It is somewhat amazing that Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, first published in 1957, is near the top of the current best-seller list. It has long enjoyed a cult following as a sort of CEO’s bible, inspiring each new generation of libertarian political conservatives. Now it seems that the gospel according to Ayn is spreading beyond the Tea Party to the parasitical “masses” that she denounces. Of course, the new movie based on the book is probably also helping sales. But what does this say about Ayn Rand, and what does this say about us?
The first thing to know about her is that she was an embittered émigré from the Soviet Union. She saw the totalitarian communist state as an enemy of the human spirit. So far, so good. But she went to the other extreme and became, in effect, an anti-democratic elitist – a kind of capitalist equivalent of those who, over many centuries, justified the privileges (and property) of the landed aristocracy and denigrated the unwashed peasants. In other words, she claimed that the elite deserve their wealth and power.
In Rand’s modern version of this self-serving ideology, all human progress depends on the anointed few who have talent and creativity. In her novels and her so-called “Objectivist” philosophy, she idealized the creative genius and promoted an ethic of “rational selfishness.” She rejected any obligation to the “moochers,” and “spongers,” and “parasites” that benefit from the creators’ work. Government, moreover, is seen by her as a tool of the masses that suppresses the liberty of the creative class. (It was kind of a flip-side to Marxism, where the state was seen as a “handmaiden” of the capitalist class.)
All this culminates in Rand’s paean to the deserving elite in Atlas Shrugged, where a mysterious figure, John Galt, leads in organizing a strike by the creative few (including the captains of industry!), which ultimately brings down the oppressive state and leads to a libertarian, free (capitalist) market society. The Progress Report published by the Center for American Progress calls Rand’s work “a frightful concoction of hyper-egotism, power-worship, and anarcho-capitalism.”
Actually, it’s much worse than that; it’s also callous and mean-spirited. While Rand idealized the rich and powerful and endowed them with virtues they often don’t have, she was hostile to the rest of society. She opposed all welfare, all help for the poor, all infrastructure spending, and proposed that taxes be made voluntary (which would produce free-riders, of course). Government should be limited to protecting the laws (especially property laws) and national defense. In a 1953 interview with Mike Wallace, Rand declared that altruism is evil and selfishness is a virtue, and anyone who succumbs to weakness or frailty is unworthy of love.
In any other time and place, this would be viewed as profoundly immoral. Ayn Rand and her true believers, who include many of the wealthy and powerful in our society, share an ethic that is the very antithesis of the values of every recognized religion, not to mention the Golden Rule, the one ethical principle that is found in every human society (with a few dysfunctional exceptions). More important, it does violence in various ways to our evolutionary heritage and our biological “human nature”. The science of human nature – not to mention the reality of how any organized human society works — contradicts her values.
It would require a Ph.D. dissertation to fully deconstruct Ayn Rand’s utopian (or rather dystopian) ideal. Here is a few key points:
* Rand’s idolizing of the creative genius (epitomized by architect Howard Roark in her novel The Fountainhead) is deeply flawed. Genius is a much overrated virtue. Good ideas come from many quarters, often from the bottom up or as an outgrowth of long experience down in the trenches. Many so-called “geniuses” turn out to be crackpots or charlatans or faddists who later fade from the scene. More important, most successful innovations these days are the product of many contributions. A “new idea” is only the beginning; an architect often requires a good contractor to flesh out his or her designs. As for your average CEO, he/she is much more likely to be an overpaid bureaucrat. A Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs stands out as an exception to the rule. Finally, as Malcolm Gladwell showed convincingly in his recent book, Outliers, most of the great success stories these days are due to having unique opportunities (the right time and place) and a favored, supportive environment – from family background to schools, communities and cultures.
* Rand’s idealization of “free markets” is also fundamentally at odds with reality, as many critics have noted. Markets are unavoidably shaped (and distorted) by differences in power and wealth, by gaming and deception, and by the many ways in which a system can become a rigged game that favors an entrenched and even corrupt few. “Merit” is only one of many reasons for the way in which power and wealth are distributed.
* Rand’s view of how a complex economy works is also naïve. Modern societies cannot be divided into two monolithic classes – the creative elite and the dependent, parasitical “masses” who exploit them. A complex economy consists of an inextricable network of cooperation and interdependencies – and reciprocities. Most of us contribute in one way or another in return for the benefits (and rights) that we receive in return, and most of the remainder would do so if they could find a job.
* Rand’s elitism is deeply anti-democratic. It is totally at odds with the principle of political equality, the fundamental value underlying democratic societies. She would curtail the right of the “masses” to use government as an instrument of the “general will” (to borrow a term from Rousseau) and to act collectively to advance the “general welfare,” as opposed to the welfare of the Howard Roarks.
* Finally, Rand’s brand of libertarianism is profoundly unfair in terms of the three fairness precepts elucidated in my book, The Fair Society – namely, equality, equity and reciprocity. Indeed, the term “social justice” is not even a part of her working vocabulary. She would deny the principle of equality in relation to our universal “basic needs” (which are biological imperatives for all of us); she is uncritical about equity, “or merit” (geniuses are not the only ones who contribute to our society), and there is no place for reciprocity, or reciprocal obligations.
Perhaps the most radical aspect of Ayn Rand’s political views is her contempt for the law. In effect, she sets the rights of her creative geniuses (and the captains of industry) above the law, and above the legally recognized rights of others, including especially those “second raters”, “parasites”, and repulsive “masses” that she often denigrates.
Consider the case of Rand’s defiantly heroic character, architect Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. In the story, Roark, who is an outcast in his profession because of his unconventional building designs, agrees to (secretly) help a mediocre old school friend, Peter Keating, win a large housing development contract on condition that there must be no changes at all to Roark’s innovative plans. Keating agrees and, in fronting on the project for Roark, dutifully inserts a similar “no change” clause into his contract with the client/owner. But as the buildings go up, the owner violates the contract by unilaterally making some cosmetic changes, and Keating acquiesces. So Roark sneaks onto the project site one night and blows up all the buildings. Then, after confessing to the act, he makes a long-winded philosophical justification to the court. Here is a brief excerpt:
Nothing is given to man on earth…He can survive…by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others….The basic need of the creator is independence…To the creator, all relations with men are secondary…. the creator is the man who stands alone….All that proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil… The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself…His moral law is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men….The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is – hands off! ….Civilization is a progress toward a society of privacy…Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
Guess what? Even though Roark has confessed to demolishing the buildings, the jury acquits him! This is really perverse. Roark’s grievance was with his friend. He had no contract with the owner whose property he destroyed, and no legal claim against him. It was Keating who failed to insist upon and defend the “no change” contract clause. Roark’s recourse was to bring a lawsuit against Keating. But, according to Rand, Roark was not bound to act in accordance with the law, or the principle of punishing only the culprit, or even respecting property rights. And neither, it seems, was the judge and the jury that absolved him! Even as fiction, this is frankly absurd. (A similar trampling of the law occurs in Atlas Shrugged.)
Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is a dangerous doctrine — a poison in the bloodstream of the body politic.