Category Archives: Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand Rewrites

The modern world needs a dose of Ayn Rand on a regular basis, and I for one am going to see to it that we get one. (Ayn Rand loves fan fiction.)

"If you want to find Cherry-Tree Lane all you have to do is never make assertions. That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell we show. We do not claim we prove. It is not your obedience that we seek to win, but your rational conviction. You have seen all the elements of our secret. The conclusion is now yours to draw we can help you to

POLICE CAPTAIN:Monseigneur Bishop we have apprehended this man a known criminal outside your gates with a set of silver candlesticks he claims you gave him what say you?

BISHOP MYRIEL: Yes, he stole them. [to Jean Valjean] You wretched leech, if you wanted silver candlesticks, you should have created them.

All of me How dare you try to take all of me Can't you see I exist wholly, with unbreached self-esteem, without you

My lips are mine How can I lose myself in you? I am still myself My arms are my arms Romantic love is a conscious expression of philosophy

MAL: How come you didn't turn on me, Jayne?

JAYNE: Money wasn't good enough.

MAL: What happens when it is?

JAYNE: When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, its picked up by scoundrels.

"Whatever the Free Market ordains, is full of wisdom. What we ascribe to fortune, happens not without a presiding nature, nor without a connection and intertexture with the things ordered by the Market. From the Market all things flow."

It was terribly cold, like the inside of a train station after all the trains have left for the evening. It was the last night of the year, and in its cold and darkness there walked a poor little girl, bareheaded and with naked feet. Her slim frame was out of scale in relation to a normal human body; its lines were so long, so fragile, so exaggerated that she looked like a stylized drawing

"But we have received a sign, Edith a mysterious sign. A miracle has happened on this farm...in the middle of the web there were the words 'Some Pig'...we have no ordinary pig." "Well," said Mrs. Zuckerman, "it seems to me you're a little off. It seems to me we have no ordinary spider." "Ah, there you have it," said her husband. "The extraordinary spider is acting not out of altruism but out of arecognition

"If the witch understood the true meaning of sacrifice, she might have interpreted the Deep Magic differently, for when a willing victim who has committed no treachery, dies in a traitors stead, the stone table will crack and even death itself will turn backwards." "Oh, how interesting," Lucy said. "What is the true meaning of sacrifice, Aslan?" "It is an artificial anti-concept," Aslan said in his low, golden voice. "It is the ultimate force of

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk, because charity encourages helplessness and ingratitude. When you give him the milk, he'll probably ask you for a straw. Altruism does not result in gratefulness; it results in a sense of expectation and entitlement in the receiver. He has been given something for nothing. What have you taught him about the value of his own labor? Nothing. You have

Joe Manganiello is living proof that the reader-response theory is the truest form of literary criticism. Reader-response theorists share two beliefs: 1) that the role of the reader cannot be omitted from our understanding of literature and 2) that readers do not passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text; rather they actively make the meaning they find in literature" (154). In this way, reader-response theory shares common ground with

The idea sets the detail. An idea, like a man, is alive; its integrity is to serve its own truth, its own single purpose. An idea cannot borrow hunks of its soul piecemeal any more than a man can borrow pieces of his body from another. The idea, and the Club, was mine. To say the four of us worked on it together is a form of truth, in the same way it is true

Previously: Ayn Rand Reviews Children's Movies. Thomas the Tank Engine When I ride on the 20th Century Limited, nobody touches a lever on the control panel but me. To ride a train is to take ingenuity itself as your lover; children should be given books about trains early and often. All trains are important. Thomas the Tank Engine is the most important train that there is, because he believes himself to be so. Other,

Previously in this series: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. "Should it be wizards first, then?" she asked. "We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving." Harry looked at Kingsley. His mouth opened slightly, then closed. "I will give you the gift of silence in exchange for that," he said at last, turning and reaching for the door. "Let's go."

