Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

[Churchill]

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years - WSJ.com

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
[Atlas Shrugged] Getty Images

The art for a 1999 postage stamp.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

There are some points that are made that are partial or skewed facts, for example, the raising income tax for fairness - this is only true of "rich" people, however Obama does want to raise extraneous taxes such as the death tax which would effect lower income people more greatly than higher incomes. Anyway, I liked the article, especially since the last time I read the book in early '08 I saw a lot of parallels happening and my Dad who is reading it slowly at my brothers karate classes said that he hated the book until he got into it deeper and saw how interesting it was compared with today lol.

[BerenTebogo]

Haven't read Rand since I was like 14.

Makes me want to pick up "The Fountain" again. Think that's the one anyways.

[Howard Roark]

Fountain is definitely good, reads 10x better than Atlas Shrugged.

however, call me me a masochist but I have a tendency to allow for the possibility that if I didn't enjoy something perhaps I didn't get it properly -- a 'masochist' because I'm often wrong but at least come up with further fuel to combat any future arguments for said piece of media

not really looking forward to reading the extended passages again but this article did renew my interest in galt's character, if not so much the renewed 'validity' of the book's economic ideas due to brilliant ideas espoused in recent american politics

and holy lol at churchill indirectly renewing my interest in rand(moreso, once again, her protagonists, galt and whatsisname that invented the metal)

[Churchill]

Once you get used to the flow of Atlas, you learn how to speedread the large soliloquies, since they are often the same regurgitation of ideas. However, many of them have really poignant thoughts interjected that are unique to each one, so it's a "craft" in terms of drawing meaning from them.

[Howard Roark]

I do tend to speedread, for better or for worse, and often go back an reread if anything is unclear

in Robert Jordan's wheel of time series I'll often begin rereading the series months in advance before the release of an upcoming book to reacquaint myself with the importance of the events and characters' allegiances, many times enjoying the knowledge long before it should have been obvious on the first read who is a darkfriend or not

in any case I'm hoping to draw more from the book; what is it that they say about catcher in the rye? you read it first when you're 15, then again at 21, then again 30 then 45? I don't recall, but I found the statement to be retrospectively accurate, having heard the quote after my 2nd read around the age of 21

[Howard Roark]

for those that have read the book, one of the scenes I do recall quite clearly was his pride in the bracelet for his wife (this is a very early scene, not a spoiler really, imo) and the dichotomy in their persons so clear in her reaction to it

I often enjoy her characters best in contrast to their weaker part, howard roark to peter keating's question:

peter: but howard, what must you think of me?
howard: but peter, I don't think of you

[Churchill]

I don't recall him saying that to Peter, since he actually liked/pities Peter, or rather does his work to make him suffer later, lol.

He did say that quote in regard to Toohey, at least 3 times.

[Howard Roark]

wow that is so bizarre, I guess it was to toohey, just googled it; apparently it was a much focused upon line as there is an entire section dedicated to it in the wiki and was also a key scene in the film (only saw this once)

the feeling sorry for keating strikes me as odd, and not in keeping with his character, I'm going to disagree for now but I don't claim to get the whole book, the rape scene baffling/annoying me, or perhaps moreso that people call it a rape scene, when given what I understand of the characters at that point it's more of a consentual power struggle (this part I can't help but lolRand here)

I think Roark's sincere aloofness, not for aloofness' sake but more to the point that he isn't concerned with anyone else because he is so driven and lives for his work, I think that is what led me to remember incorrectly that he had said it to peter (although the line is even more satisfyingly delivered to toohey, now that I picture it)

[Churchill]

Pity isn't a Rand concept, but that's how it comes across since Peter had talent but was a "leecher" in accordance with Atlas terminology - he stole the ideas of men before him and couldn't think for himself. Aside from the fact that all the work Howard did for Peter somehow backfiring on Peter later on, the only other reason to do his work for him was really pity lol.

Also, less rand talk more atlas being real kthx

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Atlas, Fountain, Power Shift, and Ender's Game are on the list of books I read every few years and its surprising how much new information and concepts just appear out of a book that has just been sitting in a bookshelf for 3-5 years at a time.

