Feb 3, 2005
NYT Hatchet Job on Rand Centennial
Here's the blogpost I tried to have up earlier:
On the one hand, it’s nice to see the NY Times paying some attention to the Rand centennial – on page 1 of the Arts section today – but on the other hand, this coverage is marred by annoying (if predictable) misrepresentations. Edward Rothstein writes “Did Rand really believe that the world should be run by such creators while second-handers (ordinary workers like most of us) humbly deferred?” Of course, that’s an amazing distortion of Rand: she argues neither that creators should “run the world” nor that “ordinary workers like most of us” are second-handers. This is a caricature of Rand’s view, the distortion that all the lefties despise her for. He goes on to explain that her acolytes were conservatives, never mind that she didn’t consider herself conservative and disliked conservatism. Other nonsense fills the essay, but the ultimate in nonsense comes at the end, where Rothstein writes: “these men [Roark and Galt] find their ideals only in isolated rejection of democratic society, as cardboard reincarnations of the Romantic hero. Perhaps Rand really believed democracy was hopeless and wanted a government ruled by such men. Perhaps she never really cared about working any of this out. Or perhaps, in the end, she really didn't know what she wanted.” Come on! It’s not as if she never wrote anything about a regime of individual liberty, minimal-state capitalism, rule of law, or personal responsibility. Utter misrepresentation. David Boaz has a much better piece here, but sadly, many more people read the NY Times than visit Cato’s web site (or L&P).
Update: the irony is that this sort of distortion is one of the phenomena she satirizes in her novels. Why take a challenging idea seriously when you can sneer or scoff?
On the one hand, it’s nice to see the NY Times paying some attention to the Rand centennial – on page 1 of the Arts section today – but on the other hand, this coverage is marred by annoying (if predictable) misrepresentations. Edward Rothstein writes “Did Rand really believe that the world should be run by such creators while second-handers (ordinary workers like most of us) humbly deferred?” Of course, that’s an amazing distortion of Rand: she argues neither that creators should “run the world” nor that “ordinary workers like most of us” are second-handers. This is a caricature of Rand’s view, the distortion that all the lefties despise her for. He goes on to explain that her acolytes were conservatives, never mind that she didn’t consider herself conservative and disliked conservatism. Other nonsense fills the essay, but the ultimate in nonsense comes at the end, where Rothstein writes: “these men [Roark and Galt] find their ideals only in isolated rejection of democratic society, as cardboard reincarnations of the Romantic hero. Perhaps Rand really believed democracy was hopeless and wanted a government ruled by such men. Perhaps she never really cared about working any of this out. Or perhaps, in the end, she really didn't know what she wanted.” Come on! It’s not as if she never wrote anything about a regime of individual liberty, minimal-state capitalism, rule of law, or personal responsibility. Utter misrepresentation. David Boaz has a much better piece here, but sadly, many more people read the NY Times than visit Cato’s web site (or L&P).
Update: the irony is that this sort of distortion is one of the phenomena she satirizes in her novels. Why take a challenging idea seriously when you can sneer or scoff?