That really read as though the author had something personal against Rand.

1. He misrepresents Rand's ideas repeatedly. Many other posters have gone into the detail there. I"ll just point out that being "superior" is not being rich. Rand's view was that in a free captialist society, money is the measure of progress and recognition, so superior people tend to become rich. Rand had contempt for the idle rich living off of inheirtied money.

2. He asserts that the Republican Party has been "captured" by Rand's ideas. While there are some simillarites, there are many more differences. A political Party run by Rand would not even tolerate let alone cater to the Christian Right. But by all means let's not let facts get in the wat of a snappy ending.

3. It's become fashionable to diss Rand's writing. To each his or her own, obviously, but I don't see Rand as much better or worse than many cniotemproary novelists, and, at her best, much more convincing.

4. Rand may have had "followers," but Objectivism is not and never has been a cult. To compare Rand to L. Ron Hubbard is either jealousy or actue intellecltual blindness, or . . . some other serious condition.

5. Wasn't this supposed to be a book reivew? Did the author at any point give any idea whether either of the two books in question might be worth reading? Or is it just quaint for me to think that a book reivew might actually discuss the books supposedly being reviewed?

6. One doesn't have to agree with Rand (and I dont, mostly) to spot a crude hatchet job. Rand stated radical positions repeatedly and was willing to live with the logical conclusions of those positions. I don't want to sound like talk radio, but really, it's OK to be as radical as one wants to the left, but not the other way?

Finally . . . I have a hard time accepting that Slate has nothing better to devote web real estate to than a clearly personal attack that failed miserably as thoguht piece, book review, and anything else useful that comes to mind.

"A political Party run by Rand would not even tolerate let alone cater to the Christian Right."

Fantastic point. It is a sect of conservatism that has co-op'd her, and they've cherry picked her work as well, but I agree that it was reckless by the author to apply the parts to the whole. I don't think most conservatives could even really describe Rand or her works. My parents are life-long conservatives, so are my Grandparents. My sister read Atlas Shrugged recently and it became a conservation at a family gathering. My parents didn't recognize Rand's name (Both college grads, both successful and I think they may have known it when they were younger, but forgot). My Grandma just said, "I hears she's weird. Radical people like her."

Part of the problem is that people use slippery slopes when describing Republicans. To say one prefers personal responsibility, as does most of my family, gets turned into, "You want to crush poor people and kill them so you can become rich." Not so, they just believe that when more people are taking care of their business, more business is taken care of. However, that doesn't mean they subscribe to extremism, or even know who people like Rand or Friedman are.

Agreed. I tend to not put much belief in Rand articles because they often cherry pick her work and life and then blow it out of proportion to suit their political beliefs. You have the flip side too in articles from conservatives, proudly trumpeting her as a champion of the right while conveniently forgetting her staunch atheism and support for legalized abortions.

But this was a hatchet job on a woman who has been dead since 1982. Read the first paragraph again. It's an attempt at forcing the point home that she was a nutty bitch and you would be insane to agree with her. It's difficult to regard anyone as anything but a partisan hack with such writing techniques.

The article is about two new biographies of the woman. If you wish to contest some aspects of the points addressing her personal life, do so. I don't think the point of the article was really to address her philosophy or her politics, though I don't think it's possible to separate the notion that her personal life had a very big influence over her philosophy.

And as for that, a great many of us who are quite familiar with Objectivism see no problem in the way it is characterized in this article. It's a silly philosophy.

I had to remind myself a couple of times while reading it that this was a review of books, rather than an angry political rant. If he wants to rail against Republicans and conservatives, he should just do so and drop the pretense. It was clearly a guy with a serious bone to pick with a philosophy he has far too little understanding of, silly or not.

"The article is about two new biographies of the woman." I fear we may have widely varying definitions of the word "about." From what I see, the article, mentions the two books, (barely), and then is off to races about how Ayn Rand was this horrible damaged person whose philosophy is a blight on the universe. How is the article "about" the two books at all? I don't need to contest how the author depicts Rand's personal life; the author is clearly not objective on the subject and has a massive ax to grind (he comes off like an admirer from afar who could never get the woman's attention, poor thing). I'm sure her personal life influenced her views heavily . . . I imagine everyone's does. But factually speaking, the author distorted several aspects of Rand's philosophy, two of which I pointed out. Seeing "no problem" with inaccuracy is OK I guess, but it renders your "silly philosophy" comment, ummmm . . . silly.

kencleanairsystem:

