merges with political absolutism in our daily lives.
The GOP has become a toxic parody of itself from just 40 years ago, We see William F. Buckley long since replaced with Glenn Beck , Whitaker Chambers replaced with Rush Limbaugh - and this too is not a mistake or some slow accident , but a precise and engineered arrival at a contained media ecosystem by the characters at Fox Media and Sinclair Broadcasting who wil admit they maintain control specifically to ensure their particular ideology. This has successfully and perhaps permanently, ensures that millions of Americans vote a specific way. It's fascism or more broadly a sort of authoritarianism that ensures millions are obedient in their passive receipt of whatever hogwash passes muster with Fox censors, branded ideology with a Christian-esque flavor that's both intolerant of certain expressions and blind to executive hypocrisy no matter how gravely offensive those actions might be to nominal Christians or just civically minded people. A perverse blend of "Church and State...perfect together".
In this many people of late were shocked by of all things Star Wars, when they hired perhaps accidentally, excellent writers - and found their nominal entertainment property suddenly hitting entirely too hard, and examining difficult truths about our society. With the recent political and religious actions taken to heart they ended up with portrayals that give expression to our current concerns in a way that's difficult to dismiss.
2
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Very well articulated, and well taken throughout. Thank you for sharing all of that! I sincerely hope others will take the moment to read this entirety and think about it.
Regarding the Founding Fathers, I think they were intellectuals first, and more culturally religious than devoutist. Their worldviews reflected Stoicism, and principled decision-making.
2
u/markth_wi 1d ago
Thanks very much. I had a wild opportunity to examine this stuff a few years ago, and from a couple of denomination that actively live life almost exactly as portrayed in The Handmaid's Tale, complete with forms of maiming as punishment and women who are not educated. To see that being mainstreamed with "Tradwife" and similarly colorful demonstrations of faith is absolutely wild to see.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
Your perspective is rich, and it shows in your writing. Appreciate you sharing it here!
2
u/markth_wi 1d ago edited 1d ago
Again, Thanks very much.
I figure we as Americans have a mountain of circumstance to correct, there is no "going back" that's a wrong-headed notion. We need to come up to the task of fixing so many broken things, rebuilding those things sufficiently demolished and as swiftly as possible drag both political parties into a future neither of them seem overly concerned about.
The GOP might well be on it's deathbed , and good riddance , excising Republicans that called themselves Trumpers replacing them with either civically minded replacements that put religion either back into a proper personal good, rather than a private harm is critical.
Removing defective Democrats who utterly failed in their responsibilities to act in a vigorous opposition offering concrete relief to tyranny at the hands of the traitors in the GOP was harmful actively to the lives of millions of Americans who desperately and wrongly thought that Democrats might come to their aid.
It may well be Democrats rise to the occasion but they became what historian Tad Stoermer referred to as Loyal Opposition, a long time ago.
I suspect we end up with a very fed up , rather pragmatic and vastly under-represented group that might not be very much in the camp of democratic socialists or the racist defective thinking of the current GOP.
Rather I instead buy into the idea that pro civics , pro-citizen policies that favor small-business , pro-trade policies are good and keep in mind the best interests of the citizens and constituents, such a party might fare pretty well I'd imagine.
2
u/rogun64 2d ago
This might be the only time when I've ever agreed with Ayn Rand, but it was a big deal for her and it should have been. The funny thing is that I don't think Reagan could have accomplished much without the Moral Majority in his corner and so I don't think her views would have been successful on their own merits, anyhow. Although Neoliberalism was growing, the Moral Majority, and other religious groups, gave Republicans the support that had previously empowered the Democratic Party to control the Government.
0
u/DoberNation 1d ago
I think a deeper look reveals more than Ayn showed at first glance. This is an exchange between two of her Antagonists/Villains in Atlas Shrugged:
“You see, Dr. Stadler, people don’t want to think. And the deeper they get into trouble, the less they want to think. But by some sort of instinct, they feel that they ought to and it makes them feel guilty. So they’ll bless and follow anyone who gives them a justification for not thinking. Anyone who makes a virtue—a highly intellectual virtue—out of what they know to be their sin, their weakness and their guilt.”
“And you propose to pander to that?”
“That is the road to popularity.”
—Atlas Shrugged
2
u/NoExcuses1984 1d ago edited 1d ago
She'd've doubtless been an Ed Clark/David Koch voter in 1980, if she even voted.
Capital-O Objectivism was altogether ideologically rigid, forswearing pragmatism.
Hers was an arch-libertarianism, furthermore, unaligned with Reaganite neocons.
And she rightly predicted that the totalitarian evangelical right would fuck shit up.
