Weiss writes: "John Allison, a former bank CEO and a leader of the Rand movement, has just become president of the influential Cato Institute."
Ayn Rand. (photo: Barnes and Noble)
Ayn Randroids and Libertarians Join Forces
13 July 12
yn Rand is a toxic figure to many people in America today, even on the right. Look how Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, backpedaled furiously (and unconvincingly) to deny that he was an acolyte of the Russian-born novelist. Though her extremist, atheistic vision of laissez-faire capitalism has gained traction from the Heartland to the intelligentsia, she remains a controversial figure.
That's why this recent bit of news is so startling: John Allison, a former bank CEO and a leader of the Rand movement, has just become president of the Cato Institute, the oldest and most influential libertarian think tank. This received only a modest amount of attention when it surfaced late last month, and you had to be a real political junkie to even be aware of it. But it is a seminal event in recent political history—a dramatic indication of the mainstreaming of the radical right.
What it means is that the Rand movement, which was little more than a cult when the Atlas Shrugged author died thirty years ago, has effectively merged with the vastly larger libertarian movement. While many differences are likely to remain—particularly as far as Ron Paul’s fading candidacy is concerned, given the Randers' support for abortion and opposition to his foreign policy views —this means that Objectivism, Rand’s quasi-religious philosophy, is going to permeate the political process more than ever before.
Allison, former CEO of North Carolina’s BB&T Bank, is not just going to be the Cato Institute’s sugar daddy. He replaces Ed Crane as president, meaning that he will have day-to-day control over the most significant libertarian organization in the country. Allison is a board member of the Ayn Rand Institute, the orthodox, no-compromise Randian organization, and is best known for his foundation donating free Rand books to thousands of schoolchildren across the nation—a crass exploitation of the fiscal troubles besetting primary schools.
Ayn Rand hated libertarians, so it would be easy to suggest that Rand would be rolling over in her grave at this news. But I don’t think so. I think she’d exult at the news, because it means that the Randers have effectively gained control over what had once been the “enemy.” Rand despised others on the right who didn’t march in lockstep with her extremist brand of no-government capitalism, laced as it was (and is) with strident atheism and rejection of humanist and Western values. Her most bitter enemy was the pious Catholic William F. Buckley Jr. She sneered at the John Birch Society for failing to promote capitalism with sufficient aggressiveness, and was contemptuous toward Barry Goldwater (even though she endorsed him). But she reserved some of her most heated invective for libertarians.
In 1971, she wrote in her newsletter: “I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called ‘hippies of the right’ who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism.” The libertarian economist Murray Rothbard , once a Rand acolyte, became a fierce critic of Rand, and the antagonism toward Rothbard lingers today among Randians, 17 years after Rothbard’s death.
But as far as the Rand movement is concerned, the libertarians have reformed in a serious way since then. The reason for that boils down to one factor: foreign policy.
Rand herself was very much an isolationist during the 1930s, and opposed U.S. entry into World War II. You can always tell a Randian True Believer because he or she will always agree with Rand on that, or at least not disagree, and Allison passed that test with flying colors when I interviewed him for Ayn Rand Nation. Allison explained to me that Rand argued that if we hadn’t entered the war, “the Germans and Russians would have killed each other off, and we would have been better off. Which is possible.”
“That goes back to this premise that we’ve all been told that being in World War II was a good thing,” he continued. “I’m not sure we shouldn’t have gotten in World War II but I think her argument is a very—you know, would these bad guys have killed each other off?”
“And the answer is, they might have,” he said. He chuckled at the prospect.
Allison was careful not to contradict Rand on that point. “It’s hard to know if it’s true or not,” he said.”We helped the Russians a lot, and set ourselves up for a lot of cost and risk after World War II.” True, Germany declared war on the U.S., but “she would argue that we helped set up Pearl Harbor by how we treated the Japanese.”
Such controversial views were as much a part of the Rand persona as her foreign policy transformation late in life, in which she became a strong supporter of Israel. Many libertarians agree with her on Israel—but not the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul. When I interviewed Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, he described Paul and the Libertarian Party as “anti-American” in their foreign policy views. But Brook made it clear to me that he felt that the libertarians in general had changed significantly, and for the better, since the old days.
