Note, first, how the author treats the most essential event behind Rand's writings -- the seizing of her father's self-made businesses (twice!) by communists. So much for "compassion" -- there's not a whiff of it in the author's re-telling of such an awful history; he clearly does not find the story that horrible, or would sympathize with the "wealth redistribution." Ditto for the author's gleeful account of how Rand's mother treated her when she was a child, as if this were Rand's fault, or Rand's homely appearance. What does this have to do with anything? Let's say the author revered Rand, thought she was like Edward Kennedy, for example -- would these things about her childhood or her looks possibly matter?

The author's portrayal of Rand's theories is either wrong or incredibly simplistic. For example, Rand was not touting "the rich" per se but only the ability that people should have to become whatever they want. Of course, for this author, everything comes down to using whatever pretext is available to blame "Bush's failed policies."

For a better analysis, read Mark Sanford's piece on Ayn Rand in last week's Newsweek -- a very thoughtful piece (and not uncritical of Rand). Newsweek received more letters in response to that piece than any other, but published only one -- by a liberal who simply made an ad hominen attack on Sanford for cheating on his wife. (Imagine Newsweek publishing a similar letter attacking another one of its contributors -- Elliot Spitzer. Would never happen)

Gee, somebody lost a business a century ago. BOO HOO HOO HOO HOOO!!!! You happy now, asshat?

*** Ditto for the author's gleeful account of how Rand's mother treated her when she was a child, as if this were Rand's fault, or Rand's homely appearance. What does this have to do with anything? *** Probably it has to do with the fact that the writer was reviewing two BIOGRAPHIES of Rand, which tend to include those sorts of things, being, you know, FUCKING BIOGRAPHIES.

I will admit that if someone who fully embraced Rand's ideas ever came into control of our government, it would scare the daylights out of me.

i am only afraid of horribly bad books... so yeah, i guess i AM afraid of rand.

god her books suck.

"The author's portrayal of Rand's theories is either wrong or incredibly simplistic."

How is it possible to portray Rand's theories as anything other than simplistic? Her method of presenting them was as simplistic as a professional wrestling match. Her ideas were invariably delivered by heroes who were good-looking, strong, virile, brave, self-assured, paragons of virtue. The arguments against her ideas were presented by sniveling cowardly amoral weaklings, the arguments themselves being so absurdly weak that any moron could knock them over. I've often wondered if the term "straw man argument" even existed before Ayn Rand because it so perfectly describes her style. It's the one thing at which she was a master.

The RIGHT should be afraid of Ayn Rand...because of her powerful pro choice arguments, based on property rights.

It’s a mixture of fear, hatred and the inability to defend progressive dogma. Sneering, emotionalizing and derision appeals to their basest instincts, because rational argument proves the inferiority of progressive dogma. Left-wingers emote feelings, to justify wealth redistribution.

For example, the thumbs down given by left-wingers on this thread mirror the denunciation of anyone who has a free enough of a mind to actually read Rand. The progressive mind is closed and set, and there is no room for diversity of ideas.

Socialism and Environmental are aspects of progressive religion, and progressive religion must never be contradicted. Did you notice how quickly the socialist/fascists shut down the free speech or a reporter who dared challenge patron Green Saint Al Gore? Left-wingers always attack thought and free speech. Combating incorrect thinking (i.e. Hate Crime legislation) are reason enough to enact Orwellian Big Government oppression. The State must control you for your own good. Tea Party protestors, Fox News and talk radio is the Obama administration’s greatest enemies, not Islamic terrorism nor North Korea. American citizens are Obama’s enemies. Socialists always move to destroy oppositional thought.

Ever notice how the Left triumphantly announces/denounces Rush’s drug addiction, while it feels and has compassion for other leftwing-sanctioned victims? “Sanction of the victim” and “class warfare” is the basis of progressivism, Marxism and socialism. But the victim must be poor, female and brown-skinned, and the class warfare must be used to attack all those who are not female and brown-skinned, especially those who are successful. To the left, success is to be demonized, while failure is a virtue.

cassandra:

The RIGHT should be afraid of Ayn Rand...because of her powerful pro choice arguments, based on property rights.

So Rand thinks right makes might? She thinks that the Superman can just take what he or she wants in his individuality? She admired a serial killer as "strong" and "taking what he wanted?"