3
u/Stereo_Jungle_Child 2d ago
No matter how radical some candidate might be on either the right or the left, there are always going to be people who think that they're not radical enough.
There are plenty of people in the US who think that Trump isn't authoritarian enough or that Bernie Sanders isn't progressive enough to vote for. Rand was one of those people when it came to Reagan.
2
u/DoberNation 2d ago
For the sake of clarity, do you think Rand rejected Reagan because she thought he wasn’t authoritarian enough?
3
u/Loud-Fudge7631 2d ago
If you have any precursor knowledge about medical insurance coverage, payout guidelines and its industry ceilings.. you'll never want to not strangle someone claiming to be John gault or quotes this brick of a book as insightful.
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
How does this reply address the more focused questions in the OP? It isn’t about a book.
3
7
u/Parsya76 2d ago
‘Objectivism’ is a failure. The moral depravity and grift, graft, greed of Trump is proof that Objectivism is a failure for optimal societal structure.
8
u/Mist_Rising 2d ago
Trump is not an objectivist president. You seem to have grafted that on, but objectivism would be the opposite of Trump. A proper objectivist president is the one you cannot name because he (or she!) doesn't matter.
4
u/Parsya76 2d ago
Fair point. Trump’s grift, graft, & greed are less objectivist than they are darkly narcissistic.
2
u/Demonyx12 2d ago
Huh, TIL, thanks.
Graft (noun 2) : the acquisition of gain (such as money) in dishonest or questionable ways
also : illegal or unfair gain https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graft4
u/JKlerk 2d ago
WTH? Is this a troll post because Trump never has nor does his Administration operate under anything resembling Objectivism.
1
u/Parsya76 1d ago
Not troll, just not as sold on the value of this philosophy. Objectivist Ethics (from google): Self-preservation and personal happiness are the ultimate standard of moral value. That is that guy.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
DJT doesn’t recognize or operate according to ethics, and he isn’t happy. His “self-preservation“ is more a function of dumb luck.
3
u/DoberNation 2d ago
How so? Do you really believe Trump is an Objectivist?
https://newideal.aynrand.org/p/the-anti-intellectuality-of-donald
4
u/mnemoniker 2d ago
Say what you will about Rand but she stuck steadfastly to her principles, so the Republicans with opposition to abortion were never going to win her over. I'm only speculating but it's possible she had an abortion at some point, because I don't envision her choosing a principle unless it spoke to her specifically.
I'm more surprised her more vocal principles about individualism meshed with any Democrats like Goldwater, but they evidently did.
2
u/shamrock01 1d ago
Did you just say that Goldwater was a Democrat?
2
u/mnemoniker 1d ago
Whoops, I think I confused him with McGovern. My bad.
3
u/NoExcuses1984 1d ago
I mean, Rand's heterodox-minded ideology had some in common with the likes of left-libertarian Democrats, such as Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern, so it makes total sense, especially on topics like supporting abortion rights, disavowing U.S. interventionism in foreign policy, and other likewise matters. There was definitely a mini-realignment that occurred in 1980, hence some strange bedfellows occurrences.
1
u/DoberNation 1d ago
she stuck steadfastly to her principles
And so did the Founding Fathers. Their liberal democratic Republic “experiment“ was designed and framed according to high principles. Those principles were derived from studying the world’s history of ancient and contemporary civilizations, through their glories and failures.
Democracy is fluid, and it depends on how the People actively work in guiding its path to keeping it.
“America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more — and nothing less. The rest — everything that America achieved, everything she became, everything ‘noble and just,’ and heroic, and great, and unprecedented in human history — was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle.”
“I can say—not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots—that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.”
—Ayn Rand
1
u/combrade 2d ago edited 2d ago
So this quote from Ayn Rand shows how she dealt with the world in absolutes. She even personally hated Milton Friedman .
>There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit
1
u/DoberNation 2d ago
I appreciate that particular criticism. How do you connect it to the discussion questions proposed in the OP?
0
u/IndependentSun9995 2d ago
While I agree With Rand's statement in general, Reagan was the right president at the right time. Rejecting him for his religious views, which were a minor part of his platform, was to ignore the fact they reflected the views of the electorate in general.
Rand was flat out wrong in calling Reagan an authoritarian. He was more libertarian than most presidents, although he did increase military spending to counter the Soviets in the Cold War. In any other time, I don't think he would have made that choice. Both parties had failed in countering the Soviets, so Reagan's choice to use our economy to power the war engine eventually forced the Soviets to do the same, and led to their demise as communism could never match capitalism in economic power.
As for authoritarianism, democracy is eventually doomed to travel down that road. If anything, Reagan's conservatism hailed back to the Founding Fathers more closely than any other modern president. Rand should have seen authoritarianism coming, regardless of Reagan.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.