Allison can be expected to bring Randers into key positions at Cato, and I expect that his formidable financial resources will also brought to bear on behalf of the think tank. True, he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as the Koch brothers, and I am sure the left will be rejoicing at departure of the Kochs. Don’t be.
Allison is more than just a deep pockets. He is a committed ideologue who is Randian to the core, even sharing her atheism. He understands that the fight over capitalism is at bottom a moral fight, between the Rand vision of morality, which embraces greed and selfishness, and the opposing view held by most Americans.
In a statement to Forbes, Alison made it clear that he’s seeking just that kind of ideological battle. “One of the things that I really want to do is make this a moral fight instead of a fight around the technical aspects of economics. The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground. A free society is the only society in which people can think for themselves and pursue their rational self-interest.”
Randers have been seeking for years not just to defend laissez-faire capitalism, but to make the rest of us embrace it—to fall in love with the Randian Big Brother, a world in which corporations of limitless size would run roughshod over the rest of society, restrained only by their “rational self-interest” (a favorite Randian catchphrase which Allison faithfully parroted). In other worse, restrained by nothing.
Although CATO is poles apart from the religious right, its alliance with a stone-cold atheistic movement, one that embraces the right to abortion, is a serious potential irritant.
By exposing the extremism that has come to infect the libertarian belief system, Allison’s ascendancy at the Cato Institute has done progressives and moderates an enormous favor. The only question is whether they will recognize it for the blessing that it clearly is.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I sawer it on the TV.
The 1% are hardly "Randoid". If you actually bothered to find out what was in your own best interest you'd know that the rich are for large-scale interference in the economy. But don't feel too silly about not knowing this. I mean it was only mentioned in a bestseller in 1957.
This sums it up nicely. Kudos, Rafael.
Might I add a quote from H. D. Rosenthal? "The fate of America was in the hands of 'men [who] studied...at the school of Mammon.' The Fisks, Goulds, Morgans, Carnegies and Rockfellars [Sic] needed 'the protective cloak of righteousnes which is the inevitable garment of the Anglo-Philistin e.'"
I am not an Objectivist, and Rand may have gone a bit too far in some ways or just a bit whacky in others, but one thing it is NOT is "complete hogwash". She saw what that kind of "help" did to her society and government.
However, Rand mistakenly believed that people's actions would always be rational, and also that such rational self-interest would always then lead collectively to "the best good" for all/society. Neither is true. She ignored completely the myriad ways in which human behaviors are not always rational, and in which the many can be harmed by the unconstrained actions of one or a few.
In a book titled "When Society Becomes An Addict," the author Anne Wilson-Schaef puts forward the theory that when society's priorities are addictive in nature, many people will learn those addictive tendencies, and they will be played out in one form or another.
Alcohol and cigarettes immediately come to mind, but there are also process addictions, which manifests itself in zealous religious extremism.
All addictions are based on fear. Greed is the fear of never having enough. When someone is afraid, and in denial of their fear, rathional decisions will always be affected.
A.S. Neill, author of the book "Summerhill" wrote: "If the parent says white, and the child has to say white, the child is not free. If the parent says black, and the child has to say white, the child is not free either. The child is free only when it can say exactly what color it sees, and be accepted for that.
I believe this is what most rebelliousness is about - it's the child in many people having to say or do exactly the opposite of what the authoritarian figure in their lives told us was the truth.
Is there a difference between an under-developed sociopath and a rebellious child, or are they connected? I'm not sure.
However, Rand mistakenly believed that people's actions would always be rational, and also that such rational self-interest would always then lead collectively to "the best good" for all/society. Neither is true. She ignored completely the myriad ways in which human behaviors are not always rational, and in which the many can be harmed by the unconstrained actions of one or a few.
Had she been right about people being rational the Republican party wouldn't exist and she would have no followers.
I have known some rational Republicans, but it's been awhile.
