Dennis Hardin

Charles, Imagine you were Donald Rumsfeld and Bush told him, "Okay, Rummy, from now on we'll do it your way." That's what I would do. I feel that I have been as clear as I can be from a nonexpert's viewpoint, but I don't mind spelling out what I think might be the appropriate military strategy to follow here. In essence, speaking only in very general terms, I would favor using technology (i.e., bombing) over ground forces in any situation where it was feasible to do so. Knocking out infrastructure means destroying their capability for striking back with anything other than bows and arrows and forcing the general population to focus on survival rather than supporting aggression. I would reduce any area identified as a terrorist stronghold to rubble. If we have clear evidence that an Al Quaida leader is hiding in a certain location, we erase it from the map. Without leaders or training camps, there would be no more suicide bombers. Once a nation has been reduced to that level of subsistence, it is unlikely they will be able to inflict significant damage on the troops assigned to protecting oil wells. If the insurgency rises up, bombing should be used in whatever degree is required to silence it. If we demonstrated the will to prosecute the war in this manner, the other Arab nations would capitulate with the utmost deference, and would give us their oil (at least temporarily) dirt cheap in the hopes of being spared a similar fate. And those gutless, bleeding-heart reporters would never be able to wipe the grin off of Rummy's face.

Barbara, Once upon a time, there was this young man from Tennessee who was desperate to find the motivation to make something of his life. To say that he was bewildered by the world of the Bible Belt and the “god-fearing” people around him would have been a phenomenal understatement. He looked and looked for answers, but only found more and more confusing questions. Then one day a girlfriend suggested he read an interview with a Russian-born novelist in PLAYBOY. From that day forward, his life was transformed. He read ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD and wondered: Could people such as this really exist? He read about the Nathaniel Branden Institute and took a bus trip with some friends to New York City. He had tickets to see the hottest show on Broadway—“HELLO DOLLY”—but instead decided to attend a lecture at NBI. (The friend who had ordered those tickets months in advance never forgave him.) It was the first of several trips to NBI. On a subsequent trip to New York City, he attended a lecture on “Romantic Love” at the Roosevelt Hotel. He sat in the audience--a few rows behind Ayn Rand and her husband—and when the lecture was over, he sat still as everyone else got up to leave. He was transfixed by the sight of you as you stepped onto the podium and talked with the lecturer—your husband, Nathaniel Branden. That was long before he learned of all the turmoil that had already started to brew within the Objectivist hierarchy. He was utterly captivated by the image of the two of you together and what that meant about the joyous possibilities life had to offer. As long as he lives, he will never forget how radiant you looked and how much he wanted to make that romantic vision a reality in his own life. Well, as Paul Harvey would say, I am sure you know “the rest of the story.” That young man was me, of course. And I thought this little snapshot from my past might give you some hint of how much it means to me, now, all these years later, to read your words of appreciation for my article. Dennis

Charles, My, oh my. You do have a tendency to regurgitate my words in a rather unflattering way. In the interest of clarity and ”reasonableness,” I would like to ask that you make a fair effort to actually understand my arguments before you begin attacking them. Here is what I said: Now let me break that down for you, my friend: (a) The word “if” means that the suggested action should be taken when necessary for self-defense. I did not say that it was necessary for self-defense. To repeat, I am not a military strategist. I said that if it is deemed necessary, I would not have a problem with it. (b) The next two sentences compare two alternative negative consequences of war in general—the deaths of women and children in an enemy nation, and the loss of a single American soldier’s life. I consider that the sacrifice of the American soldier for the women and children of the enemy nation is wrong. In fact, I think it is monstrous. Please tell me how that translates to “bombing Iraq into the Stone Age if it would save one American life.” Do you really think that is a fair assessment? You follow that with: Once again, I said that this should be done if deemed appropriate by military strategists for self-defense. It is not “my policy” unless that precondition obtains. If it does, then I contend that we have the right to do it for self-defense. Would it necessarily kill tens of thousands of women and children? No. Destroying infrastructure would obviously entail some civilian deaths. I seriously doubt it would amount to “tens of thousands,” but if that is what is necessary for America to be safe, then so be it. We did not start this, but our security demands that we finish it. It would be profoundly stupid for us to bomb oil wells. In fact, since those oil wells were stolen from us, I would recommend sparing them and giving them back to the Western oil companies who built them in the first place. This would have the opposite effect on oil prices that you predict. Sure they would. They would be eager to suffer Iraq’s fate, wouldn’t they? I’m sure none of them would react the way Muammar Khaddiffi and Libya reacted to our takeover of Iraq. Thousands of young Muslims have already made it their life mission to act as suicide bombers, but they can only do so because of our ineptitude at destroying Al Quaida. Once their training camps are destroyed—along with Al Quaida’s leadership--the threat of suicide bombers would be largely nonexistent. This indeed could happen. They would likely be giving it to us for free.

