Robert Tracinski's article "What Went Right"

[Neil Parille]

Chris,

I don't know to what extent Rousseau is considered part of the Enlightenment. I get the impression that he was associated with the Romanctic part of the Enlightenment, like Kant.

[Bidinotto]

Michael, one obvious problem with demonstrating the validity of the "trickle down" theory is that with so many thinkers to pick from, you can always point to one -- obscure or not -- whom you can designate as the "cause" of anything that followed in history, good or bad. All you have to do is cherry-pick the one thinker among legions whose ideas best "explain" the events that follow, then credit or blame him for them.

Then there's the issue of volition vis-a-vis the "power of philosophy." For example, one can look at the Founding Fathers and trace their individual intellectual pedigrees back to certain pivotal Enlightenment figures. But that's because they chose to accept the ideas of those thinkers. What about Europe? The works of those same Enlightenment figures (for example, Locke) were as accessible to Europeans as Americans, perhaps more so. So why didn't they choose to accept their ideas?

Clearly, the ideas of the better Enlightenment figures had no causal efficacy on their own.

What I'm driving at is this: philosophical determinism, like all forms of determinism, is false. Ideas don't have a "power" of their own. They are so much ink and noise until grasped and accepted by active minds who then choose to implement them.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; Thanks for your posts on this topic. There seems to be a philosipical determinism running through Peikoff's thinking. Does he not say that once Kant's ideas were accepted Western Civilization was doomed. Free Will was gone. That doesn't sound very Objectivist to me. There also seems to be an idea that if something is a bad idea you can attribute to Kant. People who don't seem to influenced by Kant the Objectivists seem to think they are. Frued is a good example.

[Bidinotto]

In case anyone is interested in checking the latest body counts in the recent intramural ARIan Wars, Stephen Speicher's criticisms of Robert Mayhew and other opponents of Tracinski are getting testier by the day.

The significance of this is that it's further evidence of serious faultlines in the foundations of ARI. Like Tracinski, Speicher and his wife, Betsy, have been integrally involved with ARI for about a million years, and run their own high-traffic Objectivist discussion site for ARI-affiliated folks. I believe Betsy even has something to do with producing the ARI monthly newsletter. They and quite a few others participating in their online discussions have been highly critical of Peikoff, Mayhew, and other ARI leaders for their idiotic position on the recent elections (i.e., voting for any Republican proves you really don't understand Objectivism), and for their vicious pack-animal assaults against Tracinski, who has committed the unforgivable sin of rejecting dogma for common sense. Some of these critics of the ARIan hierarchy are even saying things remarkably similar to what I've been posting here...although I'm sure they would DIE before ever acknowledging such a thing.

For anyone curious, my interest in all this is simple and straightforward: I care about the intellectual legacy of Ayn Rand. The future of Objectivism will be decided to a great extent based on whether her ideas come to be publicly associated with the likes of Peikoff, Schwartz, Mayhew, etc. -- or whether they come to be seen as best embodied by independent Objectivist thinkers, such as the now unaffiliated Tracinski, some of you folks here and at RoR, and (dare I say it?) those of us at The Atlas Society.

[Charles R. Anderson]

And like those at the Atlas Society.

Well, several years ago I read a few articles by Robert Tracinski and I got into a few list discussions with him. I concluded that he was a lightweight who suffered from the sin of trying to treat Ayn Rand's ideas as primary and reality as something that had to be consistent with and fully explained by her ideas. He knew too little history, he was too pessimistic, and he underestimated non-intellectuals. In short, he was a great example of an all too common ARI dogmatic mentality and I have used him as an example of that mentality on several occasions.

I read the first 5 parts of his What Went Right? series tonight. I am delighted to say that I found it very interesting and that it gives impressive evidence of the mental maturation of Robert Tracinski!

