The Rewrite Squad

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1971

Q&A, 29:45 through 31:40

Q: What would you say to a businessman who might want to contest the rules of Phase I or II [of Nixon's wage and price controls]?

A: Well, he wouldn't have a chance. He would only make himself a martyr. If his idea of protest would simply be disobedience, that wouldn't do him or anyone else any good.

If a businessman wanted to fight it, he should fight it on political, ideological grounds. He should protest, and if he has a good case, make a test case out of it. But not simply cheat and make himself a martyr, and vanish from circulation or lose his business. I never believe it's necessary to create martyrs; martyrs don't accomplish very much.

If a businessman undertook only this much: Try to influence about a dozen other businessmen not to issue the kind of statements I was quoting here, and not, uh, to permit the American Association of Manufacturers, if it still exists, and the American Chamber of Commerce to issue the kind of statements that they are issuing, he will do infinitely more for himself, for liberty, and this country, because they have done more than any other group to bring on collectivism. And disobedience now is much too late, and futile. It's ideas that are [needed] [End of answer lost in a tape edit]

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Presumably she meant the National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce.]

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1971

Q&A, 31:50 through 33:05

Q: What is your view of Daniel Ellsberg's exposé of the Pentagon Papers?

A: Not very much. Not of his particular action. I've barely even followed whatever he thinks he's doing. I don't know, and care less.

As to the Pentagon Papers themselves, well, you know, it's fairly … it was fairly obvious if you read the papers at the time what was going on. And that if anybody should be disgraced now, it's actually the press, because why didn't they report it at the time? It, they may not have had the, ehh, background conversation of some private councils but they certainly saw the trends and events and an awful lot of verbatim statements that are being exposed now were sometimes published on the back pages somewhere.

I think the first disgrace is, of course, the American press, uh, I mean, as a result of those papers—and the rest, two Democratic presidents. And now there's going to be a third one.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Another crack at Nixon that Mayhew chose not to use.]

[Reidy]

Tracinski yesterday compared Climategate and related revelations to the Pentagon papers. Rand's observation that the evidence was there all along but the news media ignored it fits right in with this.

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

On hearing her Ellsberg comment again, I thought it was one of her more perceptive remarks from that period.

With all the Vietnam revisionism we now get from ARI commentators (and that Robert Tracinski retains, despite putting some distance between himself and them on other issues), I guess her comment made Bob Mayhew uncomfortable.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Tracinski yesterday compared Climategate and related revelations to the Pentagon papers. Rand's observation that the evidence was there all along but the news media ignored it fits right in with this.

Peter,

Now Steven Hayward has done the same, in a long article for The Weekly Standard:

http://weeklystandar...articles/denial

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 5, Q&A

CD 2, track 4, 13:47 through 14:31

[Applause] Thank you. Thank you once again. Thank you very much, but please don't do it too much, or I'll change my mind. [Laughter] I really don't know what to while I'm being applauded, emm, just standing and wasting time. Uhh, now I don't want to be ungracious. I really do appreciate it, and I appreciate it profoundly—but not too much of it.

Now this question is really philosophical, even though it seems to be political, as you will probably see. I'll read it, and pay close attention, please.

CD 2, track 5, 0:00 through 15:30

If elected, Mr. Moynihan will vote for national health insurance, the federalization of welfare, national economic planning in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, etcetera. Mr. Buckley will vote against these things. Granted that Mr. Buckley's philosophical base is odious and destructive, I do not understand what practical, real-world impact that philosophy could have or has had by Senator Buckley that could justify giving practical, real-world, real-world support to national health insurance, the federalization of welfare, and national economic planning by voting for Mr. Moynihan. Could you comment on this, please?

Yeah, I can. [Laughter] First of all, I don't think it's an accident—the form of this question is not accidental. It is obviously a supporter or follower of Mr. Buckley; and to him, philosophy does, has nothing to do with the real world, which is very true: Mr. Buckley's philosophy has nothing to do with the real world, nor with practical life. It's in another dimension and, more than any other mystical philosophy, it's one that's on the rampage today and very anxious to take over the whole world. Ehh, it's a very dangerous, non-real philosophy.

If this questioner has followed Dr. Peikoff's course so far, he should understand that philosophy as such is a practical matter. It is philosophy that affects our lives and our future and our country's existence. The kind of little current, journalistic bills that he names here will have no effect whatever, or a very marginal effect. What will determine the effect all these things have, and the future of the country, is the philosophy of the voters and the people they elect… Now, using the, ehh, questioner's own method—he has listed here the things that Mr. Buckley will vote against. Uk, well, national health insurance, federalization of welfare, national economic planning—those are pretty bad things; one should not be for them. But the only truly dangerous is the national economic planning; that is really bad.

On the other hand, let's take a look at Mr. Buckley's record. Mr. Buckley is against abortion, and as you've probably read what I said, uh, in my last, uh, speech at the Ford Hall Forum, anyone who is, who denies the right to abortion cannot be a defender of rights. Period. It's more than that. It is not only that a man who denies the right to abortion does not want to support rights; it's worse than that. It is the gratuitous, the no-particular-vested-interest attitude behind such a policy that should make every one of you ask yourself: what do the anti-abortionists really have in mind? Obviously, what they have in mind is to enslave every human being who is alive enough to have some kind of sexual life, to enslave him to procreation like the lowest kind of farm animal. Lower than that, because when farm animals are bred, the, ehh, breeders at least take care of them; they are values. But here, you make young people, people in love, slaves to un, involuntary procreation; and you don't tell them what to do about it. You tell people to procreate families of twelve, fourteen children, or more. How are they going to be supported? Well, on welfare, probably, but Mr. Buckley probably wouldn't even say, "on welfare." He will probably say, like the Pope declared in his encyclical on the subject, that we must in "some" way reform the world so that everybody will be taken care of "somehow." But who will specifically take care of those unwanted children? And what becomes of the young parents, of their lives, of their ambitions, their future if they have to be held down to procreation? It is so cruel, so unspeakable an issue, that on that alone one can, uk, and should turn against Mr. Buckley.

