The Split - Fatal for America?

[RightJungle]

In March of this year I attended a meeting of freedom lovers. When it came my time to introduce myself I said, among other things, that I owed this group of young people an apology. I said, "I have known what is wrong in America for 43 years, but I thought that Ayn Rand's ideas were out there and that their very existence would prevent the tragedy that is happening today. I even misinterpreted Ronald Reagan's arrival in the White House as proof that freedom was on the march again and that our country was safe."

Looking back over those 43 years, I also realize that there were several opportunities for me to discover that all was not well in Objectivism Land. The first was when I went to New York to meet Ayn Rand in the 70's. When I arrived at the office in the Empire State Building I found a note hanging on the door frame that said that the office was "closed to the public". I was horribly disappointed because I had driven all the way from Lincoln, Nebraska to meet my heroine, but I thought about it for awhile and came to the conclusion that she probably had so many fans clamoring to meet her, that she had to close the office to protect her privacy. As a fan who only read her books, but was not a member of the Objectivist Movement, I had no idea that there had been a conflict between her and the man she had referred to when she said, "Don't tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. This (pointing to Branden) is my proof that they do."

Another opportunity was when I was at dinner with another Rand fan in Houston, Tx. just before the release of Branden's "Judgement Day" and she said, "I just don't understand what could have caused the break. I've read all of Ayn Rand's books and all of Nathaniel Branden's books and I don't see anything that could have caused this." You can imagine the conversation that she and I had after we read that book. I too had read everything I could get my hands on by both Rand and Branden over the years.

Barbara Branden's book provided a list of those whose work had come out of the Objectivism Movement, but nothing did the job like having the internet to search for all things Randian and Brandian - which is how I found this site. Long before I found this site, though, I had found "The Objectivist Standard", The Atlas Society, David Kelley's books, especially "The Art of Reasoning", Tara Smith's books, especially "Moral Rights and Political Freedom". I've spent way more than I could afford on all their books as well as books by Ludwig von Mises - "Human Action", George Reismman - "Capitalism", Ed Younkins books - what a wealth of intelligence I've discovered. I've even got a very bad recording of the original "Basic Principles of Objectivism" from the Branden lectures. And you'd better believe my order is in for the transcripted version, "The Vision of Ayn Rand"...

In his article "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand" Leonard Peikoff describes a conversation between his eighteen year old self and Ayn Rand in which he was wrestling with a question about the problem of lying. After several attempts to help Peikoff work out the issue, Rand became fed up and blurted, "Can't you think in Principle?" I want to know what the members of the Objectivism Movement were thinking when they let "the break" bring the power of the Objectivism movement to its knees. Didn't you read Branden's books and articles? Couldn't you see that philosophically he was not some immoral ogre? He was and from what I can see still is her best disciple.

You know, as an ardent Ayn Rand fan, I was not put off by the story about "the break". I just thought "Ayn Rand was not a God, she was a human being and she spent an agonizing period of time seeing what occured between her and Branden OUT OF CONTEXT. Branden was not a God either. But it sounds like he was shaking in his boots about what Ayn would do when he tried to extricate himself from the relationship that they had foolishly created. And judging by Ayn Rand's willingness to disinherit him, I'd say he had a very clear view of the CONTEXT of the train that he saw hurtling down on him. As an aside, when I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 90's, I attended a 1/2 day seminar that he presented there. I didn't go just because I wanted to learn something. My goal was to make sure I didn't miss my chance to meet him before he died. You see, I never got to meet Ayn Rand. I had just wanted to say Thank You to her. And I wanted to say thank you to Nathaniel Branden. Got that done. I'm just delighted everytime I see him working on a project. I achieved my goal with years to spare.

So, I'd like to ask the "Objectivism Pure" supporters the same question that Rand asked, can't you think in principle....when it comes to the importance of philosophy? Can't you see the desperate condition of our country (not to mention the whole world) and ask what responsibility you, especially Ayn Rand's heir, have dropped? Have you forgotten Ayn Rand's own lessons about the way new knowledge builds on and expands existing knowledge? Why can't you break out of the chains of Orthodoxy and start flourishing in your own right? Or as Tara Smith would put it, find your eudaimonia? And yes, I see the irony of suggesting that anyone has a responsibility to anyone else. But I am heartened by Tara's theory that we do owe each other one thing, and that is to "respect the rights of others."