***

"While you can

Kathleen: I started helping my mother after school here when I was six years old. And I used to watch her. And it wasn't that she was just selling books, it was that she was helping people become whoever it was (that) they were going to turn out to be. Because when you read a book as a child it becomes part of your identity in a way that no other reading in your whole

Previously in this series (yeah, were doingall seven): Ayn RandsHarry Potter and Order of the Phoenix. "Felix Felicis," Professor Slughorn said in hushed tones, holding the amber bottle up to the light. "Liquid luck, they call it. Bottled fortune. Brewed correctly the drinker of this potion will be lucky in all their endeavours, but be warned...excessive consumption is highly toxic and can cause extreme recklessness." Harry knocked over his chair and

Skip to the top of the page, search this site, or read the article again

Originally posted here:

The Toast - Ayn Rand Rewrites

When I was a child, we had a friend of the family we called Uncle George. His real name was George Byrnes. He had been a cop in New York City for some 28 years before retiring to Connecticut with his wife and three daughters.

He never talked about his time as a NYC policeman. But he was the kindest, most Christian man I ever met. When my mother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, George used to accompany my father to Yale New Haven Hospital where she was receiving treatment. Parking at the hospital was limited at the time, so they parked the car well down the block. New Haven was a rather seedy small city, and there was no shortage of down and out characters on their way to the hospital.

My father, the hard bitten, New England combat veteran, ignored them. Uncle George, on the other hand, went among them handing out whatever money he had on his person. When he ran out, he asked my father to borrow some money. My father, who was a good man but a frugal one, looked at him and said, you know theyll only go out and buy more booze with it. George replied, I wouldnt want to miss the one who needed it.

The United States spends almost 17 percent of her GNP on healthcare, and does not insure everyone in the country. No other country in the world spends anywhere close to that amount.

The following countries provide universal healthcare at a level commensurate with what we would expect if we can afford healthcare here: Austria, Australia, Croatia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Many other countries provide universal healthcare, but I would not hesitate to receive care in any of the above listed countries.

The UK spent about 10 percent of its GNP on healthcare last year. Life expectancy there was 2.6 years longer than found in the U.S. Infant mortality in the UK was 4.8 per thousand births versus 6.2 for the United States. Cancer survival rates in the U.S. seem slightly better, but more cancers are diagnosed here, including more cancers that would not cause death.

When you get into medical statistics, it gets complicated and esoteric. What really ought to stand out to all of us are a couple of facts.

We pay a LOT more for medical care in this country. Not all of our people can obtain medical care. Many people face economic ruin when they do obtain care. Many of our poor are never afforded the care that the poorest in far poorer countries may obtain.

A couple of weeks ago Mr. Beverly in one of his editorials told us that evangelicals, in opposing government-mandated and -financed healthcare, are not acting in contravention to mandates from the almighty to assist the poor. Such acts he said are individual and should not be compelled through government.

Last week he told us the government simply cannot afford it; that U.S. national debt is already too great.

So Im wondering now which is the reason. Government should not, or government cannot. Because right now somebody is vacuuming up the proceeds from our healthcare expenditures while we overpay and receive in many cases, only average results.

For our efforts, millions of people have to deal with a system that routinely overcharges, and causes many people to wonder how on earth they will afford their treatment, while the poorest among us must seek the most expensive treatment available at emergency rooms.

I challenge evangelicals because I have known true Christians, not because I am one. How can one group of people who are supposedly following in the footsteps of the Christ be so enslaved to a party and a leadership so enslaved to their own personal enrichment? How can people attend church, mutter all the words, and completely miss the point?

I am not as good a man as Uncle George. He would never call people out on their actions and their hypocrisy. He was like an original Christian. By his deeds, by his kindness, by his love for humanity in whatever form he could fashion it he just was.

Modern American evangelicals in their ossified state will undoubtedly continue to meet, to wear their little mission shirts when they seek obfuscation from the poor in Central America, and completely miss the one who needs it here at home, because they have wedded themselves to political thought that is completely callous in its effect. We cant all be Uncle George, but we dont have to be Ayn Rand.

Its our call.

Timothy J. Parker Peachtree City, Ga.

[The editor replies: Mr. Parker asks a fair question: Which is it, compulsory healthcare violates our individual rights, or the government cant afford it? My answer: Both.]

Excerpt from:

Uncle George or Ayn Rand? It's our choice - The Citizen.com

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has found time in his busy schedule to travel halfway around the world to hang out with Amber Heard.

The thrice-married father of five visted the actress in Australia where she is currently filiming "Aquaman."