Charles, Many thanks for your kind remarks. If nothing else, perhaps we are demonstrating that Objectivists can have strong disagreements without engaging in mutual condemnation, insults or obscene tirades. When an honest intellectual exchange contributes to clarity and understanding, it is win-win. Only good things can come from that. Dennis

I emerged from my Randroid phase in 1968, in the aftermath of the "Great Schism" between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. The break forced me to evaluate their respective arguments independently. It was an epiphany. (Many relative newcomers to Rand’s philosophy may not be aware that, prior to their break, Ayn Rand had elevated Branden to a unique status. She had officially deemed him to be in every way her equal. And she had made it lucidly clear that they were the only two human beings in the universe who deserved that status. The fact that she did not choose to strip him of that unique title prior to their official break is, to me, strong evidence that she never gave up hope of resurrecting their romance until she discovered the truth of his affair with Patrecia Wynand.) My initial inclination, of course, was to take the side of Ayn Rand, based on her article “To Whom It May Concern,” published in The Objectivist. Then, a few weeks later, I received the essays entitled “In Answer to Ayn Rand” from Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in the mail. I analyzed both articles word for word, struggling to find evidence of their corruption. Eventually I realized there were huge gaps in Rand’s explanation of what had occurred—gaps which did not get filled in until The Passion of Ayn Rand was published almost two decades later. In 1968, I finally took the position that I did not have enough information to take either side of the dispute. The evidence seemed overwhelming that there was much to this story that we were not being told—which, of course, turned out to be true. The “learning curve” for me was appreciating the crucial importance of never again relying on anyone else’s judgment but my own, of never accepting an authority over my brain. Because independence and rationality are so crucial to the Objectivist ethics, it could be argued that the “schism” actually transformed me into more of an Objectivist than I had been before. Thus, even though I was taking a contrary viewpoint, I strongly believed that I was acting consistent with Rand’s teachings. From that point on, I continued to consider myself an Objectivist, but I discovered more and more aspects of Ayn Rand’s thinking which I did not accept. I have never considered those disagreements to be fundamental. And I have never doubted for an instant that she is the greatest philosophical genius of our age. As I indicated in “An Objectivist Retrospective,” I first became aware of the Rand-Branden break during a trip to the New York offices of the Nathaniel Branden Institute. When I walked out of the Empire State Building that morning, I remember having an overwhelming sense that my dreams about the future had suddenly been radically altered. Until that moment, my attraction to cultism had been strongly tied to my wish for a universe like the one I had discovered in Atlas Shrugged. I had desperately wanted to live in that universe. My emergence from Randroidism began that morning as I walked the streets of Manhattan, realizing that, alas, it was never going to happen. But that sad recognition had an upside: if the world was not going to change, then my life had to change. The only future I could truly control was my own. Confronting that harsh reality at the age of 20 was a profound contribution to my personal growth.

Charles, I certainly agree that a quote from Ayn Rand is not a substitute for an argument. When I read Ayn Rand Answers, I often found myself disagreeing with her on specific issues. But your prior post suggested she might support TOC’s compassionate approach to war, and I think those quotes make clear she would not. She obviously believed that the sanctity of the individual’s life justified prosecuting war in a way that would wipe out the threat posed by the enemy with a minimum of risk to the soldiers of the country acting in self-defense. And that may well mean breaking the enemy’s will to fight by forcing them to suffer major civilian loss of life, as it did in WWII. I am not a military strategist. In a general way, I would say that we should use the weapons at our disposal to make it impossible for the aggressor nation to continue their aggression. And I oppose using our foot soldiers as cannon fodder to minimize collateral damage or set up a “democracy” that will soon collapse into another Islamic sewage dump and breeding ground for terrorism. It is obvious to me that, given the proper ethical principle of rational self-interest, our military leaders could eliminate any threat Iraq might present with a fraction of the American casualties we have witnessed. Most of those 2445 deaths are directly attributable to the explicitly altruistic motives of the Bush administration. If self-defense entails bombing terrorist nations back into the Stone Age every time they raise their ugly, savage, maniacal heads, I have no problem with that. Of course I am sorry if that means women and children have to die. I am incalculably sorrier if one American soldier loses his life to protect them. I put the word “benevolence” in quotation marks because, in my opinion, you are using it in a way that amounts to self-sacrifice. I consider genuine benevolence (which is a rational virtue) and self-sacrifice to be utterly incompatible. Benevolence is only possible between rational men who deal with each other by reason rather than violence. If we can safely afford to spare the truly innocent, as in the Vietnamese village you described, terrific. Of course we should not kill senselessly. But a general policy of kindness toward the civilians of an enemy nation which poses a threat to your survival is suicide, not benevolence—and anything but rational.