Now, if you ask me, "Did Mr. Ford com, compromise on this issue?"—I will regretfully have to say, "Yes, shamefully." Nevertheless, we have no choice. Mr.—umm, what's his name—Carter (huh huh, I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional, but!), uhh, Mr. Carter is not better. He is so dangerous a power-luster that one would have to forgive Ford or hope that he will in some way not carry out his, uk, mixed attitude on the subject. It's very mixed, because he is in effect recognizing the rights of states to pass judgment on what is a fundamental constitutional right in fact. So, just so you don't think that I would be evading it, I'm fully aware, shamefully aware, that Mr. Ford compromised on this issue.

But that isn't all in regard to Mr. Buckley. He is, euhh, for ecology—he is an ecology-lover, or whichever you call that. That's not the same thing as pollution, you know. He just wants to preserve nature. And what is the basic premise of the ecology-lovers? Well, strangely enough, it has something very fundamental in common with abortion, or the issue of forbidding abortion. Again, it's the issue of: hold people down, tie them to physical labor, eliminate industry, eliminate labor-saving devices. If you slow down industry, well, that's too bad. If the standard of living, therefore, will be slowed down or will drop, that's too bad. We've got to preserve rose gardens. Again, anyone who is against industry is against man, against life, against reason.

Now, that's just two of Mr. Buckley's concrete, uh, things which he would vote against, would vote on, and they are much worse than what Mr. Moynihan would do. But there's a deeper issue here. The religionist-conservatives are out to destroy the two-party system in this country. They are out to destroy the Republican Party. Now, the Republican Party, like any defenders of free enterprise all over the world—although it, the trend may be changing, but let's say up to recent times—the Republican Party is very busy trying to commit suicide, as all conservatives have been. They are their own worst destroyers, precisely because they're unphilosophical, because they don't know what to do in the real world, since they don't have any philosophy to guide them. (Coughs) Therefore, the conservatives have decided to be Trojan horses in the way the Communists were against the Democratic Party in the 30s and early 40s.

But observe: the Communists did not take over the Democratic Party. There are some pretty bad left-liberal Democrats, but they're far from Communist. The conservatives, however, really want to take over the Republicans, as the disgraceful attempt to, uh, elect Ronald Reagan—uhh, excuse me nominate—showed it. And there were reports and articles from conservative authorities, written openly. They want to destroy the Republican Party, if Reagan could not be elected. That's what they want. Let the Party collapse, and then they, the "g.d." conservatives will take over the Republican Party. (I don't believe in the indulging in swear words like our candidates seem to, or at least one of them and one official; euhh, but I can see why the temptation sometimes is irresistible.)

The conservatives will then take over the Republican Party, and we'll just have liberals and conservatives, which will mean: liberals and fascists, 'cause that is all that that religious conservative group is. They are pure fascists. They are not even for free enterprise. They are for controls, and what's worse, they are always for spiritual, moral, intellectual controls. Oh, yes, they might leave you some freedom to work for a while. It's intellectual freedom that they want to cut. They actually, many of them, advocate censorship: uh, oh, the drive against "dirty" movies. Bad as the movies are, you better leave them free, because, euh, with the help of the conservatives, you'll have real serious, euh, censorship over literature and the moves. Now, that is the choice between Mr. Buckley and Mr. Moynihan.

There's another thing. Moynihan is a liberal and a Democrat. If you are pro-capitalist, uhh, the Republican Party is more hopeful—not the conservatives—but the Republicans are more hopeful or closer to that stand than the Democrats. If Moynihan vortes, votes improperly or makes a mess of himself, he's disgracing the opposition. He is not disgracing you. If Buckley does something wrong, he is disgracing capitalism. He is disgracing the idea of a free society or a free economy. Therefore, an "ally" in quotes who comes close to you but starts from opposite premises is much more danger to you than a mild enemy.

I would vote for a liberal over Buckley any time, because, at best, Moynihan has a very good stand on foreign policy, he is outspoken, he is daring, and the worst you can say about him is he's a moner, modern liberal. Well, there's an awful lot of them. He's not even a leftist-liberal. The leftists apparently don't like him, if you have followed their activities—which is in his favor. Buckley is the Trojan horse, uhh, out to destroy any hope that this country ever had of a return to freedom and actual capitalism, actual free enterprise. Therefore, to dis, what one will have to vote for—what I'm going to vote for—is not particularly for Mr. Moynihan, but against Buckley: we've got to get him out of there.

Now, I know I couldn't have voted for Bella Abzug [laughter]. In that case, it's better not to vote at all. But Moynihan is a semi-decent choice, let's say, and so much better than Mr. Buckley, that it's precisely in the real world where you have to look at things long-range, which means, philosophically, that you have to get that conservative out of Washington. He got in by a fluke. Get him out of there by every legitimate means you can; and the only means you have is the ballot. And, therefore, please, in the name of philosophy in the real world, not the philosophy of religion and the hereafter, vote Buckley out. That is my suggestion, my advice, philosophically.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 66-68)

Mayhew handles this 15-minute speech with more care than usual, but it still gets flavor-removed. He leaves out her comment about politicians who use foul language; did she have in mind the incident in which Nelson Rockefeller, then the Vice-President, flipped the bird at a heckler?

[Robert Campbell]

I'm going to lay some answers out in a different format from usual.