Heard posted a "cheeky" photo of the pair to her social media as they dined with "Aquaman" director James Wan, which Musk reposted. It was the first time they have publically acknowledged there is some type of relationship between them.

Paparazzi also captured several images of the two holding hands and ziplining on the country's Gold Coast.

The 45-year-old Musk and 31-year-old Heard have been rumored to be a couple since they were seen together in Miami last summer, several weeks after Heard filed for divorce from then-husband Johnny Depp.

Heard's father recdently claimed the two were planning to get married and have a family.

Musk has reportedly been interested in the "Magic Mike XXL" star since the two appeared in the Robert Rodriguez film "Machete Kills" in 2013.

According to the The Hollywood Reporter, Musk allegedly asked the director at the time if he could introduce him to Heard, who was then dating Depp, because he heard she was a fan of "George Orwell and Ayn Rand...most unusual."

"Am not angling for a date. I know she is in a long-term relationship, but...Amber just seems like an interesting person to meet," Musk is said to have written in a note to Rodriguez.

Go here to read the rest:

Elon Musk and Amber Heard spotted hanging out together in Australia - Fox News

New York Times

Ayn Rand's Counter-Revolution - The New York Times New York Times STANFORD, Calif. The crowds jostling below, the soldiers marching down icy boulevards, the roar of a people possessed: All this a young Ayn Rand ... and more »

Read more here:

Ayn Rand's Counter-Revolution - The New York Times - New York Times

Ayn Rand. The new science of epigenetics is demonstrating that it is the organism not the gene that drives evolution, writes Christine McNulty. Photograph: Oscar White/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

One of your correspondents likened Ayn Rands selfishness to animal behaviour (Letters, 13 April). The belief that fierce competition or altruistic cooperation are the only alternatives, in both evolution and socio-politics, is the legacy of Charles Darwin. The science has moved on, providing a justification for the trader principle that has been so successful as the basis of free-market capitalism. As Ayn Rand said: The moral symbol of respect for human beings is the trader.

The new science of epigenetics is demonstrating that it is the organism not the gene that drives evolution. (See the new A-level biology syllabus, epigenetics.) Genetic determinism is dead. Organisms actively trade the products of metabolism. They switch genes on and off, and tweak them, in response to environmental influences. It turns out that genes do not use life-forms; life-forms use their genes. We humans switch our genes on and off and tweak their effects by means of language. We can change our minds. We have free will. The old Malthusian idea that resources are fixed and in short supply profoundly influenced Darwin and his contemporary, Herbert Spencer, who coined thephrase survival of the fittest. But resources are neither fixed nor in short supply. Thanks to the dynamic nature of the trading principle working throughout nature, what was once a barren rock, slowly rotating in cold space, is now teeming with ecosystem-generating life. Its most productive trader? Homo sapiens. Christine McNulty Oxhey, Hertfordshire

One of my favourite quotations from the New Testament is Jesus saying that in my fathers house are many rooms. Perhaps there might even be a room for Ayn Rand there. She was certainly concerned about this, and once said: When I die, I hope to go to heaven, whatever the hell that is (Editorial, 14 April). Ivor Morgan Lincoln

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

See more here:

Ayn Rand's selfish gene is out of date - The Guardian

Jonathan Freedlands article on Ayn Rands still pernicious influence at the heart of capitalism (The new age of Ayn Rand, G2, 11 April) is timely but dangerously dispiriting. Read alongside Polly Toynbees despairing analysis (If 1997 was a new dawn, now Labour faces its darkest night, 11 April) we might well succumb to the paralysis she seems to think the left of Labour suffers from. An inspiring, excellently researched and eminently readable, antidote to defeatism is Raoul Martinezs Creating Freedom, Power, Control and the Fight for Our Future. He argues for a radical, but achievable, rethinking of what we mean by freedom. At the heart of it is a questioning of what we take to be democracy. He writes: As long as the vast majority of wealth is controlled by a tiny proportion of humanity, democracy will struggle to be little more than a pleasant mask worn by an ugly system. He dissects this system, economically, politically and environmentally and explores how we can, and already do, challenge its assumptions. John Airs Liverpool

Contrary to Jonathan Freedlands article, Ayn Rand was not an advocate of the commonly held view of selfishness. Through her integrated philosophy, Objectivism, Ms Rand rejected the false alternative of sacrificing others to yourself (Nietzschean behaviour), or sacrificing yourself to others (altruism), by advocating a rational self-interest of neither living as a profiteer of sacrifice, nor as a victim, but as a voluntary trader of values for mutual benefit. By upholding a benevolent universe premise, Ms Rand argued that it is not selfishness that is the route of malevolent behaviour, but precisely the absence of a self eg, the need to be admired, envied, feared, thought great, etc by others.