Being a former Republican, that's what I meant. ;o)
Emma Goldman also saw the truth about the Soviet Union. So did C.L.R. James who developed the notion of "state capitalism" and totally rejected the idea that the Soviety Union was in any way a socialist society. So, one can have a serious critique of Soviet style, "vanguard party", "socialism" without becoming a rabid right wing supporter of 19th century "free market" (which is actually a myth and never existed) capitalism.
And, in fact, her ideas are "complete hogwash" precisely because they are based on mythology (i.e., that "free market" capitalism that had a market economy with no state intervention) ever existed. Capitalism developed with massive assistance/inte rvention by the state so to harken back to something that in fact never existed and to promote it as something we need to "get back to" is "complete hogwash" indeed.
After ranting - I beg every Dem to VOTE and get all you can who will vote Dem to the polls in 2012 -- or down we go. YOUR VOTE STILL counts (except those Diebold machines leave questions) -- Diabolic machines - ask for a paper ballot or better yet get absentee voter sheet (if you can) --
Go Obama. I hope they find Mitty lied to the SEC (IRS) - although they won't prosecute him or any $$ person - there is something in the U.S. Constitution that a felon can't run for President. Oh wait - the house impeached Clinton when he "lied" about his sex life -- which might be more important to the GOP than lying about income to dodge paying taxes.
But Thomas lied for several years about his wife's earnings and he is still part of the RAT pack.
I expect tons of red marks for this rather sarcastic post.
VOTE
Japanese-hating, ethnic-cleansin g FDR plotted to provoke the Japanese into attacking US ships, so he would have a pretext for getting the USA into WWII. He was willing to sacrifice US ships. You cannot lose a ship to hostile action without losing the lives of sailors. FDR was willing to sacrifice American lives.
There was abundant evidence before WWII that the rulers of the USSR were brutal, ruthless, and conscienceless. After WWII they kicked us in the teeth. So why should we care if two tyrannies destroy each other?
Funny you should say so: I was just thinking something similar about the libertarians and Randies. A plague on both their houses.
It's not for want of trying -in theory at least-. That's why even US, dumbed-down voters regard them with suspicion (and most have never heard of the terms "Objectivists" or even Libertarians, let alone spell them).
Instead of Gulags and Holcaust, they'd happily settle for a "Them and Us" slave-buttresse d population, like a hereditary Monarchy or permanent 0.01% as desired by the Koch's and their ilk. Be happy with that staus would ye?
Markovchhaney, the emphasis on atheism is the result of Rand followers claiming to be holier than thou, when in fact they are not. Witness Paul Ryan's speech at Georgetown U. where he attempted to fold his Rand philosophy into Catholicism, and was severely attacked by the Catholic Bishops. Currently, a group of Catholic nuns - who find the Ryan budget to be "immoral" - is touring the country by bus in opposition to his budget plan, which severely cuts social services and funnels more tax cuts to the rich. By the way, he was conveniently "busy" when they came to DC. Even though he still requires his staffers to read Rand, he now claims NOT to be a Rand follower.
It's like Ronald McDonald saying he doesn't like the Big Mac!
The rest of your post is just nonsensical garbage.
Perhaps it is you who needs to carefully review the history of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union before September 1, 1939, and after June 22, 1941:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/world-war-2-behind-closed-doors/
An excellent BBC series based on archival documents and first hand accounts
http://www.amazon.com/World-War-II-A-Documentary-History/lm/3P1T6R85N9PIV/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_alt_1
Documentaries on World War II relating to this subject
http://www.amazon.com/World-War-II/lm/3H413GQXZ2MHT/ref=cm_srch_res_rpli_alt_10
Books on World War II relating to this subject
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."
-- Democratic Senator Harry S Truman quoted in The New York Times (24 June 1941)
As to the rest of my post, it is well documented that FDR was willing to lose US ships. Read "Day of Deceit", by Stinnett. It is unclear whether the Roosevelt administration knew there was going to be an attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, but they knew something was going to happen some time around then.
The commanders at Pearl Harbor, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark about the imminent threat. FDR allowed them to be scapegoated for the disaster. Much later, after they were dead, they were completely exonerated.