Lecture 7 in the 1976 Philosophy of Objectivism series was given less than a week after the November elections in that year. Rand ended up answering three related questions about Gerald Ford's loss to Jimmy Carter. Her answers to the three items add up to an 18-minute speechlet.

Robert Mayhew decided to cut and paste in such a complicated pattern that I don't want to interrupt her original answers with bits from Ayn Rand Answers and then return to the original, as I've often done previously. That kind of presentation would confuse the hell out of most readers.

So in the next post I'll run all three original questions and Rand's original answers to them.

Then in the post after that I'll run Mayhew's questions and his heavily edited answers to them.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 7, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 12:35 through 14:56

Do you have any comment to make on the result of the presidential election? Why did Ford lose?

I have a comment, which I'm making now, and he lost because, as one of other questioners said correctly, he didn't say anything.

The Ford campaign was enormously—I don't want to be bitter; uh, if I were, I would say "disgracefully devoid of any ideological context." Mr. Carter raised the issue of "please trust him." He made the whole issue one of trust and competence—that's Carter; so that's all that Ford talked about, his own competence and experience and his trustworthiness, with the grotesque result that in the post-election polls, Mr. Carter won on the economic issue. More voters believed that he would be able to solve economic problems, particularly inflation and unemployment. Ehh, more voters believed that Carter would than they believed that Ford would.

On the other hand, by a very large percentage, more voters said they trusted Ford more and believed that he was better experienced and would be more competent. So, that really is the essence of the whole election. Ford, who did make a remarkable step toward curing the worst problem of all, economically—inflation—never spoke about it properly, that is, intellectually, never made it clear to the people, never explained why he refrained from any action, and why that was the only and most heroic thing to do, was not to take any more economic actions, controls, and above all, spending. He never made that clear. Uh, therefore, the people trusted Carter, because Carter said he would put an end to all that. Ford didn't say that his policy was putting an end to it, and why it was doing so. Yes, he did say we are on our way to lick inflation, but things like that. He never made it clear, he never let the people in on the secret of his policy, in effect.

CD 3, track 1, 0:00 through 0:28

He lost because he never tried to fight on issues. Now, whether that was his personal fault—personally, I don't think so—I think it was the fault of the usual Republican campaign advisors. That's, uh, an evil that seems to be inherent in the Republican Party. They will fight on anything, but not on the field of ideas.

CD 3, track 1, 0:29 through 12:57

Now, the next question…

Uhh, can it be that the sense of life reactions of the voters have changed so much over four years, or is it mostly, or 100%, the fault of Gerald Ford for evading the basic issues? Will the Republican Party have any role to play in defending capitalism, or must the issue be fought entirely on the campuses, newspapers, and in the professions?

Oh, the issue must be, above everything else, fought on the campuses and in publications generally, in the intellectual field—not in newspapers only, in television, radio, all communications, books. It, the issue has to be fought just as it had to be fought before the election. That has not changed.

Will the Republican Party have any role to play in defending capitalism? I doubt it, but that's all we have. The alternative to the Republican Party, uhh, is totally unspeakable. If you want to think of the Conservative Party or the Libertarian Party, I would say: join the Communist Party. You will be cleaner, intellectually at least. Uhh, certainly those rump, uh, parties did their best to undermine any possibility of anyone defending capitalism. The more they, uh, make themselves heard, the more they disgrace capitalism. So, what can we do? Infiltrate the Republican Party. American parties, you know, are not an issue of card-carrying belonging. Join the Republican parties and, to the extent you can, influence them in the right direction—towards capitalism and, above all, away from conservatism.

The one very good result of the election is that Mr. Buckley got defeated and Moynihan got in, uhh, strictly, euh, not because Moynihan's so great, but because he got a conservative out of the Senate, where Buckley got in on a fluke and never belonged. You may trust the conservatives to raise the issue of abortion, and you know, ruh, what they have made of it. It is a shameful disgrace in the 20^th century, unless, uh, it's a clear indication that we're back on the way to the Dark Ages, where the Catholic Church, in politics, wants us to be. The Conservative Party is not an American political party, it's a religious party. That's a phenomenon which is, strictly speaking, forbidden by the Constitution. You are free to have any religion you wish, you're forbidden to bring it into politics; —i.e., to use it by force, to establish it by force, and force it on other people. There can be no such thing as a religious political party, but there is, only not officially. All right, the best thing you can do for capitalism is defend it against religion, because religion fundamentally, philosophically, theologically is the thing that destroyed it in the first, the first place. Protect capitalism as much as you can, and the only weapon there is intellectual; and protect it specifically from the conservatives.

Uh, worse than Mr. Buckley, in a way, as a public figure, is Mr. Reagan. That cheap Hollywood ham, who never was much good; he wasn't even a star hero. It would, it would be a good idea, incidentally, to see some of his old movies that they still show on TV extremely late, but it might be at least once worth staying up for. He always played idiotic parts in very cheap, grade-B movies. Now that isn't, of course, the fault of an actor, but the lesson there is this: he fitted those movies. [Laughter] He wasn't a victim towering over his material; he fitted right in. So if you want to see the soul of that man, see his early movies, when he was young.

Uh, it is disgusting what he has permitted himself to do in this election. First—if there, there are many reasons for Fors, Ford's defeat, of course, and the basic one I named: the philosophical issue. But when, if we talk journalistically, less abstractly, and talk about people and pressure groups, everybody is now taking credit for, euh, Card, Carter's victory, which is fine. He boasted so much that he is not beholden to any man. Let them collect the debts now, which have started already making their claims before he's even inaugurated. But if we talk on that level, of any group or person responsible for Ford's defeat, I would pick Reagan, because by the, euh, euh, tone of this campaign, by that ugly fight at the Convention, the Republican Convention, ugly on the part of Reagan and his associates, not Ford. Ford didn't do anything; he behaved like a gentleman, under very trying circumstances. Reagan lost it, then proceeded to say particularly that he will stand by Ford, and he did not. He refused to campaign in the important states, where I—giving the American people credit—I don't think they would have gone for Reagan very much; but at least as a moral, uh, performance and, euh, an issue of keeping his word, Reagan should have, uh, uh, campaigned in certain states where he allegedly had a following, particularly Texas, North Carolina, euh, and they, some say Tennessee; but the states which Ford lost, it's specifically those states that Reagan never went to.

