Ever since Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick Paul Ryan said Ayn Rand was one of his influences, the author has been in the medias spotlight. I know that her literature is easily available and subsidized by right-wing think tanks and activists groups. Though this relationship on the ground has existed for some time, and most likely ebbs and flows depending on political circumstances, some had made an issue of Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand connection, which I believe explains Rand’s current relevance in the United States.
Her beliefs, occupy one quadrant of what one would typically label a “conservative” in the United States. If the right is known for its support of social tradition, as well as free market policies, Ayn Rand would only be comfortable with the latter. God, traditions, and Christian morality were things she utterly despised. They are other means by which people control each other, and tell one and other what to do and believe in. The bonds of faith and ideas of altruism only exist so people can leech off of the successful. Rand would not sit comfortably in a crowd of anti-drug, pro-life, evangelicals.
Attaching oneself to influential figures that only partially agree with your views is common. If the right is a silly bunch for conveniently ignoring her anti-tradition stance, perhaps some of those on the left should reanalyze their love affair with Nietzsche. The struggle to appropriate historical or important figures happens just about everywhere, and not just in politics. Still, while viewing this case, or anything, it is important to be generous to the subject, or else you might miss something due to your own ideological blinders. So, I will try to be generous.
Ayn Rand is a consistent figure within the laissez-faire economic crowd because of her criticism of our allegedly free liberal social contract narrative. Her acolytes contend that the state of affairs in government and society is not based off of consent, but the threat of violence. When the movie “The Corporation” goes through a checklist of what makes the corporation a psychopath, one could easily accuse our state of the same problem. When Elizabeth Warren speaks of a social contract that obliges you to give up your income to the government and society, she fails to mention you have no ability to opt out of it, and those who try are usually imprisoned or killed. The real marauding band in that story is the government and its protection racket. We have come a long way against tradition and church, but that we do not recognize the state and society as another form of enslavement is evidence to our sheepishness.
In having a bone to pick with all sides, she is certainly a rebel. Rebellion has always appealed to the youth and in Ayn Rand those of an anti-state anti-society bent have their hero. They are most likely the true rebels. Since our stereotypical left-wing student solution to just about every problem is either more government spending, or different government spending, all of it based off the implicit threat of violence, Rand is a breath of fresh air. Labelling her as a radical or a psychopath would only help her image and appeal to the rebellious. She represents a split from state, society, and tradition in an unorthodox way not present in many other beliefs, and this uniqueness can be appealing. Generally as we get older we move away from the radical. Sure enough Paul Ryan now lists Thomas Aquinas as a bigger influence than Rand. I imagine many of Rand’s fans follow a similar path.