There, I fixed that for you.
You are correct. According to Daniel Ellsberg, formerly of the Manhattan Project, The U.S.'s bombing of Japan was also posed as an indirect warning to the USSR. The U.S. did provoked the arms race starting with that catastrophy, and went from there. The Soviets of course responded, and it went further from there: becoming a "world of two hostile camps."
"Truman ordered bombs dropped on Japan despite the fact he and his top advisors were aware that Japan abandoned hope for a military victory and were seeking an end to the war." (Forgot the source.) But check it out.) The bombing itself probably caused more deaths than an invasion. What does it matter? Japan was seeking a way to end the war but would have been attacked eitherway. Negotiations would have been nice, but Truman prefered a Strangelove option.
"The Soviet-American Arms Race" by John Swift (History Today): "The destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by American atomic weapons in 1945 began an arms race between the U.S. and the USSR."
"U.S. and USSR Rivals From 1944 to 1949 (From qcsehistory.uk) : "The USA had developed the atom bomb. They beleived they were stronger than the USSR and could use it as a warning against the USSR."
Daniel Ellsberg, from speech in Hawai'i in 1995: "The United States has pointed the nuclear gun a dozen or two times.It's hard to say precisely because its all very secret and documents are slowly coming out." "...United States had made plans for the possible, imminent use of nuclear weapons if U.S. threats were not sucessfull."
It's amazing what we don't get from the U.S. media.
Because like all violently opposed and unhinged entities, they tend to do a helluva lot of destruction in the meanwhile, and there is always a root or spore that has not been totally flushed, remaining to poison fertile ground as it grows anew (like this Randist crowd and Monsanto's products).
As long as we nurture, worship and fund a decadent and bloated military in the spirit of exceptionalism and rationalization of Imperialistic aspirations, despite failing populist support for such, there will be a tendency to want power over others and their resources for the enrichment of the perpetrators.
Personally, I don't get the seeming fascination by certain RSN contributors with such an elitist dinosaur who seemed to hate even her admirers and use them as chattel.
He also was part of setting up the de facto government of the Phillipines to where it became a virtual colony of the U.S. as well. The Filipinos were treated much the same way that whites treated Blacks and Native Americans were in this country.
I loaned the book to someone else, so I can't give you any chapters at this time. Sorry.
Hah. Not exactly. See http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html
Normally, Romney probably wants nothing to do with Cato, and the reverse is even more true.
i believe that was the Heritage Foundation.
No, but it was the Heritage foundation, a very similar group.
Weiss, you are all over the map. You conflate Objectivism with Libertarianism and the Radical Right as though ANY of them were even remotely the same things, or in bed together... incredible.
I had much more to say about your rampant misinformation but I will leave it at this:
I am not an Objectivist, but I understand the philosophy... and apparently you don't. For example:
Rand's Objectivism has NOTHING to do with "greed". It *DID* preach "selfishness", but Rand's meaning was not even close to the dictionary definition of the word. For example, Objectivism teaches that one must NEVER ask for or expect something one has not earned. That means greed COULD NOT be a part of the "enlightened selfishness" that Rand taught. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.
You present yourself as an authority, yet you didn't even get that little bit right. I will leave it to other readers to guess how much else here is just a little bit... not quite right.
When you paint with an overly large brush, you are bound to get sloppy and splatter things all over the place. And man, is this article a mess.
Why should MY definition of "earned" matter? I'm not arguing that Rand was correct, only that she used certain terms in ways that you will not find in a typical dictionary.
If you want to know what Rand meant by "earned", you'll have to read Rand. Honestly... you expect me to explain a whole philosophy in a few hundred characters? Unlike Weiss, I would not pretend to do so. Even Rand didn't pretend to do so. She wrote very long, preachy, boring books to explain her philosophy.
But on the other hand, if you haven't read her long, preachy, boring books, you probably don't understand what she was trying to say, either.
"Enlightened selfishess"? Where did you get that one? Pluck it outa thin air did ya?