One of his points that I particularly liked was his coming to understand that many people who are not Objectivists and who hold philosophical ideas inconsistent with and even in some ways antithetical to Objectivism, make very positive contributions to the maintenance of civilization. In addition to Julian Simon mentioned in posts above, he uses the economist and now Prime Minister of India as an example. This understanding is enlarged to make it substantially consistent with my views pertaining to the reasons why in a civilized society we should be broadly benevolent and tolerant. He is treading dangerous ground here and will likely be accused of being a tolerationist, as I am. But he has come to realize that most people in earning their living have developed and acquired specialized knowledge as an individual and that this knowledge is of value to many others of us.

The evidence of the current state of the world tells us that every thinking man who does honest work in his own field is our ally and is helping to move civilization forward. The work of such men is not mere cultural "momentum" from a previous era, but an active addition to human knowledge and achievement. And whatever their philosophical errors, in their professional work these men are creating valid and important ideas that do change the course of events.

In talking about the surprising lessons he learned upon taking on the job of writing TIA Daily, he says,

Every day brought something that was not encompassed by my pre-existing knowledge -- a new integration that had to be made, not merely old integrations to be applied.

In talking about other reporters, commentators, and bloggers he respects:

Theirs is a career path with one healthy epistemological consequence: the work of these intellectuals is relentlessly fact-driven. Every day brings new events whose causes and consequences they have to explain.

As an applied scientist, I face the same reality enforced constraints, as do engineers and others developing technology. Indeed, Tracinski claims that scientific and technological education, global capitalism, and representative government are driving forces that cause men in ever larger numbers throughout the world to become persuaded that rationality is efficacious and that the life of man in Western Civilization constitutes the normal life one should aspire to live.

Tracinski also says:

The role of the philosopher, historically, is not as the sole motor of all progress, but rather as the observer, defender, promoter, and intellectual amplifier of that progress.

These are all views which I have long held and I really enjoyed finding that I have an ally in a very unexpected person. I will take advantage of the 30 day free trial subscription to TIA Daily and give him every chance to further impress me. I hope others of you will do so as well. It appears likely he will lose some ARI subscribers. It would be very unfortunate if his very development as a valuable thinker were to be his economic downfall.

[Chris Grieb]

I too have taken the TIA thirty day suscription. I've been pleased and would recommend it to anyone.

[Bidinotto]

Charles, those are excellent observations. I feel exactly the same way: I had previously been unimpressed with Tracinski, but in his several years of writing independently of ARI, he appears to have begun to think outside of their box, confronting reality directly rather than through the imposed filter of their dogma.

Ironically, he is living proof that you shouldn't write people off!

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; I haven't looked at Tracinski's writing till now. One possible suggestion is that he is out in the real world not the hot house environment of ARI were people can finish your sentences. I suspect this will continue to be an interesting story.

[Rodney]

where people can finish your sentences.

That's a wonderful formulation. Is it yours?

[Bidinotto]

Yeah. I love that one, too, Chris. Very funny.

[Chris Grieb]

Thanks for the praise guys. I think I am remembering it from the Life article on Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and NBI. The article occurred in '66 or '67.

[Bidinotto]

Believe it or not, Chris, I REMEMBER that article. But not the quotation.

I think the article was titled, "The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand," or something like that. Ring a bell?

[Ross Barlow]

“The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand,” *Life* magazine, April 1967. I do not remember the exact week. This was the first time I ever had heard of Rand, and I bought *The Fountainhead* later that year. I am grateful that they printed that article, even though it was not very positive.

-Ross Barlow.

[Ross Barlow]

I have just made a reference to “The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand” in a thread called “The Comprachios: the story of my ‘Conversion’” in the Objectivist Living Room forum, where I add my own story of how I first got into objectivism.

It is ironic that the article was just mentioned here, because I had planned beforehand to mention it in the above thread.

-Ross Barlow.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a letter about this in The Letters of Ayn Rand.

