Objectivism is the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and fleshed out through a series of newsletters and lectures in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
Rand, Leonard Peikoff and others in her brain-trust offer a tantalizingly simple modality for understanding political systems, sociology and indeed, the epistemological nature of the human mind. Quietly, but with a presence that announces itself more forcefully each year, we are living the heyday of Rand’s intellectual influence. Objectivism has come to the fore in the past 30 years throughout the Conservative Movement in general and the recent rise of Libertarianism in particular. Rand’s scions most famously include Alan Greenspan but also Justice Clarence Thomas, Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and Congressional austerity disciplinarian Paul Ryan.What’s interesting to note is the fact that, if I had to guess, many Objectivists would likely bristle at the implication that their beliefs have a tangible association to politics in the U.S. today. The Objectivist outlook sees itself altogether set apart from the traditional liberal-conservative nomenclature used in America. It even sees itself separate from the more holistically realized 2 dimensional political compass.
Right and left, authoritarian, communism, fascism: all of these systems of beliefs – normally perceived as quite varied – could be neatly subsumed under the heading “collectivism.” Basically, all systems of governance - all innovations except Capitalism - were and are simply ways to deny individual men the right to exercise their most important franchise: rationality.
According to the Ayn Rand institute:
“Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man - every man - is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”In many ways, learning about Objectivism is like trying to study a religious dogma – there are a set of axioms from which all manner of judgments - regarding art, social programs, even the nature of reality itself – are derived. Additionally, there is an enormous online community to buttress these teaching, digging in their heals in preparation for retaliation against the somewhat inchoate but ever-growing legion of critics. Much as most born-again Christians see the world in us-against-them secular vs. spiritual terms, Objectivists see themselves as an aggrieved and wise minority.
The defenders of Objectivism, not unlike the on-fire Jesus freaks (to use the group-adopted pejorative) range from absolutely understanding and reasonable to bilious and occasionally, almost endearingly out of touch. To wit, there is even an effusively written review of the famously panned film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged which closes with the breathless summary: “This adaptation can’t be ignored. It is way too good. It is going to turbocharge the debate over Rand’s vision of capitalism as a moral ideal. Whether you love the novel or hate it, Atlas Shrugged Part I is a must-see film.”
In general, people don’t tend to have an automatic recall of those thinkers who influenced their outlook in the way that Objectivists do. In much the same way that evangelicals are encouraged to read and develop a richly informed and constant association with the Bible through independent study, Objectivists, too, have a deep connection to the texts at the base of their system. Objectivists, like Evangelical Christians are likely to see a large if not conspiratorial “other” in the world at large whenever their beliefs are derided or attacked (which in fairness, is often) much in the same way many Evangelicals see the world as an “us vs. them” narrative between the faithful and the secular. Like evangelical Christians, Objectivists are taught to be doggedly and openly defiant of the social and economic mores that they despise – and that any move to soften or compromise their own integrity represents hypocrisy and a moral failing. Finally, both Objectivists and Evangelical Christians are treated as everything from an anthropological curiosity to an evil cabal by liberal Americans but very seldom are either afforded any respect as a movement.
Obviously, the sociological similarities don’t much extend to their actual beliefs – beginning most obviously with the fact that Objectivism preaches an outlook which necessarily leads to atheism. It is worth noting there are a surprising number of born-again Christians who are also Rand scions. This is a neat magic trick influenced by Oral Robert's uniquely American view that the true faithful will be rewarded by the Lord, not only in the next life, but this one as well. It must take some difficult cognitive gymnastics given that Jesus himself a communitarian and defender of the poor who - despite being betrayed, beaten and crucified before the very people who came to save - only ever truly got pissed once in his life and it was because of the evils of commerce. But I digress.
It’s the nature of these beliefs that makes them so easily the source of our derision. Objectivism gives its followers a holistic way of viewing the world and as such, gives those who disagree with it a wholly-conceived waypoint from which to stand apart. Even if I don’t have everything figured out, I know I don’t believe in that.
However, I admire the Objectivist outlook, if nothing else, for proliferating a logically consistent way to view the world. No individual need be legally compelled to provide for his or her neighbor under Objectivism and no individual should have the right to force any outlook or use any form of coercion on anyone else, period. When we don’t like a given reason for the coercion, liberals are apt to make just that same argument, i.e. with regard to the Iraq War. But at other points, liberals are comfortable calling for legal coercion to fund entitlement programs or for military interventions for humanitarian reasons, as many called for in Darfur.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that logical cohesion need be the ultimate determinant for how convincing a system of moral beliefs are (just ask Ralph Waldo Emerson). In fact, the number one problem I have with Objectivism is that it’s a one-size-fits-all system that doesn’t have any malleability to suit differing circumstances. I’m merely saying from an Occam’s-razor-simplicity standpoint for explaining how a man will act, it does have some merit and is more useful, from a day-to-day standpoint, than other philosopher’s which are not treated with near the same scorn (I’m looking at you, Descartes).
I intend to explore the idea of individualism in later essays but I want to say this: I believe cooperation, not rationality, is the greatest enterprise for mankind and the reason we have achieved ecological dominance over the world.
I also believe that any system which renders altruism moot or doesn’t sufficiently explain why the world is far more humane and moral than it has any right to be based on random chance is inherently flawed and thus, has a limited usefulness. However, I credit Objectivists for creating a system so intertwined with man’s selfishness, because what trait is more widely proliferated? To stop there, though, and further, to declare selfishness a moral end unto itself; that I can’t get behind. The ultimate failing of Objectivism and all individualist philosophy is simply that it gives elites, especially economic elites, all the ammunition they need to paper over the devastation caused by inequality. I believe there’s a lie to individualism and Objectivism, but it’s a lie that makes a lot intuitive sense, so I don’t immediately begrudge those who hold it. That being said, I intend to spend the rest of my life working to thwart it.