He obviously wanted Ford to lose; and the first thing, the squeak that comes out of him the day after the election, he doesn't rule out the possibility of running in 1980, already. Ladies and gentlemen, if any of you in 1980, if this happens—I don't think it will happen—but should that monster succeed, any of you who would compromise with him or help him or work for him—and I hope to be dead by then, because I wouldn't want to see such a day—but let me tell you: I will place on you the equivalent of what a religious person would call a "damnation." [Laugher] Unfortunately, there is no such equivalent in Objectivism except moral damnation.

What he has done should not be forgiven, because it's you who will be the victim. The next four years will probably be hell. I dread to think in what form; and this is the time where I've heard people say—and I join them in feeling—"I'm glad to be old." I'm glad that I won't have too much to see of the kind of world that Mr. Carter will attempt to make; but you are young enough, and you don't want that kind of unspeakable, cheap, small-town, peanut-power-luster to rule your life, a man who is already talking about, ah, he wanted, he was looking forward to the, you know, Air Force Number 1. He sees himself flying in that. That's a man who says he has a vision of rebuilding America and great leadership and moral rebirth. The contempt for people that man shows is something totally new in American politics. He really doesn't believe that people can remember his statements from day to day, and that he can lie his head off, sit on every fence, and nobody would notice.

Well, this brings me to the beginning of this question: Can it be that the sense-of-life reaction of the voters has changed so much over four years? No. Sense of life has not changed. The country has so much gone to the right, in the right sense of the word, toward capitalism, that Carter was me-too-ing Ford and the Republicans throughout the campaign. He was accepting, agreeing with every crucial, euh, statement that anyone on the right made; and his goal was what? To prove to the country that he's not a liberal! There is a strong body of evidence to the effect that he lost his enormous lead, the 30-point lead that he had over Ford, because people were convinced that he's too liberal, since he chose Mondale and a few other statements. So, he made he, his best to sound conservative—and some of his statements, you couldn't tell him from the Republicans.

That, therefore, the people, by means of sense of life, cannot differentiate an issue like that; and I'm sure you've all read that many people said they're uneasy about Carter, they don't trust him, they don't know where he stands; but since there's no leadership to oppose him and an enormous campaign in his favor, they voted for him, the majority I think voted (at least, according to the polls taken since), they said they voted for their Party. So since the Democrats are a majority party, a great many people voted for this candidate, who was less obvious, less offensive politically, than the one four years ago. He was less leftist than McGovern, at least in his explicit statements. By implication, he's just as bad, except that he's more of a Pragmatist; and if somebody holds, of his own Party holds him in check, while bowing and treating him like an emperor, you can lead him by the nose; but who will succeed at that, I don't know. The man is all touchy, cheap vanity. He is the kind of man who will, uhh, do something out of sheer stubbornness, if he thinks that Congress offended him; uhh, but if they flatter him, they'll, uhh, probably prevent the country from collapsing, at least, I hope so. Uhh, however, you cannot blame the people for not, uhh, seeing through Carter as they saw through McGovern. The sense of life hasn't changed, but—and here it's a good example of the fact that a sense of life is not a substitute for a conscious philosophy or for conscious convictions: you cannot by means of it recognize with certainty who are your friends and who are your enemies—and this is the third question on the same subject:

CD 3, track 1, 12:58 through 14:55

What signs should we watch for in the Carter administration, in terms of the more dangerous policies he might adopt? And what do we do now?

Well, what do we do now is what we did before: fight for the right ideas, and, euhm, when the disasters come, let your Congressman hear from you. That's still the best way to keep them under some kind of minimal check.

Uhh, as to what to look for in the Carter administration, it's hard to tell, because I don't think he knows. How can you tell anything about a man who has been on both sides of every key issue? However, in terms of some of the more dangerous policies, the most dangerous of course is spending. That will be, euh, the make-work, which you probably won't be able to stop—uhh, you know, public jobs, WPA, all that sort of stuff. Uhh, the rising inflation will be, euh, as a result of government spending, will be the most dangerous trend, but we might survive. That's all I can say. Unfortunately, I cannot be too hopeful. Uhh, I look at all, at it this way: it would be wonderful if the mere sense of life of the country had saved us at least the next four years, but we had no right to expect it. Without philosophy, nothing can be done. Evil wins by default, and it did this time. So let's see if we can survive. I will wish all of you and the country the best premises. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you.

[Robert Campbell]

Three of Mayhew's renditions form a continuous block in his book.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 69-70)

Could you comment on the 1976 Presidential election? Why did Ford lose? What do you expect from Carter?

This is Mayhew's meld of Rand's response to the first question, trimmed and flavor-removed, with the most of the seventh paragraph from her answer to the second question, plus a piece of the ninth paragraph from the same answer—and the second paragraph from her answer to the third question. More sutures in it than in Frankenstein's monster…

Why he removed the reference to the WPA, or deleted her observation about Jimmy Carter being more of a Pragmatist than Geroge McGovern, or put "exit polls" in Rand's mouth when she may never have employed that phrase, are the sorts of questions that only he can answer.

Mayhew also misheard "ideological context" as "ideological content."

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 70-71)

Could you comment on Ronald Reagan and his role in the 1976 presidential election?