There is another lesson that I've learned from reading Ludwig von Mises and that is that competition guards an economy, but that the people in that economy could be cooperating with each other rather than competing to get things done. So how about it? How about serving as the vanguards who are going to save this country from collectivism? Don't do it for me - no - do it for yourselves. Your lives are at stake, too.

We are living in dangerous times. TOS is struggling to fight back, as are the Atlas Society and probably many others that I haven't discovered yet. It is such a big battle. It's like facing the ugly white Queen in the climactic battle of "Narnia". The problem is that there is no magical wild lion coming to save us (Nathaniel Branden already told us that "no is coming".) And we know that having someone like Colbert suggesting that we all "Go Galt" isn't going to get the job done. So it looks to me like all of the Objectivists, Pure or Evolutionary, might want to group up and beat back the enemy who is behind our country's rush to the bottom. Analysis of root causes show us that the problem started with dingbat philosophy, but now we have OBJECTIVISM all grown up and ready to put on the armor of rationalism and win the war of ideas.

With the responsibility for this epic battle being taken up by "God Fearing" conservative talk radio hosts competing with MSNBC for the minds of the American people, we (the "as rational as possible at this moment" public) are desparate for the rationality and Principled leadership that the Objectivists could be providing. You know what I would like to see? A single big, splashy, full color, videoed, stereoed site where your best minds address the principles underlying every curent events issue that comes to our attention and where you offer both short term and long term solutions that the freedom lovers of this nation can grab onto and promote to save themselves from this awful disintegration. Let Binswanger and George Reisman, David Kelley, and Leonard Peikoff and NATHANIEL BRANDEN, cooperate in the building of a Galt's Gulch that stretches from sea to shining sea. Rather that entangling the minds of potential Warriors for Liberty in an endless battle for ownership of Rand's ideas, her MIND, set yourselves free to achieve and produce the greatest country on this planet.

I'll be right there with you. I'll subscribe to your journals and magazines, I'll buy your books and I will cheer at the top of my lungs with every insight that you put forth. Our battle cry could be, "Remember the Fountainhead!!"

[Selene]

Welcome Mary:

How can we help you be more expressive and direct!

Excellent post. Its funny because I did get to meet her in the early 60's and I also thanked her for her ideas.

I also was not taken aback by the "split" because her ideas motivated me, not personal art or behavior choices, those were hers.

What attracted me to OL was its openness. Additionally, I have never stopped being political and advancing her ideas everywhere I have been.

An Objectivist Summit, hmmm, where would it be held? Perhaps a virtual summit along the lines of your image:

"A single big, splashy, full color, videoed, stereoed site where your best minds address the principles underlying every current events issue that

comes to our attention and where you offer both short term and long term solutions that the freedom lovers of this nation can grab onto and

promote to save themselves from this awful disintegration. Let Binswanger and George Reisman, David Kelley, and Leonard Peikoff and NATHANIEL

BRANDEN, cooperate in the building of a Galt's Gulch that stretches from sea to shining sea."

Should work well. Hell we have the technology.

Adam

[ginny]

Welcome, Mary. Our experiences have been quit similar, except that I was living in New York instead of Nebraska. You sound like a terrific person. Keep posting.

Ginny

[Christopher]

Welcome Mary! As you may have noticed, this forum is especially receptive to the works by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

[Darrell Hougen]

Welcome Mary.

Thanks for the post. The idea of a unity conference is interesting, but I'm not sure it would make much difference. It is, perhaps, heartwarming to imagine all of the Objectivists in this country (or in the world) getting together and putting their differences aside. But, the truth is that Objectivists of all stripes are already fighting for freedom on a wide range of fronts, through discussion groups, blogs, websites, etc., and writing letters to newspapers, magazines and other publications to express our ideas.

We may not be in 100% agreement, but I think our ideas are penetrating the culture. The process may be slower than we would like and there is no guarantee that it will ever be successful in reaching the broad mass of the people, but there is no guarantee that presenting a unified front would make much difference.

One thing we should not do is let the enemies of Objectivism distract us. It is easy for people who don't really care about the internal debates within Objectivism to, nevertheless, distract Objectivists by bringing up questions about Rand and Branden, for example. And, while it is ok to debate the various splits within Objectivism, from time to time, especially when nothing terribly important is going on, we should stay focused on our areas of agreement when campaigning for a change in the cultural or political climate. We can all agree on existence, reason, rationality and self-interest, and freedom and capitalism being core ideas within Objectivism. And those are the ideas that we should put forth against the enemies of freedom and capitalism, whether we agree on every detail of Rand's philosophy or not.

