Will Atlas Shrugged Elect the President?

[Ed Hudgins]

Will Atlas Shrugged Elect the President?

By Edward Hudgins

Atlas Shrugged Part 2, now in theaters, could be more than just exciting fall film fare. This is the latest installment of the trilogy of Ayn Rand’s great novel, a book that has influenced many policymakers, including GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan, and that could influence voters in the presidential election.

Wrong path

Atlas Shrugged is set in an alternate America. But the world depicted in Part 2 will be painfully familiar even to moviegoers who haven’t seen Part 1. The economy is in free fall. Gasoline prices are through the roof. And government is engaged in a jihad against the most productive and prosperous individuals of self-made wealth, taxing them and imposing regulations to force them to provide their “fair share.”

And just when the productive efforts of particular entrepreneurs are most needed to shore up what’s left of the economy, those individuals begin to disappear, quitting work, abandoning homes and enterprises.

The uninitiated might think that Atlas Shrugged was written in recent years to mirror America’s current plight. But the book was published in 1957. Ayn Rand meant it as a warning of what would happen if America continued down not just the wrong economic path but, more important, the wrong philosophical path.

What happened?

America was founded on the principle that individuals are endowed with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Millions of individuals—including Ayn Rand—came to America to live their lives as they saw fit, to make real their own dreams, to take joy in their productive achievements, dealing with their fellows based on mutual consent. Freedom is a win-win situation!

Today, millions of Americans watch the personal autonomy and the opportunities this country has historically offered shrinking as the economy collapses, and they ask, “What happened?”

Atlas 2 gives us insight. Hank Rearden is the Steve Jobs of the steel industry. He has created a new metal stronger, lighter, and cheaper than any ever produced. But he has had to fight government attempts to keep his product off the market. Now the same politicians and bureaucrats who tried to destroy his business want to control to whom he can sell his metal and at what price, further crippling his enterprise. Rearden asks, “How can such small people do so much damage?”

Shrug!

Copper CEO Francisco D’Anconia helps him understand by asking another question: “Did you want to see your metal and your wealth used by looters who think it’s your duty to produce and theirs to consume—moochers who think they owe you nothing, no wealth, no recognition, no respect?”

Rearden answers, “I’d blow up my mills first.” He is coming to appreciate that free people forge their own chains when they surrender the moral high ground to their enslavers, when they allow themselves to be guilt-tripped into serving and supporting their destroyers.

D’Anconia then asks Rearden, “If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders … knees buckling, arms trembling but still trying to hold up the world with the last of his strength, what would you tell him to do?” At this point audiences will understand D’Anconia’s own answer: “To shrug.”

America’s future

Audience members who don’t fully share Rand’s explicit philosophy can still admire Rearden and Dagny Taggart, the woman who runs the country’s largest railroad. They can still understand the injustice of punishing these individuals for their productive efforts. They can still loathe the crony capitalists who try to destroy these producers and to secure wealth through political pull.

And they will be swept up by the mystery of a motor that Dagny and Hank find in an abandoned factory, a motor that could provide an almost limitless supply of cheap, clean energy but that seems to have been deliberately abandoned by its creator.

Americans will enter the voting booth this fall against a backdrop of the world collapsing as in Atlas Shrugged. Those who see the film or read the book will be compelled to ask deep and serious questions about the moral, political, and economic direction of the country. And their answers could well determine who is elected and whether America’s future will be bright or nasty, brutish, and short.

---------

Hudgins is director of advocacy for The Atlas Society.

[9thdoctor]

Ed,

Jerry and I have question, this comes from another thread, the one where we all gave our opinions of the movie as we went to see it opening weekend. Is James Randi in the trial scene? It looks like it might be him over Rearden's shoulder, sitting a couple rows above Lillian.

[Ed Hudgins]

Let me check on Randi and get back to you. I don't think so because I don't think Randi is a Rand.

In that scene Steve Davis, the SpaceX engineer, sits to the left of Dagny. And the judge to our far right on the panel is Federal Appeals Judge Alex Kosinski. Also Michael Shermer of Skeptic mag is in the party scene. When Jim is blabbing, we see Dagny looking at him. Michael is to the right in the scene, talking to his daughter, who's to the left.

[Mark]

Those who see the film or read the book will be compelled to ask deep and serious questions about the moral, political, and economic direction of the country. And their answers could well determine who is elected and whether America’s future will be bright or nasty, brutish, and short.

How on earth? As retired Judge Andrew Napolitano said, more or less, there's not a dime's worth of moral, political or economic difference between the two major candidates.

If there is any difference, it’s that the Republican comes with a raft of neoconservative advisors, many the same as were in the Bush administration. The odds the U.S invades Iran will be far higher if he’s elected. Maybe that’s more than a dime.