No one asked her about Ronald Reagan; originally, Rand lit into "Reegan," as she usually called him, only after cheering James Buckley's defeat in the Senatorial election. Mayhew extracted paragraphs 4 through 6 (and the beginning of 7) from her answer to the second question.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 71)

Has the sense-of-life reaction of Americans changed so much since the 1972 election?

Here Mayhew has joined up the first part of the second question with paragraph 8 and most of paragraph 9 of Rand's long answer to it, with the closing to her answer to the third question pasted on as his final sentence.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 52-53)

Will the Republican Party have a role in defending capitalism?

At the end of his first paragraph, Mayhew puts in a rare cross-reference, to 9 different answers ripping libertarianism on pp. 72-74 of his book.

Chunks of Rand’s second answer, blasting the Libertarian and Conservative Parties and expressing satisfaction with Jim Buckley’s loss to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were turned into a fourth answer by Mayhew. Specifically, he made the opening line of the 2^nd paragraph of her answer to the second question into a new question, then reshuffled chunks of her 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs around to yield his answer.

In all, Rand answered three questions about the just-concluded 1976 elections. Mayhew used all of her answers, but chopped and stitched freely to produce four questions and answers of his own. After all the stitchery, exhortations to fight the intellectual battle were discarded from her second and third answers.

[DavidMcK]

This quotation is attributed to Maréchal Villars (1653-1734) when taking leave of King Louis XIV: "Defend me from my friends; I can defend myself from my enemies"

This quote is from a yahoo-answers person who found it in Bartlett's Quotations.

[Robert Campbell]

For a fairly long answer from the session after Lecture 9 in Peikoff's 1976 series, I'll adopt the same format: first the original questions and Rand's answers to them, forming about a ten-minute speech; then Mayhew's carve-up into a short answer to one question and a much longer one to the other.

In this case, Mayhew's editing leaves fewer suture lines and he didn't throw any pieces away, but the parts of the original that he used in his edited answers aren't always consecutive.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 9, Q&A

CD 3, track 1, 0:05 to 10:55

[Two] questions here, which are really on the same subject. One is accurate, the other is peculiarly not; but they're both directed to the same statement of mine.

The first, the accurate, is this—ehh, "To Miss Rand: During last week's question period, did I correctly understand you to say that we should not try to convert our parents? If yes, please elaborate. Does this principle also apply to our teachers?"

Now, I did say that one should not convert one's parents; that is correct, and I'll be glad to explain why.

But the second question says, since it asks the same, euhh, has heard me in a peculiar way, euh, "1: Which book did you decide to work on?" Oh, that's separate. Uhh, I'm not ready to discuss that yet. "2: In your answer to the question of telling the whole truth last week, you said one didn't have to always do so with one's parents, especially if it made them unhappy."

I never could have said such a thing. I don't know what about my formulation gave this questioner this idea. Uhmm, to continue: "Why not? Could you please elaborate on this issue?"

Uk, I didn't say one didn't have to tell the truth to one's parents if it made them unhappy. Uk, someone's unhappiness, one way or another, is not a proper standard. Uk, it's an emotional standard, and it's not relevant in judging what, uh, one should do. It's not a proper standard of judgment or of action. But, uhhhhh, that one should not try to convert one's parents is not the same thing as: one shouldn't always tell the truth to one's parents, in order to protect them in a fool's paradise, if the truth makes them unhappy. That is not the same statement.

Now, I'll answer or elaborate on the correct one, uhhh, the first one. Did I correctly understand you to say that we should not try to convert our parents?

Yes, that's correct, I did say it, and you better understand me very exactly. I didn't … To begin with, that has nothing to do with luhh, uh, lying to your parents, and it doesn't mean that you should never discuss your ideas with your parents. You can. But it does mean: don't try to convert. The emphasis here is specifically on the concept of conversion. Your parents may be neutral in regard to your ideas, or they may be sympathetic and agree, and there's nothing wrong in discussing it with them. But if you find that your parents are inimical or antagonistic to your ideas, so long as they don't force their ideas on you, you should not try to persuade them, because no matter how right you are and how wrong they may be, they will always see you, their child, as an infant, as an infant or a very little boy or girl.

It is practically psychologically impossible for a parent—or it requires a special psychological self-reminder—to regard one's own child as a full adult. To a parent, there will always be the impression of "that little one," of the child that first began to acquire a personality; and no matter how adult you are and how properly your parents, euhh, treat you, that image of the little one will always be there. And therefore if that little one suddenly undertakes to teach the parent something, and the parent, if he's a decent parent at all, is profoundly affected by the thought that he must guide his child, and suddenly the child reverses the tables and wants to guide the parent, that is more than any rational person would be able to absorb. If that upset a parent very much, you the child would be at fault. That, you should not impose on anyone.

You should always remember the context. The issue here, as any one principle, is of course contextual. You should remember your parents' context in regard to you; also the fact that, with rare exceptions—unless they're really monsters, which really do exist, but not often—your parents represent certain value to you. It would be wonderful if they are both personal value, as through the accident of parenthood, and an intellectual value, if they agree with you. That is fine. But if they don't, it is not your place to condemn them for their views. You can express disagreement. You can give them, politely, your reasons for why you hold different ideas. But do not pass judgment loudly—I mean, really vocally. You can't avoid passing judgment in your own mind, but don't start telling your parent that, "Well, I regard you as wrong and irrational and dishonest." Don't. That would be, as a rule, an improper method of arguing anyway with anyone; but, uk, in regard to a parent, it is unnecessarily and irrationally cruel.

Therefore, make it clear to your parents what your ideas are; and after that, give them the prev, uh, uh, privilege of voluntary association as you want for yourself. If they're interested in continuing the discussion, and you see that they really…or they would like to persuade you, you continue the discussion. If they're not and it, it merely makes them feel helpless and confused, leave them alone in regard to ideas. The one right you do have, however, is that you should not let parents force their ideas on you.