In case there are further doubts as to where Ayn Rand would have stood on the issue of “Just War Theory”:

Charles, The “benevolent” (i.e., self-sacrificial) approach to war adopted by the Bush administration—an approach which (in the case of Iraq) has cost the lives of 2445 American soldiers and maimed thousands more—has earned Bush the highest disapproval rating of any American president since the end of Jimmy Carter’s term in 1981—and most of that is attributed to his handling of the Iraq war. Are you sure you want to argue that TOC’s tacit endorsement of such “benevolent” policies are the way to win the hearts and minds of the American people over to the Objectivist point-of-view? No one has been more critical of ARI’s dogmatic policy of labeling dissenters as immoral than I have. In contrast, Kelley's Unrugged Individualism was an important contribution to the Objectivist canon. With respect to America's self-defense, however, TOC has promulgated a watered down perversion of the Objectivist ethics, and I consider that to be every bit as destructive as anything ARI has done. So you believe Ayn Rand would have supported your approach. Oh, really? Here are the words she used in addressing the graduating class of West Point in 1974: In the crucial matter of equipping America’s leaders with the moral self-confidence required for genuine victory in this war, TOC has sadly dropped the ball.

Charles, There is simply no way to reconcile support of our use of massive bombing raids or the atomic bomb in WWII with TOC’s statement that "the military campaign should make every reasonable effort to avoid [civilian casualties]." To defend use of the atomic bomb on the basis that it spared Japanese civilian casualties is to display a total disregard for the meaning of words. As Churchill said, the goal of the German bombing campaign was “to create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.” We did not engage in such tactics because we lacked more accurate weapons. It is simply not true that we are fighting “a disaffected bunch of thugs and some fanatical terrorists.” The primary perpetrators may be relatively few, but the extent of their support throughout the nations of the Islamic world is enormous. Because irrational religious fervor is behind it, one could argue that support for the terrorists is more pervasive than was the nationalist support for Germany and Japan. It will not end because we convince such savages that the “crusaders” are warm-hearted and benevolent. Another quote from the Brook-Epstein article: Here is the example you cite: To inflict suffering on complicit civilians through the bombing of infrastructure is obviously very different from deliberately massacring people (including children) who were “forced” to help the enemy. The platoon leader in the example you describe should obviously be court marshaled. If you have to shoot him in self-defense, you would be justified in doing so. The fact that you think this situation reflects anything relevant to the arguments I have been making proves the utter futility of this discussion. Dennis

Charles, The one sentence you quoted is irrelevant to the issue of altruism vs. self-interest. The altruistic implication is to be found in the suggestion that we must only use tactics which “discriminate’ between combatants and noncombatants, even though those tactics put American soldiers at greater risk. Frankly, I do not care if Iraq ever becomes a “responsible” country—I care that they have no ability to harm us. Of course any statements issued by TOC would avoid explicit altruism. Objectivists would immediately reject any such arguments. So their position is dressed up to look like rational self-interest, in much the same way that our political leaders defend the welfare state on the grounds that it will benefit everyone “in the long run” by reducing violence and crime. Approaching war as a public relations campaign is supposed to accomplish a similar result on a global scale by making savages believe we have “good (i.e., altruistic) intentions.” We are led to believe that this is the only way to stop them from blowing us up, because we lack the moral self-confidence to wage war in a way that will destroy their ability to blow us up. The following quotations from the article by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein address the issues you raise:

Barbara, Thank you for taking the time to evaluate this controversy. You can see the full contrast between the two positions by reading two articles: “The Justice of War,” by Patrick Stephens of TOC (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--353-...ustice_War.aspx) and “Just War Theory vs. American Self-defense” by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...pring/index.asp). In his article, Stephens defends “Just War” principles which mandate that we not only minimize civilian casualties but the enemy’s military casualties as well. Here is what I regard as a clearly altruistic comment from Stephens’ article: In advocating such “discrimination,” Stephens effectively means that we cannot use weapons that will kill Osama bin laden if they will also kill the people who are protecting him. That explains why he is still at large and continuing to plot the deaths of thousands of Americans. It is the reason that our present war effort is so miserably inept, and it is going to get us all killed. Those so-called “heroic efforts,” in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, translate to American body bags. In my opinion, the sacrifice of a single American soldier in the name of such “Just War” principles is altruistic and an unspeakable obscenity. Dennis

If statements like this make me an "intellectual bully." then I will wear the title proudly.

I recently found an excellent article in the Spring, 2006 issue of The Objective Standard (www.theobjectivestandard.com) by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein which deals directly with the issue of altruism in America’s foreign policy. You can read the full article on-line. Please note the similarity between the quotation below and the language of TOC’s 2001 “Position Statement” on the war, quoted in my prior post above:

Several years ago, I gave a speech at Toastmasters following a trip to New York City. I had forgotten about that speech when I wrote my recent ‘retrospective,’ but I want to say something about that now. During that trip, I spent quite a long time outside Ayn Rand’s former residence, looking up at the windows of the apartment where she once lived. I told the group about the all night discussions by the collective, and how strongly I believed that the ideas brought forth in those discussions would have a major impact on America’s future. I said that, forty years ago, when I attended NBI lectures at the Roosevelt Hotel, I was convinced that I was witnessing the birth of a new renaissance. At the end of that brief talk, with tears in my eyes (yes, some of us bullies do cry occasionally), I explained that, once upon a time, I knew that Ayn Rand was going to save the world... “And perhaps she will, one day. But now—all these years later—all I can say for sure is that she rescued me from the deadly, suffocating, tradition-bound quagmire of the deep South. She gave me the fuel to take charge of my future, the conviction that I could achieve whatever I set my mind to. And all that really matters is that she saved my life."

Roger, Any member of the armed forces who quit would be guilty of desertion and subject to court martial as well as the stigma that would follow him the rest of his life. Soldiers have the right to expect that the government that employs them will conduct a war in a way that will not subject them to unnecessary risk. If putting them in the primary role of “protecting” civilians of an enemy country is not altruistic, nothing is. The role of police is to protect citizens in a given jurisdiction from violence. The role of the army is to protect the citizens of the nation that employs them. Our army can legitimately focus on protecting our citizens (for instance, if the battle was on American soil). It is not their job to protect foreign citizens. Charles, You are merely rephrasing the arguments of Kelley and TOC. There is no fundamental difference between the “war on terror” and any other military action. You could have said the exact same things about the “downtrodden people” of Nazi Germany or Hirohito’s Japan. A war is not a public relations campaign. And you cannot look at our soldiers coming back in body bags or hideously maimed and seriously defend this claptrap. I'm sorry, but I am unwilling to debate this further when the issues are so obvious and the price in innocent American lives so high. You can call anything “reasonable” and “rational,” but that does not make it morally defensible or any less altruistic (or, in my opinion, obscene).

Saul: Here is a quote from TOC's "Position Statement" on the War on Terror posted to their website in October of 2001: This is a clear statement that we should risk the lives of our soldiers and limit our use of military technology to minimize civilian casualties. Other policy statements by TOC at the time further stated that it was somehow “heroic” for our soldiers to risk their lives to save innocent civilians. This, in essence, accurately describes the “Christian” approach to prosecuting the war that the Bush administration has adopted, and I regard it as appalling.

Michael, Charles, Robert, Kat—Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I appreciate having the opportunity to express and clarify my thinking in a forum like this. It goes without saying that any rational person would take those actions needed to achieve the life he or she wants despite the insanity that surrounds us. It would be the height of immorality, stupidity and self-sacrifice to let the persistently sheeplike conformity of the human race drain your energy to the extent that you neglect your own needs and personal values. Beyond that, no doubt many of you recall Ayn Rand’s statement that “anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today.” I am profoundly angry that ARI has not provided a worthy platform for working for that future. The fact is that anyone who represents ARI as a speaker or contributor is lending their sanction to the corruption of Objectivism, and I will not be a part of that. (I would very much like to say that TOC has stepped up to offer a viable alternative. I know that many people feel that it has. However, I have found it to be profoundly lacking in philosophical consistency, even to the point of implicitly sanctioning altruism in its official statements. Because of this, it is damaging to Objectivism in exactly the opposite way. The rational alternative to religiosity and idolatry is not intellectual flippancy.) All we can really do is create the best life we can for ourselves, while spreading rational ideas by whatever nonsacrificial means are available. The future will have to take care of itself.