[Olo401]

What amazes me is that I've read Atlas about six times since I was 21, and every time I read it I find more and more holes in Rand's arguments with the largest being complete ignorance of the fact that selfishness is NOT a virtue except in limited circumstances. She also conveniently ignores the constant random variables of reality AND capitalism in favor of the ordered and unvarying world that she creates in her books.

[wintersquall]

What amazes me is that I've read Atlas about six times since I was 21, and every time I read it I find more and more holes in Rand's arguments with the largest being complete ignorance of the fact that selfishness is NOT a virtue except in limited circumstances. She also conveniently ignores the constant random variables of reality AND capitalism in favor of the ordered and unvarying world that she creates in her books.

i agree with you olo, but SOME of the ideas she presents are becoming scarily relevant, hence the article. in literature it's a rarity though, a book that gets both more distasteful and more accurate the more you read it.

[Izzy]

Awesome! Another Ayn Rand conspiracy fest thread!

[Olo401]

i agree with you olo, but SOME of the ideas she presents are becoming scarily relevant, hence the article. in literature it's a rarity though, a book that gets both more distasteful and more accurate the more you read it.

I'll get to the thing about the book vs. real world conditions in a moment, but first it needs to be said that this is not an article, but an op-ed written in the WSJ by a former Cato Institute employee. Big difference there - WSJ's news reporting is actually very good and objective in viewpoint, unlike their editorial page which is a mountain of neoconservative thought (and bullshit). Therefore, Moore's article is skewed by the fact that he accepts Rand's objectivist ideology and the examples in her novels without question or variance. This is the exact same ignorance of reality that Rand demonstrates in her written works and her philosophy, which I mentioned before.

Now, as far as the book meeting reality. Yes, I do agree that many aspects of that frightening world Rand portrays in Atlas are coming to fruition today. An axis of those in government and industry exists the likes of which has not been seen since the mid-to-late 1800s, and those with power and wealth are constantly finding ways to make themselves more powerful and more wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

It is now reaching the point where the conditions are so bad that people are both immobilized and trapped in a state of constant servitude in order to survive. Hell, I'm surprised Moore didn't make any mention of the most destructive government action in Atlas, Directive 10-289. I personally liken this kind of serious restriction in the book to our own PATRIOT Act and the subsequent legal shenanigans regarding wiretapping and torture and granting immunity to those involved.

The problem here is that because of Rand's philosophical blindness and ignorance, her acolytes see themselves to be so righteous that they cannot be faulted. They fail to see that the real world is not as straight-forward as the world she created; that there is not one single person in history nor in existence who can be both completely selfish and not be affected by human greed, and that selflessness is a virtue not a sin.

Also on a side note, I believe the body of Rand's works was published well after Adam Smith's economic theories were corrected by the work of John Nash and therefore they don't take into account that a system where one person or group benefits while the others fail is self-destructive. Where one would benefit, all must benefit in some way order to have the best possible outcome. This makes selflessness not only a virtue, but a mathematical necessity.

[Vuitton]

Its so trendy to hate Ayn Rand. Everyone does it these days. Its like a meme or something. Everytime she is brought up... anywhere from online forums, blogs, to class discussion. People are so quick to start bashing her as if she was Ann Coulter.

I enjoyed the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I don't have to agree with her philosophy to enjoy her characters.

I never thought either of them were doom and gloom to be honest. I was happy with the way both ended.

I must not relate to the proletariat as much as others. I sort of agree with Ayn Rand's opinion of the general public.

[Vuitton]

I read both when i was 12, book reports for school at 14 and I sold my copies and haven't had to read them again since then. It's not trendy when you seriously think she's completely overrated.

Of course, Anthem is about the only thing from her that I believe holds any merit . Can read it for yourself here:

Anthem by Ayn Rand

I enjoyed Anthem. It is very very similar to an earlier work by Yevgeny Zamyatin, titled "We". I believe it is considered the earliest dystopian work of literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)

[pohibaba]

That version of Anthem is amazing, but so is this one.

[Rocl]

She was a terrible authour, I'm sorry. I can't stand reading her literature, could care less about her philosophy.

[Plow]

I can't figure out if Churchill gave guartz his info and told him to act like him, or if he's just partially taken over his soul, or what.