Darrell

[DavidMcK]

I couldn't help but being very disappointed by the way Objectivists behaved....not because I thought they were Gods but because I thought that if any group would be anti-totalitarian and anti-mind control it would be a group of Objectivists. It still disturbs me to this day that if you can't count on people like the Brandens and Rand to repudiate control of others who can you count on?

[Philip Coates]

> if any group would be anti-totalitarian and anti-mind control it would be a group of Objectivists. It still disturbs me to this day that if you can't count on people like the Brandens and Rand to repudiate control of others who can you count on?

David, I think it's very important to use very precise language and not use terms like totalitarianism and mind control to apply to the feuds and history of Objectivists. Past (and present) Oist leaders have tried to -lead-, which they should. To influence people, for their improvement. There is nothing wrong with saying "you should do this, you should be this way, you should live this way". Any philosophical + psychological + educational movement with a definite code of values should do so. But they stepped over a number of lines in terms of excommunications and splits and hierarchies, in terms of judging people solely on what they gave lip service to, on how loyal and/or passionate they appeared to be, etc.

In -content- of leadership and teaching, the line is crossed in assuming everyone had to be like them or like fictional characters -- in tastes, preferences, friends, etc. In -style- of leadership and teaching, the line is crossed in being too "bullying", for lack of a better word.

But totalitarianism? There was no force involved. Mind control? There was no attempt to use mind-altering substances or "1984". The enemies of Objectivism would LOVE to make those charges stick. And then claim it is somehow an inescapable part of reason, freedom, egoism. Very important not to use that kind of language loosely.

Those words (like the "fascism" that Rand is accused of by the left) have an exact meaning.

[anonrobt]

> if any group would be anti-totalitarian and anti-mind control it would be a group of Objectivists. It still disturbs me to this day that if you can't count on people like the Brandens and Rand to repudiate control of others who can you count on?

David, I think it's very important to use very precise language and not use terms like totalitarianism and mind control to apply to the feuds and history of Objectivists. Past (and present) Oist leaders have tried to -lead-, which they should. To influence people, for their improvement. There is nothing wrong with saying "you should do this, you should be this way, you should live this way". Any philosophical + psychological + educational movement with a definite code of values should do so. But they stepped over a number of lines in terms of excommunications and splits and hierarchies, in terms of judging people solely on what they gave lip service to, on how loyal and/or passionate they appeared to be, etc.

In -content- of leadership and teaching, the line is crossed in assuming everyone had to be like them or like fictional characters -- in tastes, preferences, friends, etc. In -style- of leadership and teaching, the line is crossed in being too "bullying", for lack of a better word.

But totalitarianism? There was no force involved. Mind control? There was no attempt to use mind-altering substances or "1984". The enemies of Objectivism would LOVE to make those charges stick. And then claim it is somehow an inescapable part of reason, freedom, egoism. Very important not to use that kind of language loosely.

Those words (like the "fascism" that Rand is accused of by the left) have an exact meaning.

Yep - it describes the left that likes to claim they aint...

[Chris Grieb]

Welcome to OL.

The Split was very bad. I think it may have set Objectivism back by as much as thirty years.

[Robert Campbell]

Welcome to OL.

The Split was very bad. I think it may have set Objectivism back by as much as thirty years.

Chris G,

I agree with your estimate.

Without the split, something like Tara Smith's book could have been published by 1980, instead of having to wait till 2006.

Robert C

[Barbara Branden]

Mary, I assume you don't know this, but people representing TOS have approached the representatives of ARI a number of times over the years, hoping to find a way that the two organizations could cooperate. Each time, their suggestions of a rapprochement have been rejected.

Barbara

[Reidy]

Several factors delayed Objectivism's academic acceptance. I expect that the split (more precisely, the post-split behavior of the Peikoff/ARI circle) mattered less than Rand's outsider status, her non-academic writing style, her politics and her habit of impugning people's motives and character. If Objectivism arrived thirty years late, Galt's exhortation to "sweep out those hatred-eaten mystics of the subsidized classroom" accounted for ten of them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mary,

Welcome to OL.

I'm sorry I did not see this earlier. I have been working another project night and day and have been a bit distant from the forum for the last week or so.

