The Odd Rand Story...

[Teresa B]

...Interesting, especially the latter paragraphs in which the author discusses Rand's philosophy, still touted by prominent conservative pols in recent years, when religiosity has become so crucial to the success of our national leaders--yet Rand was an atheist who publicly scorned religion. How has her "selfishness" philosophy managed to get melded with Christian ideology to the extent that we see today, as reflected in the comments of so many Conservatives? (As an aside, does anyone know whether Rand Paul's name is derived from Ayn's?)

By Bruce E. Levine
How Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. Into a Selfish, Greedy Nation
Thanks in part to Rand, the United States is one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world.
December 15, 2011

Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society....To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.— Gore Vidal, 1961


Only rarely in U.S. history do writers transform us to become a more caring or less caring nation. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) was a strong force in making the United States a more humane nation, one that would abolish slavery of African Americans. A century later, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) helped make the United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world, a neo-Dickensian society where healthcare is only for those who can afford it, and where young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Rand’s impact has been widespread and deep. At the iceberg’s visible tip is the influence she’s had over major political figures who have shaped American society. In the 1950s, Ayn Rand read aloud drafts of what was later to becomeAtlas Shrugged to her “Collective,” Rand’s ironic nickname for her inner circle of young individualists, which included Alan Greenspan, who would serve as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006.

In 1966, Ronald Reagan wrote in a personal letter, “Am an admirer of Ayn Rand.” Today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) credits Rand for inspiring him to go into politics, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls Atlas Shrugged his “foundation book.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says Ayn Rand had a major influence on him, and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is an even bigger fan. A short list of other Rand fans includes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Christopher Cox, chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission in George W. Bush’s second administration; and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

But Rand’s impact on U.S. society and culture goes even deeper.

The Seduction of Nathan Blumenthal

Ayn Rand’s books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and her philosophy that celebrates self-interest and disdains altruism may well be, as Vidal assessed, “nearly perfect in its immorality.” But is Vidal right about evil? Charles Manson, who himself did not kill anyone, is the personification of evil for many of us because of his psychological success at exploiting the vulnerabilities of young people and seducing them to murder. What should we call Ayn Rand’s psychological ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of millions of young people so as to influence them not to care about anyone besides themselves?

While Greenspan (tagged “A.G.” by Rand) was the most famous name that would emerge from Rand’s Collective, the second most well-known name to emerge from the Collective was Nathaniel Branden, psychotherapist, author and “self-esteem” advocate. Before he was Nathaniel Branden, he was Nathan Blumenthal, a 14-year-old who read Rand’s The Fountainhead again and again. He later would say, “I felt hypnotized.” He describes how Rand gave him a sense that he could be powerful, that he could be a hero. He wrote one letter to his idol Rand, then a second. To his amazement, she telephoned him, and at age 20, Nathan received an invitation to Ayn Rand’s home. Shortly after, Nathan Blumenthal announced to the world that he was incorporating Rand in his new name: Nathaniel Branden. And in 1955, with Rand approaching her 50th birthday and Branden his 25th, and both in dissatisfying marriages, Ayn bedded Nathaniel.

What followed sounds straight out of Hollywood, but Rand was straight out of Hollywood, having worked for Cecil B. DeMille. Rand convened a meeting with Nathaniel, his wife Barbara (also a Collective member), and Rand’s own husband Frank. To Branden's astonishment, Rand convinced both spouses that a time-structured affair—she and Branden were to have one afternoon and one evening a week together—was “reasonable.” Within the Collective, Rand is purported to have never lost an argument. On his trysts at Rand’s New York City apartment, Branden would sometimes shake hands with Frank before he exited. Later, all discovered that Rand’s sweet but passive husband would leave for a bar, where he began his self-destructive affair with alcohol.