But here, your age, euh, is involved. If you're old enough to maintain yourself, and do not have to accept your parents' financial help, and if the kind of concession they demand from you is a really serious one, then you should leave their home and maintain friendly relationship, but refuse to obey them. If, however, you're quite young and cannot yet stand on your own, and what they demand is not, euh, really a major, uh, uh, violation or not too really opposite of your ideas, then as courtesy rather than anything else, you should agree to it, so long as you're accepting help from them. They would be concerned about helping you in an issue where they regard you as wrong. If it's not an important issue to you, allow them the privilege of not worrying about the result of their support. Don't demand of them that they violate their ideas; and on the other hand, don't permit them to violate yours. With both parties, parent and child, being willing to be rational, or at least, for a delimited time, it's very easy to establish proper, civilized relationships, without cruelty on either side.

Now, euh, does this principle also apply to our teachers? No. Teachers don't have any kind of, euh, moral claim on you, and if you disagree with a teacher, euh, whether you should try to convert him depends on your respect for his rationality. Because remember, a lot of them, particularly, the anti-Objectivists, are not very moral or very, euh, good characters, and they may take it out on you in regard to your grades, euh. Your saving their soul isn't worth getting lower grades than you deserve. Therefore, if you're more or less, to a certain extent, in their power, don't attempt to do anything intellectually, except say, "Yes sir," and get your union ticket as quickly as you can—I mean your diploma. [Laughter]

Uh, now, as to, euh, euh, not telling the truth to your parents, no, you should tell your parents the truth, or, uh, refuse to answer. If they're suspecting you of a love affair, and you don't want to admit it, say you would rather not discuss it. But don't say, "No, I'm perfectly virtuous," uhh, and they… [laughter] which you would only be doing violence to your own convictions. Ek, therefore, ev, as a general principle, the fact that something will make a parent or a friend unhappy is not a reason to hide the truth from them.

There is a certain exception, but it does not apply here, and that's in the case of doctors, uh, telling the truth to their patient or not. They certainly should, but there are cases where, uhh, if a patient doesn't know the seriousness of his problem, he actually may improve and recover himself…it's up to the doctor to judge the evidence. But,euhh, that's not an issue of main making a patient unhappy…The issue of unhappiness is no justification for dishonesty.

I had another question here, but we're running out of time, so I'll take it up next time. It's on a different subject. So thank you very much. Thank you. [Applause]

[Robert Campbell]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 130)

Did you say that we don't have to tell the whole truth to our parents, if it will make them unhappy?

No. Someone's unhappiness is not a proper standard; it's an emotional standard, and is thus irrelevant in judging what to do. One shouldn't lie to one's parents to protect them in a fool's paradise. You should either tell them the truth or refuse to answer. For example, if they suspect a love affair and you don't want to admit it, say you'd rather not discuss it. Don't say, "No, I'm perfectly virtuous," which only does violence to your own convictions. The fact that something will make a parent or friend unhappy is no reason to lie to them.

The only exception (which doesn't apply here) involves doctors withholding the truth from their patients. There are many cases where, if a patient doesn't know the seriousness of his illness, he'll be more likely to recover. Here it's up to the doctor to judge the evidence. But that's not a question of making a patient unhappy. Happiness is no justification for dishonesty.

Mayhew took paragraphs 5, 13, and 14 out of Rand's long reply to make this two- paragraph answer.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 133-135)

Please elaborate on your claim that we should not try to convert our parents. Does this apply to our teachers as well?

Mayhew assembled paragraph 2 and paragraphs 6 through 12 of the original into this longer answer. No real violence is done to the original here, but it has been given a pass through the flavor-remover and an uncharacteristic emphasis has been applied to the not in the first sentence of Mayhew's last paragraph.

[Robert Campbell]

With decided relief, I'm returning to posting transcripts of Ayn Rand's answers to questions.

The comparisons are far more interesting than dealing with Robert Mayhew's dopey blasts could ever be.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 10 Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 13:21 through 15:07

Uhh… there are three somewhat connected questions. Uh,

Is the dilemma of the scholar, euhh, in regard to last week's question on scholars' acceptance of government funds for original research, similar to the dilemma of the artist with respect to government grants? If so, to what extent?

The answer is no, and the difference is this: the government grants to the arts are a horror, a disaster. They make it much harder for the artists who do not share in it, or who do not have political pull. Nevertheless, at no time, not even with the WPA under Roosevelt, were they able to really close the arts so that the artist had no choice but to go after a government grant or starve. That situation they have not reached. Whereas, in regard to the scholar, yes, they have practically reached the situation where there are n, no private, industrial research undertakings—or, there are some, but comparatively very few. The money, private money, for, uhh, the kind of research necessary in an industrial society has been drained off by taxes long ago. Private companies cannot afford research nuh, rea, on the kind of scale that would be necessary today; and therefore, the scholars have no choice but, euh, to apply to the government.