This is a letter by Rand to Robert Fuoss, the executive editor of the Saturday Evening Post, dated August 4, 1961. I cannot reprint it in full as it is too long for fair use. She complained bitterly about the behavior of the author of the article, John Kobler. (The article appeared in the November 11, 1961 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, called "The Curious Cult of Ayn Rand.")

He agreed to the following conditions for conducting interviews with her, NB and BB (which Rand stated were held with her in her home on June 14, 15 and 22, and with the Brandens at their office during that period—quoted below from her letter to Fuoss):

Mr. Kobler agreed without reservation to all of the following:

1. that his article would be objective, factual and reportorial;

2. that the article would be serious, particularly in his treatment of my philosophy;

3. that all passages of his article dealing with my philosophy, quotations from my works and/or summaries of my ideas, and all statements attributed to me and placed in quotes would be shown to me, including their relevant context, and that he would accept such corrections as I found necessary to assure accuracy;

4. that he would show me on the same conditions, all passages dealing with facts and factual information about me;

5. that he would show to Mr. Branden, for the same purpose and on the same conditions all passages of the article dealing with his ideas, quotations from his lectures, statements attributed to him and facts and factual information about him and NBI;

6. that if he used quotations from reviews of my books, he would balance a quotation from an unfavorable review with another from a favorable one;

7. that he need not show us such passages of his article dealing with his own personal opinions or comments on factual material, since he had assured us he was capable of separating opinions from facts.

He then met her on August 1 for corrections and the meeting gradually degenerated (as his meeting with the Brandens did earlier that day). The meeting was held from 1:30 PM on August 1, and ended at 7:30 AM the next day. From the letter:

Mr. Kobler, at first, made the corrections that I suggested, however as we progressed he became antagonistic, offensive, belligerent and finally abusive. Several times he got up to leave, and when no attempt was made to stop him, he remained and continued in this vein.

The cause of our difficulty was gradually apparent. Mr. Kobler had no concept of my philosophy, had not read all of my books nor did he seem interested in my exposition of the central points of my concepts.

As we went further into his article it developed that the personal references to me were of a nature that clearly indicated that he had no objective purpose in writing the article but rather was more interested in smearing my reputation and person. Several of the references I believe to be clearly libelous.

As the meeting progressed Mr. Kobler became most offensive, and only by exercise of great restraint could my husband and I continue. It was quite clear that Mr. Kobler wished us to order him to leave so that he could feel free of his agreement with us.

In a note at the end of the letter (presumably written by Berliner), it is stated "Fuoss answered on August 9, saying that 'we find the article to be a fair report on you and your philosophy'" . . . "There is no record of a lawsuit."

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; The Life and Saturday Evening Post articles were different. Miss Rand and the Brandens worked with the magazine on the latter. The Life article the writer went to NBI lectures and interviewed students. I remember receiving a warning from Mary Ann Sures at a Basic lecture that we should not answer questions of Life writers. The Saturday Evening Post article had been particularly disappointing as the letter shows. I believe the Saturday Evening Post article came out in 1961.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I stand corrected. On searching for it, I found that the author was a woman, Dora Jane Hamblin. Here is the information I gleaned from a bibliography:

"The Cult of the Angry Ayn Rand" by Dora Jane Hamblin. Life, April 7, 1967, p. 92-102.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; If you go and look at the issues of Life after you will notice there are only one or two letters published. I am almost certain the magazine got more letters. In 1968 there was an article in the New York Times Book Review about The Fountainhead written I believe by Nora Ephron. There was an article in National Review by M. Stanton Evans called The Cult of St. Ayn which the cover had Rand in a stained glass window. The split with NBI's closing I think lead many commenters to think that was no interest in Ayn Rand or Objectivism.