She opposed altruism, which she defined as, service to others as the moral justification of a persons existence, because she argued that it destroyed genuine benevolence and was the foundation of all forms of tyranny. Byelevating the idea that helping others is an act of selflessness, she argued, altruism implies that a person can have no selfish concern for others, that morally an act of goodwill must be an act of sacrifice, in effect destroying any authentic benevolence among people. Daryl Murray Dorking, Surrey

In Jonathan Freedlands excellent article it is understandable that he should seek to separate himself from the political philosophy of Ayn Rand. However, it is unfair that he should fix upon the Trump presidency, the rightwing Brexiters and Silicon Valley as the main inheritors of her hardcore brand of free market fundamentalism and not acknowledge the extent to which the global neoliberal capitalism, transplanted by the Thatcher government into Britain, informs the present liberal and social democrat centrist worldview. The once social democratic EU, Nato and free-trade internationalism now all function on the basis of Randian neoliberalism and it is basic to Freedlands and the Guardians enlightened centrist liberalism. Hedley Taylor York

One of the many objectionable things written by Ayn Rand was to give the name John Galt to the hero of Atlas Shrugged. This traduces the memory of the real John Galt, a fine writer, originator of the political novel in English with The Provost, The Member and The Radical, and a community builder in Canada in the 1820s. The real Galt was a Tory, but was also passionately interested in communities and their welfare and would have been appalled by the exaltation of selfishness in Rands philosophy. Ian McGhee Secretary, John Galt Society, Ayr

Ayn Rands Objectivism seems to me no more than a reversion to animal behaviour. Is that really philosophy? Dr Richard Watson. Cardiff

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Visit link:

Ayn Rand's neoliberal legacy is seen today - The Guardian

As they plough through their GCSE revision, UK students planning to take politics A-level in the autumn can comfort themselves with this thought: come September, they will be studying one thinker who does not belong in the dusty archives of ancient political theory but is achingly on trend. For the curriculum includes a new addition: the work of Ayn Rand.

It is a timely decision because Rand, who died in 1982 and was alternately ridiculed and revered throughout her lifetime, is having a moment. Long the poster girl of a particularly hardcore brand of free-market fundamentalism the advocate of a philosophy she called the virtue of selfishness Rand has always had acolytes in the conservative political classes. The Republican speaker of the US House ofRepresentatives, Paul Ryan, is so committed a Randian, he was famous for giving every new member of his staff a copy of Rands gargantuan novel, Atlas Shrugged (along with Freidrich Hayeks Road to Serfdom). The story, oft-repeated, that his colleague in the US Senate, Rand Paul, owes his first name to his father Rons adulation of Ayn (it rhymes with mine) turns out to be apocryphal, but Paul describes himself as a fan allthe same.

Not to be left out, Britains small-staters have devised their own ways ofworshipping at the shrine of Ayn. Communities secretary Sajid Javid reads the courtroom scene in Rands The Fountainhead twice a year and has done so throughout his adult life. As a student, he read that bit aloud to the woman who is now his wife, though the exercise proved to be a one-off. AsJavid recently confessed to the Spectator, she told him that if he tried that again, he would get dumped. Meanwhile, Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP many see as the intellectual architect of Brexit, keeps a photograph of Rand on his Brussels desk.

So the devotion of Toryboys, in boththeir UK and US incarnations, is not new. But Rands philosophy of rugged, uncompromising individualism of contempt for both the state and the lazy, conformist world of the corporate boardroom now has a follower in the White House. What is more, there is a new legion of devotees, one whose influence over our daily lives dwarfs that of most politicians. They are the titans of tech.

So who is this new entrant on the A-level syllabus, the woman hailed byone biographer as the goddess of the market? Born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum in 1905 in St Petersburg, Russia, she saw her father impoverished and her family driven to the brink of starvation by the Soviet revolution, an experience that forged her contempt for all notions of the collective good and, especially, for the state as a mechanism for ensuring equality.