An Objectivist Retrospective In 1968, I was 20 years old. I had already been an Objectivist for several years, having discovered Atlas Shrugged when I was 16. I grew up in East Tennessee, a little corner of the Bible Belt that represented just about everything I despised about the South—conventionality, the worship of tradition, fear of anything new and different, life-negating values, et. al. Objectivism gave me hope and a vision of the future that I clung to like a lifeline. While I was earning a bachelor’s degree at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, I often attended taped NBI lectures. One evening a week, I would pick up my girlfriend and drive to the home of a prominent photographer where the lectures were held. We would take time before and after the lectures to speak of the excitement the future held and how different the world was going to be once Objectivism spread like a wildfire through the culture. It was only a matter of time before others would see what we saw—that Ayn Rand had discovered a bold new vision of the possibilities of life and her young protégé, Nathaniel Branden, could show how to go about achieving such a life, here and now. If someone had told me that, almost 40 years later, Objectivism’s influence would be as limited as it often seems today, I would have scoffed. To think that a half century after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, we are living under a President who names Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher, in a culture where talk radio abounds with self-righteous zealots denouncing abortion as murder, where our national leaders resemble weasels who fall over one another to see who can debase himself the most while apologizing for America’s greatness, and where the alleged tough proponents of national defense think moral courage amounts to prosecuting a ‘war on terror’ in which we sacrifice the precious lives of our soldiers in order to spare brain-dead, cave-dwelling thugs. What happened? Something prevented that wildfire from spreading. What was it? I clearly recall reading Nathaniel Branden’s sobering words in Who is Ayn Rand? to the effect that patience will be required before genuine cultural changes will occur. “Don’t delude yourself,” he warned a young member of the collective. “Things don’t happen that fast—when you consider the enormity of what we’re challenging and the scale of what we want to achieve.” Very well. I’m a patient guy. I can see waiting a half century or so to see the beginnings of cultural upheaval. But it often seems that we have made almost no progress toward changing the culture. I keep wondering if, somewhere along the line, Objectivism was derailed. It often seems that, in the present day world, Objectivism is barely a blip on a very crowded radar screen. It has undoubtedly had some indirect influence. News sources reported that, during the anti-business backlash that accompanied the aftermath of the Enron scandal, many prominent businessmen turned to the pages of Atlas Shrugged for moral support. When an optimistic mood strikes me, I’m even willing to suggest that Objectivism may have been obliquely responsible for the “me-decade” of the Reagan era and some of the quasi-secular aspects of today’s procapitalist conservatives. Given the reality of the clash between their religious premises and the profit motive, it could be argued that Ayn Rand supplies the tacit moral foundation for their outspoken love of America, even though they would explicitly deny that any such clash exists. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved are examples of conservative voices with many positive things to say about the ideas of Ayn Rand in general and Atlas Shrugged in particular. Rumor has it that Barbara Branden is presently working on a much needed book which will purportedly document the extent of Objectivism’s impact on today’s world, and I look forward to reading it. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Even so, I remain convinced that Objectivism has not had anything close to the success that a fully rational philosophy should have achieved in the five decades since it was offered to the world in finished form. In his recent book, Intellectual Morons, author Daniel J. Flynn provides an interesting outsider’s perspective on what, as he puts it, “doomed” Objectivism. To a very great extent, he ascribes Objectivism’s decline directly to Ayn Rand herself. More specifically, he blames the immature, irrational behavior of Ayn Rand following her break with Nathaniel Branden in 1968. Here was the spectacle of a woman who had declared her absolute dedication to the guidance of reason—asking her followers to take her on faith. Her article, “To Whom It May Concern,” provided almost no rational support for her unqualified condemnation of the man who many had come to see as the living embodiment of John Galt. But suddenly her readers were being asked to believe that Galt had somehow morphed into James Taggart. Flynn describes the residual impact on Objectivism in this way: Flynn’s own outlook is obviously that of a conventional conservative, but his perceptiveness on this issue seems discerning. To characterize Rand as an intellectual moron may be flagrant hyperbole, but her behavior was in equally flagrant contrast with the theme of her writings. The net