[Bidinotto]

For those of you having trouble understanding the controversy about Robert Tracinski's views, or that controversy's critical importance for Objectivism:

I found a very interesting thread starting here, whose author cleverly puts, in simple Q&A form, the questions that Tracinski has raised about Objectivism's philosophy of history, and his own views and answers. It is probably the most lucid, concise, and easy-to-grasp formulation on these matters that has been posted to date. Start with that first post, then read the ones immediately following it that are posted by the same writer.

I urge everyone here to read that thread, because the issues that Tracinski raises are very important for Objectivism. Just as important is the damnation that he has received for raising these concerns -- and what that tells you about those damning him.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: FOCUS ON THE PHILOSOPHY, NOT THE INTERNAL DISPUTES

> The future of Objectivism will be decided to a great extent based on whether her ideas come to be publicly associated with the likes of Peikoff, Schwartz, Mayhew, etc. -- or whether they come to be seen as best embodied by independent Objectivist thinkers... [Robert B]

Robert, I disagree: It is a tempest in a teapot. (And would be one even if there were going to some resolution or changing of minds.)

The future of Objectivism will be decided overwhelmingly by selling Objectivism itself. By whether or not it is ever "translated" so that people can actually grasp it, understand how what Rand -means- by reason, egoism, and capitalism are different from the conventional package deals. And whether Objectivist intellectuals focus on the process of "translation" so that joe six pack can grasp Objectivism and accept it with open arms.

The constant focus of Objectivists on internal movement issues and personalities, which keep erupting like popcorn, instead of on the outside world is a disastrous mistake. A disastrous focus on internal battles which has been going on for nearly 40 years (since 1968).

The focus on trying to defend/attack different movement figures prior to their having any public profile whatsoever (and little likelihood of one) is a huge waste of time. If there is any "public association" which emerges it is one of bitter factionalism. Hardly an attractive trait.

By the time some great popularizer and explainer, a Saint Paul to Rand's Jesus (but without Rand's angry alienation and moral condemnation of the man on the street and the entire outside world) emerges to make this -philosophy- (not just the novels, poorly understoond and integrated) graspable and loved by not thousands, but millions, that writer and speaker or teacher (or, more probably, a number of them) will be the public face of Objectivism. Will appear on the cover of Time and on talk shows, be invited to speak at Harvard and Davos.

Peikoff, Schwartz, Tracinski, etc. will be long forgotten as obscure ivory tower eggheads, talking incomprehensible jargon. And no one other than some doctoral dissertation writers will remember what they, or anyone like them, said about -anything- by what will then be fifty years in the past.

Morevover, despite the many excellent, articulate, important points you have made on the Tracinski debate and these internal movement issues, all the months of articles and counter articles, posts and counterposts is all an intellectual distraction and a killing of scarce neurons.

Phil

PS, These battles never end....Brandens, Kelley, Reismans, Tracinski....and they all end up being mired in who said what and in personalities...and in scholastic "textual analysis": having to go back and do research to see who quoted who correctly about something which was said months or years ago.

I am guilty of the same mistakes: I just wasted a huge amount of time on one of these movement battles myself (regarding unfair charges against Chris Sciabarra) six months ago. It was on an issue forgotten when the next "food fight" arises. it had *not the slightest impact on anything*, except to steal precious time I could have used more productively.

[ By the way, you yourself, Robert, advised me that that sort of thing was a waste of time and gave more 'air' to the issue than it deserved. With all due respect.... :-) ]

[Philip Coates]

Just to clarify my "tempest in a teapot" remark: I'm not suggesting that the underlying issues -- the role of philosophy in history, or even whether the philosophy of history is part of Objectivism -- are a tempest in a teapot.

These are important issues. It is the tying of them to personalities and who said what that is inappropriate. Or constantly reducing them back to / or getting distracted by movement issues.

I created a thread on SoloPassion "What Causes History" to try to address one of these issues in principle. These are hard enough intellectual issues, requiring concentratioin, without the distraction of focuse of always mentally juggling the exact meaning of tracing back Bidinotto's link to what Speicher said Mayhew said Tracinski said. And then trying to relate that to concretes from Thales and Kant.