That was one hell of an introduction.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It wasn't the split. It was Leonard Peikoff's exclusionary style and demands. He had one chance to redeem himself and all the rest in 1986 but went the wrong way. He did a lot of wrong and bad things apropos The Break in 1968, but Barbara Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand" gave him an out he didn't take. For the sake of money and power and being "right" he drove Objectivism into the ground for he wasn't and isn't about Objectivism but his-ism. Ayn Rand you gotta understand, celebrate and forgive her all forgivable, frankly, not a two-bit caught up in a war for gold who settled for silver turned to sand. For teaching the Objectivist philosophy he was probably as good as Nathaniel Branden, but he never achieved half his status. He never transcended 1968 and the decade before. NB always had more brains, personal power and charisma. But there is something even more powerful than all those: simple humility and honesty. Instead we have an Ayn Rand top-of-the-heap imitator.

--Brant

Edited August 16, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[ginny]

Brant, of course NB had more brains, personal power and charisma. Plus he slept with the ultimate Objectivist woman. Why do you think Peikoff wants to see him burn in hell? Philosophical differences? I don't think so. Try pure petty jealousy.

Ginny

[Guyau]

Welcome to OL, Mary Lee Harsha.

Robert, I have a couple of small-change speculations in connection with your remark in #10. I don’t think it likely that works such as Tara Smith’s two books could have appeared before Rand’s death. A few competent works on Rand’s philosophy did appear before 1982, but it seemed as if after her death, flowers came up all over.

There is going to come a day when the last person who knew Rand personally and significantly will have died. (It is really irksome that one does not get to see what happened in the world after one’s death.) I expect that with each passing year after that day, the splits between Rand and the Brandens and between Peikoff and Kelley will become a smaller portion of what people attend to in their mining for value in Objectivism. What flowers, what fields of flowers, what will whither, I wonder.

[Philip Coates]

> If Objectivism arrived thirty years late, Galt's exhortation to "sweep out those hatred-eaten mystics of the subsidized classroom" accounted for ten of them.

Peter, I wonder if that's true or if it's primarily the fact that it radically challenges not just a few but virtually -all- of the trends and assumptions in philosophy, in personal conduct that the professors hold to be true. After all, there are many other modern philosophers from Nietzsche to the existentialists who make venomous personal attacks, excoriate the academics, vilify all their opponents. That's also true in literature, by the way.

If someone were to challenge every one of my fundamental ideas in how to think, how to live, what kind of politics I hold, even the very nature of reality itself, I am likely to instantly dismiss him or her as a complete wacko. A nut job.

[Robert Campbell]

I don’t think it likely that works such as Tara Smith’s two books could have appeared before Rand’s death. A few competent works on Rand’s philosophy did appear before 1982, but it seemed as if after her death, flowers came up all over.

Stephen B,

Are you implying that Ayn Rand would have discouraged such efforts, while she was still alive?

You may have a point there.

But still, is there anything in Smith's books that couldn't been written in 1985?

There is going to come a day when the last person who knew Rand personally and significantly will have died. (It is really irksome that one does not get to see what happened in the world after one’s death.) I expect that with each passing year after that day, the splits between Rand and the Brandens and between Peikoff and Kelley will become a smaller portion of what people attend to in their mining for value in Objectivism.

I still think you are right, but the process is taking much longer than I anticipated.

In 2000, I was too optimistic about short-run improvements. It is true that each of the adverse developments I'm about to name has been, to one degree or another, self-discrediting. Still, in 2000 I would not have predicted the Andrew Bernstein penance of 2002, or the public religious conversion of Diana Hsieh in 2004, or Jim Valliant's scurrilous tome of 2005, or the public trashing of Chris Sciabarra in 2006.

All of them happened because the Ayn Rand Institute has succeeded in recruiting and/or training people who were small children in 1982—in some cases, people who were not yet born in 1982—to take sides in a succession struggle whose key events took place in 1968. Institutional and individual habits have developed (air-brushing, non-citation, avoidance of sanctioning those who sanction those who sanction, with the inevitable sequelae of double and triple and quadruple-think) that will be hard to break, and embarrassing to admit the need to break.

I don't see how the process can even begin until Leonard Peikoff bequeaths the copyrights to Kira. I can only hope that then a bunch of people will emerge from Irvine declaring that they were always opposed to the airbrushing and the noncitation and the ritualistic avoidance of sanctioning the sanctioners of sanctioners...

And if I live to witness the transformation, I promise not to ask any of them, "What took you so long?," or "Why didn't you try to stop it?"