Your example of Rand's definition is still anti-social and anti-progressiv e, as in "Are there no prisons, no workhouses" and all about dumping the less fortunate on the margins as trash with no recourse to assistance from those who earned it (or more likely inherited it, like she and most of her benighted acolytes).
There will always be many inherently disadvantaged, whether handicapped or submerged, especially in a racist, socially-crippl ed "Winner-take-al l", backward society like the USA. But they have human rights too, and a progressive socio-economic society would not marginalize nor dispense with them but enable them to maintain at least a decent standard of living whilst providing training and education so that they can build both self-respect and be contributory members of that society.
All else is medievalist; and B.T.W., YOUR brush is tainted and narrow!
Humbug!
Do you see ANY writing on this page by me, ANYWHERE, arguing that Rand was correct?
I wrote that Weiss mis-charcterize d her philosophy, I did not claim that philosophy was a good one.
If you are going to try to argue with me, please confine your arguments to things I actually stated.
Thanks and have a nice day.
I wrote that Weiss mis-charcterize d her philosophy, I did not claim that philosophy was a good one.
If you are going to try to argue with me, please confine your arguments to things I actually stated.
Thanks and have a nice day.
Strong inference seems to me to be defense of the indefensible in the context of current affairs.
I made clear in my original reaction to this article and I quote: "Personally, I don't get the seeming fascination by certain RSN contributors with such an elitist dinosaur who seemed to hate even her admirers and use them as chattel". That's all.
I just continue to wonder at the fascination (like a continuing quest for Hitler's, Stalin's, the Dulles Bro's or any other historical monster's motives) on RSN.
I'd prefer not to squander time "arguing" with you. You seem less bent on stating what you claim to know for common edification, than declaiming from on high, like your patronizing response to my post (As represented by the inclusion of the word "try", o' great pundit) which was simply putting another point of view in questioning terms.
You are at liberty to opine that Weiss mis-characteriz ed the subject's motives based on your own interpretations but not to declare your opinion as gospel.
Thanks and don't take yerself so seriously!
See... the problem here is that YOU inferred things from my writings that I did not actually state. I am not responsible for your inferences, when I stated my point in clear English.
Quote:Fine. And as it happens, I agree with you about that. But my reply to someone else was not related to your comment.
Quote:They aren't "my" interpretations, either. If you have read much Rand yourself, or bothered to read analyses of the philosophy, you would know this yourself.
It is possible to disagree without being insulting:
Quote:No... what I meant to write was "rational selfishness", which was Rand's term (and not necessarily an accurate one). No need to disparage people over the occasional typing mistake. If we did that, we'd have to insult most articles in this electronic rag.
Any vague references to helping the poor, via charity, is nothing more than hogwash-intende d to address their critics. Pure sociopathic narcissism at its finest. My only criticism of Mr. Weiss is his meek criticism of Rand's Atheism. Can we not yet all agree this was Rand's lone example of intellectual courage?
An appropriately dismissive term for Ms. Rand and her philosophies (so-called) is just about where I think any debate on the woman should end. Let's not waste our energy.
Fascism is the blending the state with corporate power, so, while they may not be the same thing, they are definitely siblings.
Atheism is the choice of rational beings in the face of a huge cacophony of assertions that are untestable, unprovable, and mutually exclusive, all purporting to be THE TRUTH.
Unforutnately, I concur with your assessment. I think I might move to Greenland or Iceland, if there is any room left.
Rand was simply referring to first principles, to Aristotle' Law of Identity - A is A - in attempting to formulate a logical basis for her philosophy of Objectivism.
Whether she succeeded is open to critical analysis and review.
This classic "man bites dog" screed is sloppily researched and so factually incorrect in many so regards that one hastens to know where to begin a critique.
For those objective-minde d RSN readers who seriously want to read critical studies of this topic I suggest the three books below:
It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand, by Jerome Tuccille. Extremely irreverent, hilarious, and iconoclastic.
Tuccille has authored more than twenty books, including best-selling, highly acclaimed biographies of Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Alan Greenspan, and the Hunts of Texas, and several novels. Tuccille’s book, Heretic: Confessions of an ex-Catholic Rebel, was a Barnes & Noble Publisher’s Choice selection. He is vice president of communications at a major financial services firm. He previously taught at the New School for Social Research in New York City.
Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, by Brian Doherty.
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, by Jennifer Burns.
Any book suggestions for changing the priorities of all the people in this culture?
In another comment section, I suggested that, as a culture, we might try broadening our definition of what "violence" is. People already see such things as murder, rape, spousal abuse, war crimes and the like as forms of violence, and have no problem with jail sentences or worse for the culprits.
To me, fracking is a form of violation, as is nuclear energy. What the bankers did using other people's money to bankroll their illegal or immoral monetary schemes is also a form of violence. It's just not as immediate or physical, but the long term consequences are just as debilitating or difficult to deal with for those who were victimized.
How about lying in presidential ads? Or just telling the part of the truth that makes one's political position seem true, but not the rest of it?
It's been written that in war, truth is the first casualty. When lying supports or breeds violence, what then?
So many people just want to tell the part of the truth that makes them look good, or, at least, doesn't make them look bad. How many of us want to believe we are good judges of character, and find we get conned by the sincere seeming half truths we are fed on a daily basis?
Isn't that how we, the American people, got here? By avoiding most things that even hinted at the possibility of conflict? Instead of learning how to resolve conflicts, haven't most people learned to avoid them, or rationalize them?
My mentor in college once told me that all friends really end up being are two people who develope ways of resolving conflicts, where both people are satisfied with the resolution.
That works if both people see the other person as an equal. How many people in this culture have learned to see others as either better than, or worse than themselves? Without equality, what you have left is a power structure.
What I keeps eeing in this culture is people like the Koch brothers, Adelson, Trump, and so on, believing they have power over others, and so many people have learned to believe that to be true. That learned assumption is what they act on.
Will the economic and environmental disasters on the horizon force people into thinking critically about what is going on, and how much they've all had a hand in it, or will they just continue to look for others to blame as so many appear to be doing now?
Could you imagine Star Wars being the pretext for a massive social movement in America that actually shifts the balance of power?
That's how I view Randroids, they are wannabe Jedi's trying to harness the "Force".
Don't get me wrong, I like Star Wars but that won't ever influence my vote.
Technically, Ayn Rand shouldn't be influencing voting habits either but apparently it's that kind of world.
as well as the Jews who managed not to get killed. Might have put a crimp into her later support for Israel, don't you think?
America could have easily bombed Auschwitz, and possibly some other death camps, but choose not to. Auschwitz would have been the softest of targets, having no anti-aircraft defenses. Another target not far from Auschwitz actually was bombed. If they didn't want to bomb Auschwitz, they could have easily and safely bombed the railroad tracks and bridges going to Auschwitz.
If they knew the whole story about Asuchwitz, then I doubt it was a military target. And why bomb it if it was full of prisoners? Not bombing the tracks and bridges going into it, is a puzzle? Was it just because it was not a military target, and did they have that many planes and crew that they could risk a run on a non-military target? I don't know, so I'm asking.
As a history teacher I have discovered that one of the most enduring myths of younger Americans not versed in the history of their country preceding their birth, is that the United States entered the Second World War in order to save the Jews of Europe. In fact, the very opposite was the case. The government deliberately chose not to save the Jews until it was much too late. After FDR’s callous immigration authorities illegally obstructed and surreptitiously slammed the door to freedom for vast numbers of potential refugees, his administration continued its policy of deliberate betrayal of the millions of European Jews in Hitler’s death camps until the "Final Solution" was almost finalized. A masterpiece in meticulous scholarship, this brilliant book formed the basis for the powerful PBS documentary, America and the Holocaust: Deceit and Indifference.
Arthur D. Morse, While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy, Random House, 1968.
This is an excellent companion volume to Wyman’s The Abandonment of the Jews, documenting the acquiescence and complicity of the Roosevelt administration in the Holocaust.
This incredible egregious statement by author Gary Weiss could not be more factually wrong. It demonstrates his sloppy research and analysis.
Ayn Rand was a dedicated activist and spokesperson in NYC in the 1940 GOP presidential campaign for Wendell Willkie, her only participation in partisan politics.