By 1964, the 34-year-old Nathaniel Branden had grown tired of the now 59-year-old Ayn Rand. Still sexually dissatisfied in his marriage to Barbara and afraid to end his affair with Rand, Branden began sleeping with a married 24-year-old model, Patrecia Scott. Rand, now “the woman scorned,” called Branden to appear before the Collective, whose nickname had by now lost its irony for both Barbara and Branden. Rand’s justice was swift. She humiliated Branden and then put a curse on him: “If you have one ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health—you'll be impotent for the next twenty years! And if you achieve potency sooner, you'll know it’s a sign of still worse moral degradation!”

Rand completed the evening with two welt-producing slaps across Branden’s face. Finally, in a move that Stalin and Hitler would have admired, Rand also expelled poor Barbara from the Collective, declaring her treasonous because Barbara, preoccupied by her own extramarital affair, had neglected to fill Rand in soon enough on Branden's extra-extra-marital betrayal. (If anyone doubts Alan Greenspan’s political savvy, keep in mind that he somehow stayed in Rand’s good graces even though he, fixed up by Branden with Patrecia’s twin sister, had double-dated with the outlaws.)

After being banished by Rand, Nathaniel Branden was worried that he might be assassinated by other members of the Collective, so he moved from New York to Los Angeles, where Rand fans were less fanatical. Branden established a lucrative psychotherapy practice and authored approximately 20 books, 10 of them with either “Self” or “Self-Esteem” in the title. Rand and Branden never reconciled, but he remains an admirer of her philosophy of self-interest.

Ayn Rand’s personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a sh*t about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the “unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.” After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she needn’t mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused.

How Rand’s Philosophy Seduced Young Minds

When I was a kid, my reading included comic books and Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasn’t much difference between the comic books and Rand’s novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.

Rand said, “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible....The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth—or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.” For many young people, hearing that it is “moral” to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.

I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: “My ex-husband wasn’t a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.”

To wow her young admirers, Rand would often tell a story of how a smart-aleck book salesman had once challenged her to explain her philosophy while standing on one leg. She replied: “Metaphysics—objective reality. Epistemology—reason. Ethics—self-interest. Politics—capitalism.” How did that philosophy capture young minds?

Metaphysics—objective reality. Rand offered a narcotic for confused young people: complete certainty and a relief from their anxiety. Rand believed that an “objective reality” existed, and she knew exactly what that objective reality was. It included skyscrapers, industries, railroads, and ideas—at least her ideas. Rand’s objective reality did not include anxiety or sadness. Nor did it include much humor, at least the kind where one pokes fun at oneself. Rand assured her Collective that objective reality did not include Beethoven’s, Rembrandt’s, and Shakespeare’s realities—they were too gloomy and too tragic, basically buzzkillers. Rand preferred Mickey Spillane and, towards the end of her life, “Charlie's Angels.”

Epistemology—reason. Rand’s kind of reason was a “cool-tool” to control the universe. Rand demonized Plato, and her youthful Collective members were taught to despise him. If Rand really believed that the Socratic Method described by Plato of discovering accurate definitions and clear thinking did not qualify as “reason,” why then did she regularly attempt it with her Collective? Also oddly, while Rand mocked dark moods and despair, her “reasoning” directed that Collective members should admire Dostoyevsky, whose novels are filled with dark moods and despair. A demagogue, in addition to hypnotic glibness, must also be intellectually inconsistent, sometimes boldly so. This eliminates challenges to authority by weeding out clear-thinking young people from the flock.

Ethics—self-interest. For Rand, all altruists were manipulators. What could be more seductive to kids who discerned the motives of martyr parents, Christian missionaries and U.S. foreign aiders? Her champions, Nathaniel Branden still among them, feel that Rand’s view of “self-interest” has been horribly misrepresented. For them, self-interest is her hero architect Howard Roark turning down a commission because he couldn’t do it exactly his way. Some of Rand’s novel heroes did have integrity, however, for Rand there is no struggle to discover the distinction between true integrity and childish vanity. Rand’s integrity was her vanity, and it consisted of getting as much money and control as possible, copulating with whomever she wanted regardless of who would get hurt, and her always being right. To equate one’s selfishness, vanity, and egotism with one’s integrity liberates young people from the struggle to distinguish integrity from selfishness, vanity, and egotism.