Robert C

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, of course NB had more brains, personal power and charisma. Plus he slept with the ultimate Objectivist woman. Why do you think Peikoff wants to see him burn in hell? Philosophical differences? I don't think so. Try pure petty jealousy.

Ginny

Maybe. I don't think so. LP's world collapses if there is any commingling with the Brandens and a lot of other people. To maintain it he uses the much imitated Russian sleigh-ride technique.

--Brant

[Guyau]

Robert,

I’m not sure of all the reasons so many flowers came up after Rand’s death, rather than before. I don’t want to spend too much time speculating about these tertiary matters, but concerning your question, I’m pretty sure Rand would have been pleased by, and would not have discouraged, David Kelley’s creation of The Evidence of the Senses or Leonard Peikoff’s creation of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand or Tara Smith’s creation of Viable Values or Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics or Allan Gotthelf’s little book for Wadsworth.

I don’t know exactly how far she would have agreed with what Harry Binswanger had to say in, nor whether she would have encouraged him with, The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts (the dissertation was 1973, but the book was not until 1990). From somewhere or other, I had gotten the impression that Rand did not welcome Tibor Machan’s Human Rights and Human Liberties (1975) or the collective work The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (not published until 1984). Perhaps her possessiveness was over the top. I wouldn’t fault Rand altogether for possessiveness over her philosophy, at least with respect to wanting to see it stated or put into new integrations exactly correctly. Kant’s repudiation of the young Fichte was surely understandable (and correct, in this case). As for the profit motive for possessiveness, I guess I should not fault that altogether either.

I should say, to be clear, I expect that the preponderant value of Rand’s works among those who live after her and her main circle (the Brandens, Peikoff, Gotthelf, Binswanger) will continue to be not the blooms of books or journals or political actions. It will be the blooms that are individual personal lives.

I’ll close. Much promising work is waiting.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[9thdoctor]

Let Binswanger and George Reisman, David Kelley, and Leonard Peikoff and NATHANIEL BRANDEN, cooperate in the building of a Galt's Gulch that stretches from sea to shining sea.

There's been too much name calling, bad blood, and lawsuits to think this will ever happen. The best we can hope it that the next generation creates a new paradigm of respectful competition.

[ginny]

"LP's world collapses if there is any commingling with the Brandens and a lot of other people. To maintain it he uses the much imitated Russian sleigh-ride technique."

Absolutely, Brant. But I still maintain its petty jealousy. And it's held the movement back in a very bad way. When I heard him lecture, it was clear (to me, at least) that LP didn't feel on par with the rest of the in-group. He frequently called himself the "Eddie Willer" of the movement. He frequently commented on the difficulty he had in understanding Rand's concepts. His accomplishments are minimal, at best. So yes, all the furor and hathred and malicious back and forth is due to jealousy; they're just nicely wrapped in philosophic verbiage. I'll stand by that. LP can't accomplish, but he sure as freaking hell can knock down.

Forgive me, but from where I stand, he's a small man trying to bring a movement down to his size.

Ginny

[Selene]

Let Binswanger and George Reisman, David Kelley, and Leonard Peikoff and NATHANIEL BRANDEN, cooperate in the building of a Galt's Gulch that stretches from sea to shining sea.

There's been too much name calling, bad blood, and lawsuits to think this will ever happen. The best we can hope it that the next generation creates a new paradigm of respectful competition.

Welcome aboard. Are you a doctor?

Why should you stop at the shining seas limits?

Even Europeans deserve enlightenment!

Adam

[9thdoctor]

*Welcome aboard. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Who fan. I'm a CPA actually.

[Reidy]

Coates, #17: "If someone were to challenge every one of my fundamental ideas in how to think, how to live, what kind of politics I hold, even the very nature of reality itself, I am likely to instantly dismiss him or her as a complete wacko. A nut job."

Yes, but this is not where Rand stood in relation to the academic mainstream of 50 years ago. She was promoting ontological realism, ethical naturalism, egoism and individualist politics. None of these was new or shocking to a trained philosopher. Naturalism was out of fashion, though it was just beginning to come back, and political individualism was not so much academically out of fashion as out of fashion among academics. Her insistence on the practical importance of philosophy was more bizarre than any particular position of hers, but even this would not have been enough to explain her academic rejection. For this you have to look elsewhere than the content of her ideas, e.g. to the factors I mentioned in #12.

(Nietzsche and the Existentialists were not mainstream, English-speaking twentieth-century academics.)

Edited August 17, 2009 by Reidy