[Martin Radwin]

Those who see the film or read the book will be compelled to ask deep and serious questions about the moral, political, and economic direction of the country. And their answers could well determine who is elected and whether America’s future will be bright or nasty, brutish, and short.

How on earth? As retired Judge Andrew Napolitano said, more or less, there's not a dime's worth of moral, political or economic difference between the two major candidates.

If there is any difference, it’s that the Republican comes with a raft of neoconservative advisors, many the same as were in the Bush administration. The odds the U.S invades Iran will be far higher if he’s elected. Maybe that’s more than a dime.

Unfortunately, to many objectivists, bombing and/or invading Iran is not a bug but a feature.

Martin

[studiodekadent]

Indeed. And the majority of Objectivists are men, so they're probably less likely to be horrified by Ryan's desire to socialize the uterus than a woman would be.

Also, the majority of Objectivists are nominally straight so we won't get as much outcry over Ryan and Romney's continued hostility to marriage equality.

Not that Obama is necessarily any better on civil liberties overall.

Sure, it is arguable that federalism offers a certain level of protection to civil liberties. That said you'd EXPECT a little more open criticism towards people of such backward religionist idiocy. I don't care if it doesn't affect their political decisions; their faiths are diseases of the mind (metaphorically speaking) and they deserve to get lots and LOTS of disdain for them (yes, I'm in Angry Atheist mode today and proud of it).

And far too many Objectivists seem to get off on foreign policy hawkishness, as if big phallic cruise missiles are some sort of projection of manly American power or something (it is often noted that Objectivists tend to be nerdy men, perhaps they feel socially emasculated by mainstream society (for not being jocks) and thus the hawkish attitudes are a way of compensating). But Foreign Policy shouldn't be about making voters feel powerful and strong, it should be about defending American interests.

I'm not going to say that "No True Objectivist would vote Romney/Ryan." But I don't think any true Objectivist could cast such a ballot enthusiastically... at best it would be a reluctant 'lesser of two evils' vote, or based on some sort of pragmatic political calculation.

That said, need I remind everyone that if Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote, the LP will qualify for huge amounts of federal funds and thus get more power to spread the message?

[PDS]

Ed:

I generally enjoy your essays, but this one seems to be a stretch.

Do you have any figures as to how many people have seen Atlas Shrugged, II, and if so, any surveys/polls as to how many people have had the movie affect their vote?

I think it is fair to surmise that the philosophy behind Atlas Shrugged II (even if only partially understood or adhered to) may affect voting decisions. To say that the movie will or has done so is a far different and much less obvious conclusion.

I loved the movie, by the way, notwithstanding that Dagny looked like she needed a nap and was sporting eye lashes longer than train smoke...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

You have to keep this message alive for the general public. We all do. And I applaud your stream of articles aimed at doing this in the mainstream.

But I have an inhouse comment--and my intent is constructive.

I believe using the Atlas Shrugged movie as a tool for directly influencing an election was a misfire. This took away from the grandeur of the themes and story--and, I believe, ironically diluted its potential impact on the present election. Who is more larger than life in the public eye right now--at this exact point in history--Hank Rearden or Mitt Romney?

Think about it.

People just watched Romney on three debates that hogged some major TV time and the entire news media, with intense emotions swirling all around. Not to mention the normal nonstop campaign media focus.

How is any movie to compete in that arena?

The frame for Rand's message when presented in an epic myth (which is what AS is) has to be an artistic attack on bad philosophy and let the political world sort itself out. In that frame, her message is loud and clear.

Framing the movie as a political weapon for a specific election puts it on the same level as all the other political campaign messages. Instead of coming across as great art with critical philosophical themes for human life on earth, it is being seen as political propaganda.

This is the main reason I believe the movie is not doing very well in the theaters. The propaganda channels are clogged right now. Lots of competition. The philosophy is drowned out by the talking points of the day. What's worse, whenever the philosophy does get some media play, it gets distorted and presented as a political talking point itself--usually including a mention of Paul Ryan and his interest in Rand.

Your article even does the talking point frame, without the distortion, of course, and, thankfully, there is more philosophical meat to it than what we normally see. As an aside, on the talking point level, if you get through to just one undecided voter, in my mind it will have been well worth writing the article.

I predict that after the elections, when the yelling dies down, there will be increasingly more interest in this movie for DVD and TV. And I predict it will be a steady seller like her novels are.

The poor theater results are a shame, too, because I really like how the folks behind the production did this installment. I think it is the best film version of anything and everything Rand to date.

Michael

[Mark]

[withdrawn]

[syrakusos]

The Obama victory is a certainty. Any other view is self-delusion.

