Ayn Rand invites a blind admiration that
would make your standard cult leader blush. She also inspires
apoplectic, spittle-flecked rants from her foes that accelerate from
disagreement to incomprehensibility in seconds. Jennifer Burns, then,
has achieved the impossible: She has written a biography of Rand that
is neither adoring nor hate-filled. It helps that Burns has finally
found a compelling hook to hang the story on. Rand, she argues, was a
foil for the conservative movement before becoming a conservative
icon.
Rand didn’t blindly follow the Republican herd. She disliked Dwight
Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, for example, and considered Richard Nixon
the lesser of two evils. But Rand adored Barry Goldwater, though as a
hard-line atheist she found his Christianity questionable at best and
repugnant at worst. Burns argues that Rand lost her fight for the
conservative soul by not bowing to Christianity like the rest of the
Republican Party. In recent years, objectivist acolytes like Alan
Greenspan have embraced Rand’s financial philosophies even as they’ve
ignored her pro-choice writings and libertarian social
leanings—the Bush economy was largely influenced by Rand’s
philosophical heirs.
Critics have bashed Rand’s humorlessness for decades, but Burns
shows a deeper understanding of Rand’s ability to poke fun at the
science-fictional elements of her own writing, such as
…the hopelessly hokey parts of Atlas Shrugged, which even
Rand called “those gimmicks”: mysterious dollar-sign cigarettes
smoked by the cognoscenti, a death ray machine operated by the
government, the gold dollar-sign totem that marks Galt’s Gulch, the
repetition of the question, “Who is John Galt?” Criticized for her
lack of humor, Rand was actually having plenty of fun with Atlas
Shrugged. But liberals did not get the joke.
Too many critical biographies linger salaciously on Rand’s affairs
and jealousy, as if confusing her personal flaws for a flaw in
objectivism. Burns doesn’t cast judgment on the final years of Rand’s
life. That’s the best part of Goddess: Rather than
transforming Rand into a saint or a demon, Burns reimagines her as a
human being. It’s a sensible move. Without all the hyperbole blocking
intelligent discourse, the real business of dissecting and
investigating Rand’s ideas can actually begin. 
Thanks for this review, Paul. I actually heard about this book on the Daily Show, and while I’ve always disliked Rand’s philosophy and her writing, I’ve always wanted to find some analysis of her and her life that didn’t insult my intelligence by making her into an inhuman right-wing bugbear but wasn’t a fawning tribute either. Sounds like this might fit the bill.
“Ayn Rand invites a blind admiration..”
There may be some of that, but you could have also said: “Ayn Rand evokes a blind hatred…” and not be incorrect.
In my experience, most people who really admire Ayn Rand’s books or philosophy do so for specific, well-defined reasons. There is nothing blind about it. You hear things like: “Ayn Rand portrays a sense of life in which achievement is honored”, or “She shows how man’s mind is efficacious”.
She inspires people, while providing a perspective on morality that differs from the biblical morality shared by today’s right and left. Instead of self-sacrifice, she presents individualism.
“In recent years, objectivist acolytes like Alan Greenspan have embraced Rand’s financial philosophies even as they’ve ignored her pro-choice writings and libertarian social leanings—the Bush economy was largely influenced by Rand’s philosophical heirs.”
The above quote is uninformed bullshit or deliberate obfuscation.
http://arc-tv.com/greenspan-vs-free-mark…
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=N…
Greenspan was first appointed to the position of Federal Reserve Chairman by Ronald Reagan. George H W Bush reappointed him as did Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.
The unfortunate fact is that the Bush’s economy was a statist economy just like H W Bush, Clinton, & Obama’s economy.
Given Paul’s intellectual honesty and integrity, Paul ought to take up competitive food eating.
“Rand didn’t blindly follow the Republican herd.”
She didn’t follow it at all. She despised statists of all varieties.
Paul, A well written and well reasoned review. Thanks.
@2: Sure, Rand fans have reasons for their adoration but if pressed beyond their first few talking points they quickly show themselves to be as sycophantic as any religious fundamentalist.
@3: Nope, neither bullshit nor obsfucation but a dead on evaluation:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
@4: How unfortunate her followers were willing to embrace statism, eh?
No matter what I will always love Rand for her positive portrayal of individualism and the refusal of her characters to back down in the face of mob mentality.
I tend to look at her as a historical relic. I don’t see why people get their tits in an uproar over a woman whose philosophy was forged during the 1917 soviet revolution. She seems to be a tad irrelevant these days.
> Sure, Rand fans have reasons for their adoration but if pressed beyond
> their first few talking points they quickly show themselves to be as
> sycophantic as any religious fundamentalist.
Here I am, ready to be pressed beyond my first few talking points. Press away. Do you want to hear my talking points on her revolutionary ideas regarding “the primacy of existence,” the “stolen-concept fallacy,” knowledge as contextual, objectivity as volitional adherence to reality by the method of logic, free will as the choice to think or not to think, the alternative of life or death as the basis of all values, the theory of concept-formation as involving “measurement-omission,” her new definition of “rights,” productiveness as a virtue, pride as “moral ambitiousness,” the basic psychological need for self-esteem, the relation of “metaphysical value-judgments” to “sense of life,” her concept of “psycho-epistemology” (defined as “the study of man’s cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious.)”
No? Then perhaps you want to press me on her reasons for rejecting the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, her demolition of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, her distinction between “the metaphysically given” and the “man-made” or her advocacy of the gold standard or her argument for private ownership of the airwaves or her concept of “the malevolent universe premise” or her distinction between perceptual form and perceptual object.
I could go on (as I did for 400 topics in The Ayn Rand Lexicon [http:www.aynrandlexicon.com] but I think I’ve sufficiently shot down the “blind adoration” canard.
@7: Hey, doc, your reading comprehension needs some work. Nowhere did I write “blind adoration.” Reread the portion of my comment you included in your screed. Do you see “blind” anywhere in it? Nope. But thanks for proving my assertion; instead of shooting it down, your hyper-defensive rant proved my point. Congratulations!
“Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.?” You’ve got to be kidding.
Regards, I. P. Phreely, M.D.
Ayn Rand should never be mythological. All of her writing was an attempt of logical analysis of reality. She is merely another link in a long chain: Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Mencken, Mises, Hayek. While she may be a keystone of many libertarian and conservatives belief systems, she in no way is a member of their groups. At 1st level, there is physical science, 2nd level biological science, 3rd level economics and human action. Rand compels you to believe that there is only significance in the first two sciences as they relate to man, and his attempt to live and thrive in this world