It's headache-producing and in method too close to excessively minute 'textual analysis', to what the scholastics did. Or what academic journals and conferences sometimes do.

Each step in that direction moves you further away from direct observation of what's out there and more toward who said what about what's out there. One reason it can sometimes be frustrating to read some of these longrunning debates on Oist discussion boards.

By the time you get to the third week, you have forgotten what was said originally and in what exact context.

[Bidinotto]

A point of clarification. Phil, in our discussions the past year, my point was not to discourage discussions with fellow Objectivists about Objectivism. It was to discourage Objectivists from wasting their time arguing with fanatics. It was very clear that many of the people you were arguing with were stone-deaf dogmatists who had no intention of having honest discussions. THAT was a waste of time.

That said, as you and many others are aware, my first priority has been exactly what you were talking about: writing and publishing material that translates Objectivist ideas for NON-Objectivist general audiences. I've been doing that for decades, in fact, from my days with Reader's Digest and local newspapers until the present.

Speaking of the present, you may have heard of The New Individualist. The magazine I edit (and contribute articles to) is growing rapidly in size, quality, and circulation with every issue. And it is not a movement magazine; it is an outreach magazine, aimed at intelligent NON-Objectivists. Just pulled some wall-to-wall all-nighters to get the March issue done. Thousands of extra copies will be printed and distributed at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, an annual convention where a zillion people on the right, many very influential, show up to talk and argue and broadcast their talk shows. My cover feature, "Up from Conservatism," is aimed right between their eyes; directly addressing conservatives, it takes no prisoners, and I think it will be much noted and discussed. I am also sure that talk-show invitations will come from it, as well.

So, for me, it is not an either-or. Yes, I do discuss what's going on within the movement with other Objectivists, because we have to get the philosophy--and its public reputation-- right. The Tracinski controversy is about fundamental issues pertaining to Objectivism's meaning; thus, it's important, and needs to be addressed. The main issue is not about ARI purging Tracinski, but purging from Objectivism the common-sense point of view that he represents. Still, I spend the vast bulk of my time doing just what you said: talking to and writing for people outside the movement, in language they can understand.

And I think I do it pretty well.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Still, I spend the vast bulk of my time doing just what you said: talking to and writing for people outside the movement, in language they can understand.

And I think I do it pretty well.

Robert,

You do it damn well.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Magazines and Outreach

Robert, you are certainly one of the people whose -primary- focus is on doing something productive with regard to spreading ideas! (And, the how-to speeches you've made on how to build a movement and do outreach which I've attended at summer conferences have always had highly useful content.)

And, since you are doing it in what has historically been an astonishingly difficult field - starting a new magazine from scratch, I'm happy to hear that the crucial measure of success - circulation - is growing at this stage.

On an outreach magazine, I must confess to some trepidation: I realize that TNI is not aiming solely at the "right" side to libertarian side to some-past-influence-by-Ayn Rand side of the political/cultural spectrum, but it seems likely that subscribers will heavily come from there? Even though they are not Objectivists, the right side of the political spectrum, pro-individualism conservatives, and the "cultural sanity" side is and has been very crowded with often high quality magazines and excellent writers (Magazines: Commentary, City Journal, American Enterprise, Reason, Cato Journal, National Review, National Review Online, The New Criterion, Spectator, Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The National Interest / Writers...just naming four who say many things which could be written by Oists or appear in TNI but write elsewhere: Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Murray, Paul Johnson, and numerous others), so I will be interested to hear what results from CPAC: Whether there is a felt need for things those publications or writers can't or won't supply. Regarding your frontal attack on conservatives, maybe the timing is right for carving out a niche among conservatives who are willing to question conservatism with their disillusionment with Bush and their losses in the election?

[Charles R. Anderson]

You and the other contributors to The New Individualist are doing great work. Thanks!