effect was to destroy her standing as a paragon of intransigent rationality. One does not endear oneself to rational minds by announcing to your legions of followers, in effect: “I want your undying loyalty, not your independent judgment.” From that day on, those who discovered Objectivism had to look past the conduct of the author to appreciate the truth of her genius. Understandably, many more who might otherwise have been persuaded by her arguments wrote her off in advance of listening carefully to what she had to say. As Flynn states: Another piece of the puzzle recently crystallized for me as I listened to a conservative radio commentator discussing the dangers of radical Islam. One of the key reasons he cited as a cause of Islam’s degeneration into mindless violence and venomous death-worship has been the tendency of its spokesmen toward isolationism. He suggested that the Bible had valuable advice for anyone who would spread his influence in the world: ‘Love the stranger.’ If you live in a bubble, and you lose contact with the real world, you destroy your ability to influence the world outside that bubble in a positive way. You must be willing to embrace perspectives foreign to your own, or you will not succeed in effecting long term change. You will be perceived as lacking the courage or capacity to deal with challenges to your point of view, and that fact alone may be enough to prompt others to discount the validity of what you have to say. As the gap widens between your beliefs and those of the culture at large, you will be left with nothing but bitterness and anger and an overwhelming urge to strike out at the incorrigible forces of evil. Preaching to the choir not only wastes your time and energy, it intensifies your feelings of alienation from the world around you and reinforces your anger while increasing the distance between you and that world. Many have often characterized the Peikoffian approach to Objectivism as being religionist in tone. Beyond that, one could cite a number of similarities with the tunnel vision exhibited in the current practice of Islam. Fortunately for all of us, Peikoff has never launched a literal jihad against Objectivism’s ideological enemies. Unlike the Koran, there is nothing in Atlas Shrugged he could likely interpret as giving him justification for such action. When Peikoff tossed David Kelley out of the “official” Objectivist movement many years ago, he launched an extensive diatribe against those recalcitrant unwashed masses who refuse to accept Ayn Rand as the light and the way. In his essay, “Fact and Value,” he explicitly denounced most people who disagree with Objectivism as dishonest (paraphrasing him: “the prevalence of innocent errors is much less than what most people think”). Around the same time, Peikoff proclaimed that he had no ‘respect’ for differing points of view. Small wonder that the world has largely returned the favor. No one was more optimistic about the future than I was in the 1960’s. On one of my several trips to the Nathaniel Branden Institute, in the summer of 1968, I walked into the new offices in the basement of the Empire State Building and saw a notice on the front desk. “There has been an irreconcilable break between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden,” the notice read. I will never forget the emotions that swept over me as I walked out of the Empire State Building that morning and roamed the streets of Manhattan. My world had been turned upside down. Objectivism continued to be the philosophy I lived by. But on some level, I may have known that the chances that I would live to see an Objectivist world had been decimated. Neither Ayn Rand, nor the person she subsequently chose as her new “intellectual heir,” would prove capable of demonstrating the glory and greatness of those ideas or fomenting the intellectual revolution they entailed. Several years ago, I asked Nathaniel Branden if he thought Objectivism would be a stronger force in the world today if he, rather than Peikoff, had spearheaded the movement in the years following Rand’s death. He declined to answer, saying that it was impossible to say because “too many things would be different.” Perhaps he was motivated by a wish to avoid appearing self-serving in his response. To me, there is no question that the stifling, dreadful, cloistered approach fostered by Peikoff has been an unmitigated disaster. It is precisely because so many things would have been radically different with Branden at the helm that the answer to my question seems to me so transparently obvious. If the world is somehow able to survive the malevolent forces that have flourished in the intellectual and moral vacuum left by religion’s inevitable decline, I am convinced that Objectivism will eventually prevail. One day, it will find spokesmen who are worthy of its ideas—spokesmen who define an authentic Objectivist in terms of his passionate devotion to reason and reality rather than blind loyalty to a founder or ringleader. Until then, if our experience to date is any guide, whatever limited success Objectivism enjoys will be in spite of, not because of, the official movement that bears its name.

Just thought I would share this inspiring little love note I recently sent to ccare@bordersstores.com: I love sharing things that leave me feeling all warm and fuzzy.