The author is right. She became the same thing she hated. If some superman in the name of individuality took her father's business in the name of greed as self, how would that be better than corrupt Soviet minions taking it for themselves under the cover of "proletariot?"

And if the CEOs went to a valley right now, the US economy would be far better off. Might make room for some competent management for once. If the meltdown has taught us anything, it is that there are no Ubermensch, no Supermen, and they sure as hell are not smarter than us. But her Supermen/businessmen have enough money to buy politicians and take what they want.

We are living in a Randian economy and government right now, bought and sold by corrupt business. This is good?

The author is right.

Domini –Hating businessmen, bourgeoisie, greedy Anglos and Jews, CEOs and whatever successful groups you want to demonize, is usual simpleminded progressive dogma. As the usual Marxist tactic, I expect it, but abhor it nevertheless..

As left-wingers are nearly always ignorant about economics, let me explain: The free market (or capitalism) is the economic engine for wealth creation. Socialism is like Overhead, which doesn’t create wealth. So the goal of efficient business is to increase wealth creation while cutting down on Overhead costs. Ignorantly attacking members of the economic engine (those who create wealth and jobs) is irrational dogma. Businessmen, capitalists and industrialists create wealth. Government is a parasite sucking (redistributing) that wealth. More Government redistribution leads to less available capital and job creation.

Are left-wingers capable of understanding rational coherent economics?

Obama’s White House Communications (No, not Communism Director) Director Anita Dunn's favorite philosopher is Mao Zedong, who has the blood of 65 million Chinese on his hands.

Should we assume Obama supports the murder of millions because he supports the very same ideology (socialism) that caused this mass murder; and because chooses to align himself with people who admire the greatest murderer in world history?

Can left-wingers debate/refute Rand’s ideas using logic, reason, morality and fact and stop make such attacks?

Smores:

Domini –Hating businessmen, bourgeoisie, greedy Anglos and Jews, CEOs and whatever successful groups you want to demonize, is usual simpleminded progressive dogma. As the usual Marxist tactic, I expect it, but abhor it nevertheless..

As left-wingers are nearly always ignorant about economics, let me explain: The free market (or capitalism) is the economic engine for wealth creation. Socialism is like Overhead, which doesn’t create wealth. So the goal of efficient business is to increase wealth creation while cutting down on Overhead costs. Ignorantly attacking members of the economic engine (those who create wealth and jobs) is irrational dogma. Businessmen, capitalists and industrialists create wealth. Government is a parasite sucking (redistributing) that wealth. More Government redistribution leads to less available capital and job creation.

Are left-wingers capable of understanding rational coherent economics?

Perhaps you should lecture the heads of AIG and CIT, who have successfully managed to get government money to cover their incompetence? They won't cut bonuses to cut overhead, etc?

You might want to take a good look at who you are defending here. No rationalist is going to claim big business is generating wealth right now. That's just not even in the realm of todays reality.

Corporations have bought politicians. Corruption is rampant. And you post silly simplistic screeds against socialism? As if that is even on the radar?

The excesses of rugged individualism are as bad as those of collectivism. Moderation is key. And that includes governmental regulation.

Let me put it this way- Randism in Russia is why we now have strongmen rehabbing Stalin. They are nostalgic for Stalin. That's how bad it got. The corruption endemic in a situation with no governmental regulation whatsoever made some people think that a return to authoritarianism was better.

That scares rational people. When a philosophy in action makes the Soviets look good, you can bet that philsophy is horrible.

Hey, Smores -- Welcome to the Fray!

Interesting article, huh?

"Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don't bow down before their manifest superiority."

"The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me."

These passages remind me of someone. Can you guess who? Go on, give it a try!

(Let me know if you need a hint, okay?)

Stumped?

Okay, it's someone who decided to quit posting here because it would have been "unethical" to continue doing so. That was a very sad day, but somehow his spirit seems to live on here in one way or another.

Does that help?

It's that first passage that especially reminds me of that person. You see, one of his favorite rhetorical gambits was taunting people for "playing victim" yet he would get quite grandiose and maudlin when describing his persecution at the hands of the "fascist" Slate editors who he liked to imagine were intolerant of his rigid ideology when in fact they were just fed up with his unending ridiculous rules infractions. Boo hoo!