An obsessive cinemagoer, she fled tothe US in 1926, swiftly making her way to Hollywood. She paid her way through a series of odd jobs, including a stint in the costume department of RKO Pictures, and landed a role as an extra in Cecil B DeMilles The King of Kings. But writing was her passion. Broadway plays and movie scripts followed, until the breakthrough came with a novel: The Fountainhead.

Published in 1943, it tells the storyof Howard Roark, an architect dedicated to the pursuit of his own vision a man who would rather seehis buildings dynamited than compromise on the perfection of his designs. All around him are mediocrities, representing either the dead hand of the state, bureaucrats serving some notional collective good, orsecond handers corporate parasites who profit from the work and vision of others.

Then, in 1957, came Atlas Shrugged, whose Penguin Classic edition stretches to1,184 pages. Here Roark gives way toJohn Galt, another capitalist genius, who leads a strike by the men of talent and drive, thereby depriving society ofthe motor of the world.

In those novels, and in the essays and lectures she turned to afterwards, Rand expounded at great and repetitive length her philosophy, soon to be taught to A-level students alongside Hobbes and Burke. Objectivism, she called it, distilled by her as the belief that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. She had lots to say about everything else too an avowed atheist, she was dismissive of any knowledge that was not rooted in what you could see in front of your eyes. She had no patience for instinct or intuition or any form of just knowing.

The Fountainhead was serially rejected and published to ambivalent reviews, but it became a word-of-mouth hit. Over the coming years, a cult following arose around Rand (as well as something very close to an actual cult among her inner circle, known, no doubt ironically, as the Collective). Her works struck a chord with a particular kind of reader: adolescent, male and thirsting for an ideology brimming with moral certainty. As the New Yorker said in 2009: Most readers make their first and last trip to Galts Gulch the hidden-valley paradise of born-again capitalists featured in Atlas Shrugged, its solid-gold dollar sign standing like a maypole sometime between leaving Middle-earth and packing for college.

But for some, objectivism stuck. Perhaps her most significant early follower was Alan Greenspan, later to serve as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for 19 years. In the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the Collective, and he would be among the mourners at her funeral in 1982, where one floral wreath was fashioned into that same 6ft dollar sign, now understood to be the logo of Randism.

Greenspan is the link between the original Rand cult and what we might think of as the second age of Rand: theThatcher-Reagan years, when the laissez-faire, free-market philosophy went from the crankish obsession of rightwing economists to the governing credo of Anglo-American capitalism. Greenspan, appointed as the USs central banker by Ronald Reagan in 1987, firmly believed that market forces, unimpeded, were the best mechanism for the management and distribution of a societys resources. That view which Greenspan would rethink after the crash of 2008-9 rested on the assumption that economic actors behave rationally, always acting in their own self-interest. The primacy of self-interest, rather than altruism or any other nonmaterial motive, was, of course, a central tenet of Randian thought.

Put more baldly, the reason why Republicans and British Conservatives started giving each other copies of Atlas Shrugged in the 80s was that Rand seemed to grant intellectual heft to theprevailing ethos of the time. Her insistence on the morality of rational self-interest and the virtue of selfishness sounded like an upmarket version of the slogan, derived from Oliver Stones Wall Street, that defined the era: greed is good. Rand was Gordon Gekko with A-levels.

The third age of Rand came with the financial crash and the presidency of Barack Obama that followed. Spooked by the fear that Obama was bent on expanding the state, the Tea Party and others returned to the old-time religion of rolling back government. As Rand biographer Jennifer Burns told Quartz: In moments of liberal dominance, people turn to her because they see Atlas Shrugged as a prophecy as to whats going to happen if the government is given too much power.

In that context, it seemed only natural that one of the success stories of the 2012 presidential campaign was a bid for the Republican nomination bythe ultra-libertarian and Rand-admiring Texas congressman Ron Paul, father ofSenator Rand Paul, whose insurgent movement was a forerunner for much of what would unfold in 2016. Paul offered a radical downsizing of the federal government. Like Ayn Rand, he believed the states role should be limited to providing an army,a police force, a court system and not much else.