Politics—capitalism. While Rand often disparaged Soviet totalitarian collectivism, she had little to say about corporate totalitarian collectivism, as she conveniently neglected the reality that giant U.S. corporations, like the Soviet Union, do not exactly celebrate individualism, freedom, or courage. Rand was clever and hypocritical enough to know that you don’t get rich in the United States talking about compliance and conformity within corporate America. Rather, Rand gave lectures titled: “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business.” So, young careerist corporatists could embrace Rand’s self-styled “radical capitalism” and feel radical — radical without risk.

Rand’s Legacy

In recent years, we have entered a phase where it is apparently okay for major political figures to publicly embrace Rand despite her contempt for Christianity. In contrast, during Ayn Rand’s life, her philosophy that celebrated self-interest was a private pleasure for the 1 percent but she was a public embarrassment for them. They used her books to congratulate themselves on the morality of their selfishness, but they publicly steered clear of Rand because of her views on religion and God. Rand, for example, had stated on national television, “I am against God. I don’t approve of religion. It is a sign of a psychological weakness. I regard it as an evil.”

Actually, again inconsistent, Rand did have a God. It was herself. She said:
I am done with the monster of “we,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”

While Harriet Beecher Stowe shamed Americans about the United State’s dehumanization of African Americans and slavery, Ayn Rand removed Americans’ guilt for being selfish and uncaring about anyone except themselves. Not only did Rand make it “moral” for the wealthy not to pay their fair share of taxes, she “liberated” millions of other Americans from caring about the suffering of others, even the suffering of their own children.

The good news is that I’ve seen ex-Rand fans grasp the damage that Rand’s philosophy has done to their lives and to then exorcize it from their psyche. Can the United States as a nation do the same thing?

>Bruce E. Levine is a clinical psychologist and author of Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite (Chelsea Green, 2011). His Web site is www.brucelevine.net.

[John F]

Randal Howard Paul was born on January 7, 1963 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul... Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights, the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up. His wife shortened his name to "Rand".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

What "major political figures" have "publicly embraced [Ayn] Rand"? Levine doesn't name any. And considering that Rand made a religion of selfishness, to a degree that is transparently antidemocratic (small d), it's not just religion that her so-called philosophy is hostile to.

[Teresa B]

What "major political figures" have "publicly embraced [Ayn] Rand"? Levine doesn't name any.

From the text of the article:

...included Alan Greenspan, who would serve as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006.

In 1966, Ronald Reagan wrote in a personal letter, “Am an admirer of Ayn Rand.” Today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) credits Rand for inspiring him to go into politics, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls Atlas Shrugged his “foundation book.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says Ayn Rand had a major influence on him, and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is an even bigger fan. A short list of other Rand fans includes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Christopher Cox, chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission in George W. Bush’s second administration; and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

[Werner]

Thank you, Teresa, for posting the first thorough exposure ot Ayn Rand I've had the patience to read. To make a long story short, it confirms my longtime view of her qualities (taking time to write her version of "Mein Kampf" along her despicable way), as well as the intelligence of her still living devotees.

[Agnes Selby]

She may not have been the nicest of people, BUT was Howard Roark
entitled to his intellectual property?

[Bro]

She may not have been the nicest of people, BUT was Howard Roark
entitled to his intellectual property?

Why not ? Even if his books are watered down Rand, is anyone going to read 20 plus out of date "self help" books to find out ?

this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”

Ayn Rand's true god was the word "NO". It has been taken up as a mantra by one of our political parties.

I'm glad she preferred "Charlie's Angels" to Beethoven. This much, at least, humanizes her a little.

Bro

[Agnes Selby]

She may not have been the nicest of people, BUT was Howard Roark
entitled to his intellectual property?

Why not ? Even if his books are watered down Rand, is anyone going to read 20 plus out of date "self help" books to find out ?