CD 2, track 6, 0:00 through 0:47

Also, since science is more impersonal than art, scientists, uh, are, are not entirely free, but can at least pretend or fight to be free on a government endowment. They never are entirely free, but they have a chance. Whereas an artist, since there are no artistic standards, is totally at the mercy of the worst kind of whims. There is no whim uglier and more revolting than aesthetic whim of some kind of bureaucrat, and all that an artist can do is literally be, ehh, an intellectual-spiritual bootlicker. And considering the nature of art, that is much lower than any other type of bootlicker. So, the situation is not the same there.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 23)

No. The difference is this: Government grants to the arts are a horror. They make it harder for artists who lack political pull and do not share in contemporary esthetic tastes. Nevertheless, at no time, not even with the WPA under Roosevelt, was the government able to close the arts, so that artists had no choice but to apply for government grants or to starve. But in the case of the scientist, the government has created a situation wherein there is little private industrial research. Private money for the research necessary in an industrial society has been drained off by taxes. Private companies cannot afford research on that scale, and therefore scientists have no choice but to apply for government grants. Also, since science is more impersonal than art, although scientists on a government endowment are not entirely free, they can at least pretend or fight to be free. But since there are no artistic standards today, the artist is at the mercy of the worst kind of whim. No whim is more ugly and revolting than the esthetic whim of some bureaucrat. All an artist can do in this context is be a spiritual bootlicker; and considering the nature of art, that is the lowest kind of bootlicker.

Another Mayhewian application of emphasis to a single word. And what's with the "wherein"? Why not leave "uglier and more revolting" as she said it?

This is not an editorial issue, but Rand was factually incorrect about government draining off all of the research funding from private industry. Terrence Kealey's book shows clearly that there is still plenty of private investment in R&D in such countries as the United States.

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 10 Q&A

CD 2, track 6, 0:48 through 1:02

Next question, umm, of the same questioner.

Specifically, is non-profit "Life Theater," funded by government grants, in accord with Objectivist economic-political theory?

No, it is not.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 10 Q&A

CD 2, track 6, 1:03 through 2:25

Is today's public television a valid method of arts funding?

No. It is rotten, vicious, and unfair. However, if anyone works for Channel 13, he is somewhat in the same situation as the scholar, uh, so long as he doesn't take part in programs with which he doesn't agree. The situation in television is pretty muchly … well, it is almost totally government controlled. Therefore, there, someone working for a station—if he doesn't spread that station's ideology—uhh, is morally justified. But the public television as such is a pure, cheap, rotten, collectivist invention, because why is it that the commercial television, which gives something to people for free, in exchange for just their consideration of some commercial ads (and makes, and a station makes millions that way), why is it, it considered not in the public interest? Just because it earns what it gets, and it pleases its public, apparently. But some Channel 13 that doesn't get 10% of the audience is "public" television, because nobody will want to pay for what they offer [some laughter]. So, the whole concept is collectivist and rotten.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 22)

No. It's vicious and unfair. Why is commercial television—which gives people something for free, in exchange for their consideration of some commercials, and thereby makes millions—not considered in the public interest? Because it earns what it gets, and apparently pleases the public. But some station that gets less than ten percent of the audience is public television, because nobody will pay for what they offer. The whole concept is collectivist and rotten.

Bob Mayhew cut the part about station employees at Channel 13, WNET. Apparently he took Rand's decision to edit out a reference to Channel 13 in a Ford Hall Forum answer as setting an ironclad rule. He put emphasis on a word that Rand did not put emphasis on, while taking emphasis off the words she did put it on.

[Roger Bissell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 10 Q&A

CD 2, track 6, 1:03 through 2:25

Is today's public television a valid method of arts funding?

No. It is rotten, vicious, and unfair. However, if anyone works for Channel 13, he is somewhat in the same situation as the scholar, uh, so long as he doesn't take part in programs with which he doesn't agree. The situation in television is pretty muchly … well, it is almost totally government controlled. Therefore, there, someone working for a station—if he doesn't spread that station's ideology—uhh, is morally justified. But the public television as such is a pure, cheap, rotten, collectivist invention, because why is it that the commercial television, which gives something to people for free, in exchange for just their consideration of some commercial ads (and makes, and a station makes millions that way), why is it, it considered not in the public interest? Just because it earns what it gets, and it pleases its public, apparently. But some Channel 13 that doesn't get 10% of the audience is "public" television, because nobody will want to pay for what they offer [some laughter]. So, the whole concept is collectivist and rotten.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 22)

No. It's vicious and unfair. Why is commercial television—which gives people something for free, in exchange for their consideration of some commercials, and thereby makes millions—not considered in the public interest? Because it earns what it gets, and apparently pleases the public. But some station that gets less than ten percent of the audience is public television, because nobody will pay for what they offer. The whole concept is collectivist and rotten.

Bob Mayhew cut the part about station employees at Channel 13, which he apparently has a consistent policy of not mentioning. He put emphasis on a word that Rand did not put emphasis on, while taking emphasis off the words she did put it on.

He also deleted the initial use of the word "rotten," which was VERY effective in that position, thus depriving the reader of the full, acerbic flavor of Rand's rant against public television.

Also, I think it's clear that the word "apparently" applies to the whole sentence, not just the part about pleasing the public. Why is commercial tv not considered in the public interest? Apparently because it earns what it gets, and it pleases the public.

Where did Mayhew learn to do interpretive editing? Oh, wait, perhaps from the same people who butchered the tapes of Rand's lectures on fiction writing and/or those who butchered the Q-A tape of Rand, Hospers (unidentified), and Barbara (deleted) on aesthetics.

Seems like the Orwellian memory hole is only bad if it dispenses with the truth about ~other~ people. If it makes "your guy" look better, well, hey, it's a good thing, right?

And they call this philosophy they're promoting...what, again? Objectivism????

REB

[9thdoctor]

But some Channel 13 that doesn't get 10% of the audience is "public" television, because nobody will want to pay for what they offer [some laughter]. So, the whole concept is collectivist and rotten.

To get 10% of the audience, I don’t know the statistics, but that must be outstanding by today’s standards. While I’m not if favor of government funded media, I listen to NPR and watch public television, so the part about no one paying for what they offer, well, if they ran commercials it would be fine with me. The Ascent of Man, Doctor Who (yeah, both are originally BBC programs), Louis Rukeyser (where Rand made her last public appearance, does anyone have a tape?), there’s been great stuff on PBS.