Willkie was more interventionist than FDR. He was not an isolationist but has been specifically chosen by British intelligence, the Northeastern seaboard Anglophile Establishment, and FDR because they wanted no non-interventio nist candidate (such as Herbert Hoover or Robert Taft) in the election.
This was clearly pointed out by the acclaimed investigative journalist George Seldes in his InFact newsletter at the time, and by other researchers in subsequent books.
Here is a basic review of the facts:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/115189.html
http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnWWII.htm
-- Winston Churchill, New York Enquirer, 1936
Was Churchill an "isolationist" also?
Defense of greed is hardly new. American Indians were criticized by government officials in the 1880s for being off the mark because they didn't exhibit greed. As the theory went, once they got with the greed program all would be well with them.
Indian casinos evidence of greed? Hardlly. Gaming evenue supports critical community services ( because BIA is funded at 25% of need. Indian health funding is at 33%) and important governmental functions, not to mention also subsidizing state coffers.
Ayn Rand's "rational self-interest" to me looks like Gordon Geiko's "greed is good" mantra annointed with a grandiose label: "objectivist philosophy."
The goddess of unbridled capitalism, according to what I recently read, managed to suck at the very sugar tit she allegedly despised in her declining years. The thing I love best about hypocrits is that they never disappoint.
It would interesting to know which of the Cato's, The Elder or The Younger, Allison will now follow, being that he is the president of the Cato Institute.
Cato the Elder said:
"Those who steal from private individuals spend their lives in stocks and chains; those who steal from the public treasury go dressed in gold and purple."
Cato the Younger said:
"I would not be beholden to a tyrant, for his acts of tyranny. For it is but usurpation in him to save, as their rightful lord, the lives of men over whom he has no title to reign."
One suspects that had the Nazis somehow been able to win in Europe, they'd have gone right on making excuses for U.S. nonintervention --and that if the Reich had been able to conquer America they'd have found rasons to collaborate. The "libertarianism " of Rand was little more than a shell around brute fascism.
Ayn Rand openly identified as ethnically Jewish, so I doubt she would have welcomed a fascist victory anywhere.
In the extremely unlikely event that Hitler could have conquered the USA I doubt that Rand would have been a collaborator. She loved the USA and hated totalitarianism of all kinds.
People know she hated Russia after the revolution. It is less well known that she hated Russia before the revolution just as much. In her novel, "The Fountainhead", her hero Howard Roark mentions the despotism that had engulfed Europe. In the early 1940s only one kind of Despotism engulfed all of Europe, and that was fascism.
Some Italian made a film from her earlier novel, "We The Living". The film was immensely popular in Italy during the fascist years. At first the Italian government was delighted - they said that since the film was critical of the USSR and fascists were fighting the USSR, the film was good propaganda. But the Nazis said no, the film should not be shown because it was critical of all totalitarianism , including the fascist variety.
Ayn Rand condemned fascism many times in her letters. Read the book, "The Letters of Ayn Rand", edited by Michael Berliner.
I notice parallels with Freud and Hitler with cocaine...other "great" public figures were outrageous 'rocket men' who had, at the end of their analyzed inner experiences...a 'crash' of nihilistic emptiness...whi ch is the source of the last word in selfishness...i t's all gone, no more hope left...etc.
Or how about this? when there are enough cheap, legal speed pills available to everybody, as in the US after WW2 and Japan, building herself thru the overtime energies of her citizens...the economy will put people back to work, because rightly or wrongly, those substances get people up and doing entrepreneurial activities...I know there are jumps here, but much of the history is good and correlates with intense activity.
Try to remember what really fuels Wall Street and the weeks of long hours of programmers and working entertainment people...get REAL about life.
Rand couldn't help herself. You take what she took, every day, and you too will get some powerful ideas a-working.
You might write pretty boringly, though.
I'm saddened by the knowledge that we actually shared a family name. No one I know about in the wider clan has fallen victim to her phantasies.
To whom do we owe her constant after-life ?
RSS feed for comments to this post