Paul Ryan repudiated his association with the atheistic philosophy of Ayn Rand. He is a conservative and in Atlas Shrugged the conservatives are represented by Cuffy Meigs. Meigs is the "fascist man of action" the pragmatist who looks to conquer Latin America - lots of pickings still to be had there, he says. He is disdainful of Dagny, refusing to talk directly to her. Other (economic) conservatives include Mr. Mowen and Paul Larkin.

Not an iota of difference separates the two parties or the candidates. Barack Obama has spoken up for individual initiatve and enterprise and for rewarding them. We just demonize him and underscore his other message -- just as we downplay those very same words when spoken by Republicans. We look to Republican business leaders and ignore Costco's Jim Sinegal and Jim Graves. Graves is a millionaire who made his money in hotels. He is running against Michele Bachmann. Says Graves:

"I'm kind of a hybrid," he says, when asked what kind of politics he's selling. "I'm a very free-market kind of guy. I'm a business guy. I think the markets make better decisions than the politicians in the marketplace. But we need a level playing field and I believe very strongly, I mean really strongly, that the middle class, and affordable health care, and livable wages, and good education, that is the core ingredient to the future of this country. So that's another thing, that's probably the fundamental thing I really believe in. You need people to have dignity, you need people to have cash flow and their families, to be able to be part of the society and contribute."

That is the same message from the Romney-Ryan and Obama-Biden campaigns.

(I agree with MSK that the movie was watered down by the election. The message is bigger than that.)

[studiodekadent]

I agree with Mike Marotta on this.

Atlas Shrugged is just as anti-conservative as it is anti-'liberal.' Hell, it had a sexually enthusiastic and guiltless woman shag a married man and portrayed it as exhalted and beautiful and noble. It argued that the basis of the statist's views was the concept of original sin and the morality of "man exists to serve something greater than himself."

Trying to influence the election so as to generate a Republican win will only make people associate us with Ryan, Romney and their bread-and-wine-chewing, magic-underwear mysticism.

[BaalChatzaf]

No. It won't

[GALTGULCH8]

A recent poll in today's Boston Globe article on third party influence on the election revealed that Gary Johnson already has 4% of the vote.

Surely your individual vote will carry more weight if you cast it for the Libertarian Party with the goal of helping reach 5% so they can be more competitive and conceivably end the two party duopoly in 2016 once and for all time.

It is far less likely that your single vote will decide the outcome in your state for one of the major party candidates.

I feel gratitude for the efforts of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who are raising the banner of individual freedom and limited Constitutional government more than has been seen since the days of the Founders.

So I will vote for Gary Johnson even though were he to win and succeed in abolishing the income tax and institute his 23% national consumption tax it would come at a time in my life where I would soon have no income to tax and all my spending would be taxed as never before.

How I hope Gary Johnson does get the 5% the LP seeks. I suspect that even if they do that the establishment will change the rules midstream as the GOP did to keep Ron Paul from having his fifteen minutes to speak in Tampa.

Have you all noticed that on Rotten Tomatoes the reviewers gave AS II a 5% and those who saw the movie gave it a 79%.

[9thdoctor]

Is James Randi in the trial scene? It looks like it might be him over Rearden's shoulder, sitting a couple rows above Lillian.

Let me check on Randi and get back to you. I don't think so because I don't think Randi is a Rand.

Nudge nudge Ed, what have you learned? Inquiring minds what to know.

Like me!

[william.scherk]

The Obama victory is a certainty. Any other view is self-delusion.

Perhaps. It would certainly be true if you left the election up to the danged socialist windbags up here in Canada. A new Angus Reid poll shows a thumping number of Canuckis in the bag for Obama ....

[VANCOUVER – Oct. 30, 2012] - If people in Canada and Britain could cast a ballot in next week’s United States presidential election, they would overwhelmingly support the incumbent, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

In the online survey of representative national samples, Canadians prefer Barack Obama to Mitt Romney by a 7-to-1 margin (72% to 10%),

See also the dire details as spun by dirty commie Michael Bolen.

-- yet another reason to keep our border strong and distinct, no?

Edited November 1, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

But what do we know? And our Fearless Leader Harper does not want Obama down there, not one little bit.

It will be nearly a tie.

[Jerry Biggers]

Ed,

Jerry and I have question, this comes from another thread, the one where we all gave our opinions of the movie as we went to see it opening weekend. Is James Randi in the trial scene? It looks like it might be him over Rearden's shoulder, sitting a couple rows above Lillian.

So, come on Ed!

Is that, or is that not, James Randi in the audience at Rearden's trial. As I said on another thread, "If that is not James Randi, then it is someone who is trying very hard to look just like him."

Randi, as you know, is a good friend of Michael Shermer who, as you pointed-out, is also in the movie in a cameo non-speaking, role. Randi probably would not have to be a bona fide Rand fan to get in a scene.

So Ed, what's the story? Is it Randi? If not, who is it doing the impersonation?