To call Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged” a caricature of life (rather than a characterization) is being charitable. Her main characters, apparently chiseled out of solid granite, are uniformly stoic, tall, thin, athletically built, aloof, and fawned over (by Rand) to the point of provoking nausea. Almost without exception, the antagonists are fat, lazy, dishonest, disgusting, cowardly, scheming, and evil. By contrast, the life of Dagney Taggart, the lone, indefatigable heroine, must have been so exhausting to portray that when the story was translated into a feature film (in two parts) a different woman had to be cast in the second episode.

The film, having faithfully replicated the narrative tone and characterization contained in the novel, is a two-dimensional cartoon, ideally suited to fill the 4 am slot on a slow night for HBO. The only character with enough depth to be remotely interesting is Francisco d'Anconia, and he only because he masquerades as a frivolous playboy through most of the story. The film, released in 2011-2012, after Rand's death, is based on the book she published in 1957. The passage of that much time is cinematically problematic, not only in a technological sense (we watch business moguls conversing and texting on post-millenial cell phones, while most of the plot centers around the fate of a RAILROAD, for Pete's sake) but also because it reveals a socioeconomically anachronistic flaw in Rand's philosophy—a flaw which, ironically, she herself presages in her characterization of James Taggart, the railroad heir and president of Taggart Transcontinental. James is a scheming, envious, hollow shell of a man who nonetheless exerts immense influence over the course of events, in collusion with the “evil, collectivist government.” The apple may not fall far from the tree, but when the tree is high on a hill, it sure can roll a long way.

So while John Galt, the hero who ultimately rises to dominate the narrative, may have been in some ways admirable (flat-out messianic, to hear Rand tell it), his 50's-era personage was in his mid 30's, which means by now he is most likely dead--and whatever cold-hearted virtue he had, right along with him. His grandson is running the show now, and years of privilege borne of granddad's ingenuity and industry have not been conducive to the transmission of virtue. The coarsening of American society has not been restricted to violent movies or stories of lying and cheating (like Lance Armstrong's saga) but is also evidenced in the culture of greed that rose to a fever pitch in the 80s, and shows little sign of slowing. "Greed is Good," says Gordon Gekko, the "hero" of the movie "Wall Street." Indeed.

Grandson Galt feels entitled, superior, and ethically unencumbered by even the Darwinian version of justice his grandfather espoused. The worst of it is, John III doesn't realize it. He sees his inherited wealth as a natural and pre-destined condition, and himself as the standard-bearer of granddad's “virtues,” without understanding what it takes to merit such recognition. He has never lived among the “masses,” and as heir to the Rand/Galt objectivist creed, feels no responsibility toward them whatsoever. They are moving parts in his industrial/financial empire, nothing more. Piggy-backing on his grandfather's success, he has amassed wealth so immense that he is rarely required to set foot on the street, where he might come in contact with lesser mortals. In the mirror he sees a Renaissance man, but his actions bespeak royalty conveyed by divine right, and he behaves as if a god.

To see this progression played out in reality, one need only observe the contrast between George Romney, self-made automobile mogul-turned-governor of Michigan, and his son Willard, the erstwhile presidential candidate whose own private-sector career (and subsequent political dalliances) evidenced none of the populist sensibilities that marked his father's legacy (even as liberal as he is, Michael Moore thought George was an okay guy). Young Mitt, living in the shadow cast by a larger-than-life father, was obsessively driven to surpass his father's accomplishments and emerge from under it to bask in his own light. Unfortunately for him, his coming-of-age dream never materialized, but along the way he managed, while amassing a huge fortune, to wreck the lives of thousands of “little people” who stood between him and material gain. He'll be fine, not to worry. The maid will get her paychecks on time.

Had Romney succeeded in attaining the presidency (and had the much- anticipated Republican congressional sweep come to pass), we'd very likely be staring the realization of Rand's dream in the face. Unfettered laissez-faire capitalism would proceed virtually unopposed, and the consolidation of power into the hands of America's economic elite class would be well on its way to cementing itself into perpetuity. And as pointed out in David Sirota's brilliant Salon.com piece, “Ayn Rand Is for Children,” ( http://www.salon.com/2013/01/19/ayn_rand_is_for_children/ ) the disparity between rich and poor would be well on its way toward resembling that of the developing world, where abject poverty is a way of life for the majority, who can in no sense be characterized as “takers,” but who work like dogs for slave wages, while those commandeering their labors live atop exalted mountains, oblivious.

Despite President Obama's electoral victory, we are not out of the woods yet. The forces aligned to wrench control of all lives and livelihoods from the general populous, and usurp said power for themselves and their government lackeys, are tireless and determined. And they persist in extolling Rand's philosophical “virtues” as gospel truth, while disseminating propaganda (Fox News, etc) promoting false hope among those whose Judeo-Christian work ethic and naive trust in capitalism fail to arm them against the possibility that plutocracy may not be Eden-as-advertised--that not all great wealth was the result of hard work and superior effort, but rather more likely is the result of incredible luck, or the substantial leg-up provided by inheritance, or both.

Rand's vision of a utopia run by square-jawed, unabashed capitalists ruled by a principled rugged-individualism, engaging in value-for-value trades on a “level playing field,” where “the best man wins,” is a fantasy that has no chance of ever becoming reality in a world populated by mere mortals subject to the temptations of power, greed, and unimaginable wealth. Once endowed with immense wealth, those who possess it are loath to part with it, nor share it with those whose labors make it possible to attain. Great wealth demands an UN-even playing field, where the low-wage labors of many redound to the economic benefit of a few.

To those who argue that we're all headed for a Communist nightmare, perhaps this passage from John Galt's climactic speech in “Atlas Shrugged” might prove illuminating. Instead of reading it as a repudiation of over-reaching government, however, imagine instead a world where control now rests solely in the hands of the financial elite, instead of with the People:

“I am speaking to those who desire to live and to recapture the honor of their soul. Now that you know the truth about your world stop supporting your destroyers. The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction to give it. Withdraw your sanction. Withdraw your support. Do not try to live on your enemies' terms or to win at a game where they're setting the rules. Do not seek the favor of those who enslaved you, do not beg for alms from those who have robbed you, be it subsidies, loans or jobs, do not join their team to recoup what they've taken by helping them rob your neighbors. One cannot hope to maintain one's life by accepting bribes to condone one's destruction. Do not struggle for profit, success or security at the price of a lien on your right to exist.”

So much for the beneficent, virtuous Objectivist utopia. May it never materialize.