[Jonathan]

[Rand:] The answer is no, and the difference is this: the government grants to the arts are a horror, a disaster. They make it much harder for the artists who do not share in it, or who do not have political pull...

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 23)

No. The difference is this: Government grants to the arts are a horror. They make it harder for artists who lack political pull and do not share in contemporary esthetic tastes.

I didn't take Rand's comment on "artists who do not share in it" to mean artists who "do not share in contemporary esthetic tastes," but artists who do not participate in government programs for the arts.

Rand's first paragraph is about her opinion that government interference in the financing of the arts had been making it harder for artists to survive if they did not take government funding, but that the point had not yet been reached where artists had no choice but to go after government grants.

In her second paragraph, she adds that "also" there is the issue of artists who accept government grants as being at the mercy of the aesthetic whims of bureaucrats. Mayhew ignores the fact that Rand's "also" indicates that she has moved on to an additional thought, and that she wasn't originally discussing "contemporary esthetic tastes" in the first paragraph. In fact she wasn't discussing "contemporary esthetic tastes" in the second either, but the tastes of bureaucrats, which wouldn't necessarily favor "contemporary" aesthetics.

So, is this an issue of Mayhew making a sloppy, erroneous interpretation of what Rand said, or would he claim that he used some unidentified source in which Rand later specified that she meant what Mayhew reported her as meaning (rather than what she had said)? How is anyone to discover the truth?

J

[Chris Grieb]

But some Channel 13 that doesn't get 10% of the audience is "public" television, because nobody will want to pay for what they offer [some laughter]. So, the whole concept is collectivist and rotten.

To get 10% of the audience, I don’t know the statistics, but that must be outstanding by today’s standards. While I’m not if favor of government funded media, I listen to NPR and watch public television, so the part about no one paying for what they offer, well, if they ran commercials it would be fine with me. The Ascent of Man, Doctor Who (yeah, both are originally BBC programs), Louis Rukeyser (where Rand made her last public appearance, does anyone have a tape?), there’s been great stuff on PBS.

Your point about the small numbers who watch PBS is correct. I don't think PBS is tested by Neilson.

I must also add that I have enjoyed many Masterpiece Theaters" and "American Experience". I recently was able to watch a great documentary on the doctor who popularized and expanded the use of lobotomies.

I must also make the point HBO and Showtime are making available better and more gritty dramas and documentary which suggests to me that people are willing to pay for it.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

I've learned, courtesy of Dennis Hardin, who owns a complete set of The Objectivist Calendar, that edited answers by Ayn Rand were included in 12 of its 20 approximately bimonthly issues.

I've received a PDF of all of the relevant pages from Dennis; it includes 13 edited answers from her Ford Hall Forum lectures, 1976-1978. I've started annotating these where they appear on this thread.

I said in the previous version of this post that I'd be surprised if the items about PBS stations and artists vs. scientists going after government grants were among those that Rand edited.

In fact, they weren't. She did not run edited versions of any of her answers after the Philosophy of Objectivism lectures, only of her (broadcast) Ford Hall Forum answers.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

As I work in references to The Objectivist Calendar for the answers that appeared in edited form there, I'm running across a few that I haven't posted on this thread yet.

In two cases, the original answer is from the second half of the 1977 Q&A, which means it isn't on the commercial recording. I'll run them later, but there won't be a transcription of the originals to go with them.

A couple of others are short and didn't particularly grab my attention. But I'll put them up on the thread for completeness.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1976

Q&A, 0:53 through 1:19

Q: Miss Rand, can you tell us which of the Founding Fathers you most admire, and why?

A: If I had to choose one, it would be Thomas Jefferson, for the Declaration of Independence, which is probably the greatest such document in human history—both philosophically and literarily, incidentally.

The Objectivist Calendar #1 (June 1976), p. 2

If I had to choose one, I would say Thomas Jefferson—for the Declaration of Independence, which is probably the greatest document in human history, both philosophically and literarily.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 1)

Mayhew reproduces Rand's edited version.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1976

Q&A, 41:41 through 42:56

Q: Miss Rand, could you care to comment please on the rights of individuals, particularly with reference to abortion?

A: Well, I have made one of my best speeches here on that subject, under the title "Of Living Death," and it was a comment on the papal encyclical on contraception. I am certainly in favor of abortion—or, rather, not that everyone should have an abortion [audience laughs]—but in favor of a perfect moral right of a woman to have it, if she so decides. I think it is an issue to be decided by a woman and her doctor only.

I am in complete agreement with the Supreme Court decision on this subject, and, if you want another reason why I'm against Ronald Reagan, in addition to the one I mentioned here, is that that so-and-so, claiming to be a defender of capitalism and Americanism, has come out against abortion. If he doesn't respect that fundamental a right, he cannot be a defender of any kind of rights. [Applause]

[Another questioner cuts in; Judge Lurie restores order.]

The Objectivist Calendar #1 (June 1976), pp. 2-3

Well, I made one of my best speeches here, at this Forum, on that subject—under the title "Of Living Death." It was a commentary on the Papal encyclical on contraception. (For a full presentation of my views on this subject, see "Of Living Death," which is available in pamphlet form.) I am certainly in favor of abortion. Or rather, I do not mean that everyone should have an abortion, I mean that I am in favor of a woman's perfect moral right to have one if she so decides. I think it is an issue to be decided by a woman and her doctor. I am in agreement with the Supreme Court decision on this subject. And if you want another reason why I am against Ronald Reagan, in addition to the one I mentioned here tonight, it is that that so-and-so, claiming to be a defender of Capitalism and Americanism, has come out against abortion. If he doesn't respect so fundamental a right, he cannot be a defender of any kind of rights.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 17)

Mayhew re-edited Rand's edited version, cutting it slightly.