"The article is about two new biographies of the woman." I fear we may have widely varying definitions of the word "about." From what I see, the article, mentions the two books, (barely), and then is off to races about how Ayn Rand was this horrible damaged person whose philosophy is a blight on the universe. How is the article "about" the two books at all? I don't need to contest how the author depicts Rand's personal life; the author is clearly not objective on the subject and has a massive ax to grind (he comes off like an admirer from afar who could never get the woman's attention, poor thing). I'm sure her personal life influenced her views heavily . . . I imagine everyone's does. But factually speaking, the author distorted several aspects of Rand's philosophy, two of which I pointed out. Seeing "no problem" with inaccuracy is OK I guess, but it renders your "silly philosophy" comment, ummmm . . . silly.

Let's look at these "inaccuracies":

1. He misrepresents Rand's ideas repeatedly. Many other posters have gone into the detail there. I"ll just point out that being "superior" is not being rich. Rand's view was that in a free captialist society, money is the measure of progress and recognition, so superior people tend to become rich. Rand had contempt for the idle rich living off of inheirtied money.

Absolutley false. Wealth does indeed play a significant role in how Rand categorizes the world. Poverty, in her view, is the result of personal failing. You can dumb this down to mean that those who are too poor to be self-sufficient are scum...but the logical conclusion of Rand's philosophy would equate wealth with success and would render all but the most successful to be beneath the cares of the upper crust. Rand wasn't an aristocrat, nor was she a populist. She was a predator. All one need to be to be morally superior in Rand's world is the most effective hunter in the state of nature that is the ultimate arbiter of ethics in her world.

2. He asserts that the Republican Party has been "captured" by Rand's ideas. While there are some simillarites, there are many more differences. A political Party run by Rand would not even tolerate let alone cater to the Christian Right. But by all means let's not let facts get in the wat of a snappy ending.

Very true. But it doesn't change the fact that many of the Screaming Teabaggers claim to be fans of her silly ideas. It would be a waste of time to point out how ridiculously fraudulent the Teabaggers are, as not a single one of them would not whore out their last ideals for a dollar, but that's neither here nor there.

Ayn Rand's ideas are quite possibly more utopian than the worst communist fantasies. At least communism has been tried. No decent society has ever attempted anything close to Objectivism (except maybe Somalia).

"No decent society has ever attempted anything close to Objectivism (except maybe Somalia)."

Please explain how/when Somalia has attempted something "close to Objectivism."

Have any "undecent" soceities tried it?

vapoly01:

"No decent society has ever attempted anything close to Objectivism (except maybe Somalia)."

Please explain how/when Somalia has attempted something "close to Objectivism."

Have any "undecent" soceities tried it?

Maybe you didn't catch it...Objectivism IS INDECENT...it's the State of Nature, Social Darwinism to the extreme...as one poster on another board put it, no modern conservative, as that is defined by the American right today, would ever embrace Ayn Rand's ideas if they really understood them or her. You can't possibly be a Christian conservative and appreciate Rand, that's for sure.

"But it doesn't change the fact that many of the Screaming Teabaggers claim to be fans of her silly ideas."

Very true. And represents one of the most frustrating parts of her latest resurgence. However, even though they are in actuality not a fan of her ideas, the fact that they still claim to be is not Rand's fault. Getting angry at her actually will not solve anything because, at least in this instance, it is not her who is the problem. If the teabaggers would actually read her books cover to cover, they'd put it down and go, "wait a second......." Yet, the teabaggers--particularly southern ones more than anywhere else, IMO--have about the most interesting social dynamic I've ever seen. From afar, it almost seems that they advocate anything against their individual best interest while screaming about being individuals. Rand says get rich, get powerful and yet, in South Carolina, their electorate is salivating at the chance to build a 787 for less money than any American has ever built an airplane, and they're happy about it! Even proud, to an extent. They don't feel crapped on or anything, or like they're settling for less. They think making less money, working more hours and getting less benefits makes them heroes of capitalism--and they're ready to stuff it to us Washingtonians who are like, "Uhh, we're not gonna step backwards." I'm certain that to them it makes more sense, but I haven't been able to crack the puzzle myself.

Truth is, for some, socialism is the most selfish act they could do for themselves (ensuring free services with the intention of never contributing to society), and thus it would be--according to Rand--the most virtuous act of their lives, in her objective account of it, but not in her personal mortality. Trouble is, sometimes she forgot that there is a difference. I wonder if the teabaggers are the same.