I was referring to Howard Roark, the main character in Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead".
I don't know of any author by that name.

[jbuck919]

She may not have been the nicest of people, BUT was Howard Roark
entitled to his intellectual property?

Why not ? Even if his books are watered down Rand, is anyone going to read 20 plus out of date "self help" books to find out ?

I was referring to Howard Roark, the main character in Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead".
I don't know of any author by that name.

That response had me a little confused too. Something too subtle for unsophisticated folks like Agnes and myself, perhaps?

To answer Rand's question, he was not entitled to blow up buildings to make his point, and no court in the world would have been convinced otherwise by even the most elegant argument. Rand was a fantasist, a rather embarrassing one in fact, and politicians who take her seriously should be called on why their political philosophy owes so much to a glorified Harlequin Romance.

[Agnes Selby]

She may not have been the nicest of people, BUT was Howard Roark
entitled to his intellectual property?

Why not ? Even if his books are watered down Rand, is anyone going to read 20 plus out of date "self help" books to find out ?

I was referring to Howard Roark, the main character in Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead".
I don't know of any author by that name.

That response had me a little confused too. Something too subtle for unsophisticated folks like Agnes and myself, perhaps?

To answer Rand's question, he was not entitled to blow up buildings to make his point, and no court in the world would have been convinced otherwise by even the most elegant argument. Rand was a fantasist, a rather embarrassing one in fact, and politicians who take her seriously should be called on why their political philosophy owes so much to a glorified Harlequin Romance.

Yes, but it was not the point she was making. When you think of reality, no court
would have let him go after blowing up the buildings. What she was trying to
say, I think, was that no one has the right to steal another man's intellectual property.
Roark was not paid for the job, his only request was that his design not be
changed. But I must agree with you to a point. It was a fantasy. I simply agree
with her on the subject of intellectual ownership.

[jbuck919]

She may not have been the nicest of people, BUT was Howard Roark
entitled to his intellectual property?

Why not ? Even if his books are watered down Rand, is anyone going to read 20 plus out of date "self help" books to find out ?

I was referring to Howard Roark, the main character in Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead".
I don't know of any author by that name.

That response had me a little confused too. Something too subtle for unsophisticated folks like Agnes and myself, perhaps?

To answer Rand's question, he was not entitled to blow up buildings to make his point, and no court in the world would have been convinced otherwise by even the most elegant argument. Rand was a fantasist, a rather embarrassing one in fact, and politicians who take her seriously should be called on why their political philosophy owes so much to a glorified Harlequin Romance.

Yes, but it was not the point she was making. When you think of reality, no court
would have let him go after blowing up the buildings. What she was trying to
say, I think, was that no one has the right to steal another man's intellectual property.
Roark was not paid for the job, his only request was that his design not be
changed. But I must agree with you to a point. It was a fantasy. I simply agree
with her on the subject of intellectual ownership.

Well that's fine, but no serious work of modern literature ends with a deus ex machina, a device that is not rescued if the deus is a jury. If we're not talking about Harlequin, then we're talking about Horatio Alger; same difference, I might add.

[Teresa B]

I simply agree with her on the subject of intellectual ownership.

On that, I think we definitely agree!

Teresa

[Dennis Spath]

An excellent thread Teresa! And like some others here I learned a great deal I didn't know about Rand's confusing preoccupation with the Libertarian "I" while posturing as a Philosopher.

I read "The Fountainhead" in the early 1950's, having had it recommended to me by a female friend I was dating. I didn't think of Roark's preoccupation with architecture as an Art form as having any philisophical significant at the time....just pride of authorship issues.

"Atlas Shrugged" was totally a different story, given I'd majored in Philosophy at the University of Chicago and was thoroughly impressed with the work of the Greeks, especially Plato and Aristotle. While I attempted to read it twice I was never able to get past the first 100 pages.

Perhaps that had something to do with having been acculturated in the Catholic tradition of morality and ethics, with special emphasis upon the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. I've never understood her appeal to selfishness as being a virtue to be emulated.