But Rand presented a problem for US Republicans otherwise keen to embrace her legacy. She was a devout atheist, withering in her disdain for the nonobjectivist mysticism of religion. Yet, inside the Republican party, those with libertarian leanings have only been able to make headway by riding pillion with social conservatives and, specifically, white evangelical Christians. The dilemma was embodied by Paul Ryan, named as Mitt Romneys running mate in the 2012 contest. Ryan moved fast toplay down the Rand influence, preferring to say his philosophy was inspired by St Thomas Aquinas.

What of the current moment, shaping up to be the fourth age of Rand? The Randian politicians are still in place: Ryan is now boosted by a cabinet crammed with objectivists. Secretary of state Rex Tillerson named Atlas Shrugged as his favourite book, while Donald Trumps first choice (later dropped) as labor secretary, Andy Puzder, is the CEO of a restaurant chainowned by Roark Capital Group a private equity fund named after the hero of The Fountainhead. CIA director Mike Pompeo is another conservative who says Atlas Shrugged really had animpact on me.

Of course, this merely makes these men like their boss. Trump is notoriously no reader of books: he has only ever spoken about liking three works of fiction. But, inevitably, one of them was The Fountainhead. It relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions. That book relates to ... everything, hesaid last year.

Rand scholars find this affinity of Trumps puzzling. Not least because Trumps offer to the electorate in 2016 was not a promise of an unfettered free market. It was a pledge to make the US government an active meddler in the market, negotiating trade deals, bringing back jobs. His public bullying of big companies pressing Ford or the air-conditioner manufacturer Carrier to keep their factories in the US was precisely the kind of big government intrusion upon the natural rhythms of capitalism that appalled Rand.

So why does Trump claim to be inspired by her? The answer, surely, is that Rand lionises the alpha male capitalist entrepreneur, the man of action who towers over the little people and the pettifogging bureaucrats and gets things done. As Jennifer Burns puts it: For a long time, she has been beloved by disruptors, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, people who see themselves as shaping the future, taking risky bets, moving out in front of everyone else, relying only on their own instincts, intuition and knowledge, andgoing against the grain.

Which brings us to the new wave ofRandians, outside both politics and conventional conservatism. They are the princes of Silicon Valley, the masters of the start-up, a cadre of young Roarksand Galts, driven by their own genius to remake the world and damn the consequences.

So it should be no surprise that when Vanity Fair surveyed these tycoons of the digital age, many of them pointed to a single guiding star. Rand, the magazine suggested, might just be the most influential figure in the industry. When the CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, had to choose an avatar for his Twitter account in 2015, he opted for the cover of The Fountainhead. Peter Thiel, Facebooks first major investor and a rare example of a man who straddles both Silicon Valley and Trumpworld, isa Randian. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs issaid by his Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, to have regarded Atlas Shrugged as one of his guides in life.

Among these new masters of the universe, the Rand influence is manifest less in party political libertarianism than in a single-minded determination to follow a personal vision, regardless of the impact. No wonder the tech companies dont mind destroying, say, the taxi business or the traditional news media. Such concerns are beneath the young, powerful men at the top: even to listen to such concerns would be to betray the singularity of their own pure vision. It would be to break Rands golden rule, by which the visionary must never sacrifice himself to others.

So Rand, dead 35 years, lives again, her hand guiding the rulers of our age in both Washington and San Francisco. Hers is an ideology that denounces altruism, elevates individualism into afaith and gives a spurious moral licence to raw selfishness. That it is having a moment now is no shock. Such an ideology will find a ready audience for as long as there are human beings who feel the rush of greed and the lure of unchecked power, longing to succumb to both without guilt. Which is to say: for ever.

Continued here:

Ayn Rand, Trump and Silicon Valley

Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Read this article:

How Ayn Rand's 'elitism' lives on in the Trump administration

Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

See the article here:

No sympathy for the poor: How Ayn Rands elitism lives on ...

Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Whats in common with Ayn Rand?

Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

What is Ayn Rands philosophy?

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

No sympathy for the poor

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Telling it like it is

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.

Building ones fortune

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?

I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.

Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.

The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.

To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Firmin DeBrabander | The Conversation

http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/wap/images/bs_logo_amp.png 177 22

Read more:

How Ayn Rand's 'elitism' lives on in the Donald Trump ...