Personally, I'm with Carter. They hate that Obama is black. If he was white, they'd still hate him, but there would have never been a 9/12 protest in Washington, IMO. I just don't believe they would have protested (by which I mean get the time off of work, pay for the gas to make the trip, find lodging accommodation, make signs, then stand outside for hours) a white man. I can't see these conservatives (who do not have a protesting bone in their body) doing it to a white president, democrat or republican. If this is true, then it is also a better explanation for their behavior than Rand herself. Thus I hold the opinion that, even if you were to sufficiently douse Rand in their minds and hearts, it would not change any of their social or economic opinions, because they are not rooted in Rand, but in something else.

For teabaggers, Rand is an excuse, a convenient quote machine that they can use to justify behavior that makes no sense (at least to me), but that they have an overwhelming emotional conviction that said behavior is correct.

" But it doesn't change the fact that many of the Screaming Teabaggers claim to be fans of her silly ideas."

Which is rather funny, really. The Reddest of the Red States are the ones that have the biggest gap between whay they get from Washington and what they pay in. It hasn't ocurred to them that in a Randian world, there would be no farm subsidies, no renting Federal grazing lands for a fraction of the market rate, and the like?

Damn right. They'd rather be dirt poor than see one dollar of hard earned tax money go to help those OTHER poor people who don't deserve it. In principle.

"1... Rand's view was that in a free captialist society, money is the measure of progress and recognition, so superior people tend to become rich. Rand had contempt for the idle rich living off of inherited money."

Translation: Rand would favor strong estate taxes. (Uh oh.)

"2 ...A political Party run by Rand would not even tolerate let alone cater to the Christian Right."

Who says the Republicans cater to the Christian Right? They use it to win elections, promising they're on their side, without ever really delivering. Was abortion done away with? Prayer put back in schools? The Republicans lost 2006 in part because the Christian Right stayed home in a lot of places. (The Democrats do the same with the Progressive Left, at their peril...)

"3 ...It's become fashionable to diss Rand's writing."

It was ALWAYS fashionable to dis Rand's writing, because it is terrible by any literary standard. Her philosophy, on the other hand, is subject to debate. In the end, though, I suspect this point is just more of that good, ol' fashioned pathological right-wing self-vicitimization

"4 ... Rand may have had "followers," but Objectivism is not and never has been a cult."

I think it would depend on whether Rand bilked her worshippers of large amounts of money. Maybe the biographies mention whether this was the case.

"5...Wasn't this supposed to be a book review?"

It was: Mr. Hari writes early on,"... the books work best, for me, on a level I didn't expect. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against: compassion"

Sounds like an endorsement. Mr. Hari then focused on the question that framed the books and accounts for their appearance on the market now of all times: What is it in us that makes so many of us buy her books? These authors tried to find it by exploring Rand's life, and Mr. Hari in his review describes their result.

"6.. it's OK to be as radical as one wants to the left, but not the other way"

Two things here: First, this cliché is another example of right-wing victimization culture.

Second, and more important: You're making a crucial fallacy--- assuming that criticism of one person entails support for their adversaries. This is commonly made by people who cannot understand the concept of objective criticism, Here's why it's fallacious: Since this is a review of biographies Ayn Rand, who was not a left-wing radical, it's unclear why anyone would bring up left-wing radicals, unless they were directly influential on her life. Those that were: Lenin and the Communists. Of course, Mr. Hari does mention them and not in a positive light... so I guess even in the context of this review your supposition is false as well as fallacious. If you want a Slate biography reviewer to talk about left-wing radicals, write a biography of one. Start with Che Guevara: He was as egotistical, sociopathic, and passionate as Rand was.

There would also be be no free roads, no state colleges, no high school football (or stadium). All this is socialism.

Should every road be a turnpike? Charge by the mile, maybe? Should every college cost $50,000+ a year? Should every aspiring footballer be required to buy their own shoes, pads, and uniform like those who play sports that aren't socialized?

Not at all.

We disagree, clearly, about the quality of the article as a book review, fine. And about how good or bad a writer Rand was.

My point about wealth and Christianity was simply to point out that the author's contention that Rand's ideas permeate the Republican Party was not supportable factually, but he wasn't going to allow that to get in the way of his summation. And he didn't.

I have no agenda about radicals of either persuasion. I simply pointed out that is seems more acceptable to espouse a radical agenda of one kind than it does another.

Apaprently we disagree about that as well. Thankfully that's still allowed (far as I can tell).