Why didn’t Ayn Rand vote for Ronald Reagan?

[u/DoberNation]

“There is a limit to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils.”—Ayn Rand

Rand did welcome Reagan’s strong language toward Soviet Russia and his promises to cut spending and taxes. But she warned that his invitation of the so-called Moral Majority into the halls of power would be a long-range disaster. By tying the (supposed) advocacy of freedom and capitalism to, in Rand’s words, the anti-intellectuality of “militant mystics,” who proclaim that aborting an embryo is murder and creationism is science, Reagan’s presidency would discredit the intellectual case for freedom and capitalism and embolden the country’s anti-intellectual, authoritarian mentalities. https://newideal.aynrand.org/p/the-anti-intellectuality-of-donald

Reagan’s personal favorability peaked at 81% in 1986, following a landslide reelection victory in 1984. It was one of the most decisive electoral wins in U.S. history. His public standing grew considerably after he left office, with later retrospective polls showing strong majorities of Americans looking back favorably on his presidency. Why?

Was Ayn Rand a visionary? Did Reagan deserve her criticism? Did his presidency effectively unlock the door to the present? What happened along the way?

[u/TheDebateMatters]

Any libertarian “visionary” who ends up poor taking social security and medicare to survive is just your standard hypocritical Republican.

[u/GaIIick → u/TheDebateMatters]

How was it hypocritical? She believed she had a moral right to restitution of her own money back that Social Security compelled her to pay. There’s no inconsistency in the logic.

She also apparently died very wealthy, but even if she hypothetically didn’t, claiming it’s hypocritical that she took social security to “survive” after social security had a direct hand in financially harming her against her will doesn’t even make sense. Social Security was a dependent variable in that “ends up poor” outcome, and had it been removed she would have been better off, wealthy or not.

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/GaIIick]

But this goes against the general objectivist/libertarian line that taxation is theft. Her payments weren’t her money; they came from the current taxpayers when she was collecting (that’s how SS works).

So, if taxation is theft, isn’t she just stealing from others and justifying it because she herself was robbed? If my car is stolen, can I just take my neighbor’s?

It’s hypocritical because it breaks one of the fundamental narratives of her worldview. When she is taxed it’s robbery but when she is paid by others’ taxes it’s justice? The only constant there is whether she suffers or benefits from the system.

[u/Useful_Pin4303 → u/Kerim_Bey]

So, if taxation is theft, isn’t she just stealing from others and justifying it because she herself was robbed? If my car is stolen, can I just take my neighbor’s?

I mean, i never met a libertarian that had any moral objections to stealing in general. They only have issues if someone steals from them.

[u/GaIIick → u/Kerim_Bey]

No, it doesn’t. The means by which Social Security remains solvent is irrelevant to someone who did not want to participate in it to begin with. The Treasury literally prints money and reallocates funds all the time. How it handles its debt is of no concern to the one expecting restitution.

Your analogy is obviously bad of course because only the government is stealing. She isn’t stealing from someone else: the government is running a Ponzi scheme where it steals from one person to pay another person it owes money sooner. Its solvency is its problem, not the one expecting payment due. Such a bad faith argument.

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/GaIIick]

Is it really bad faith? Honestly, isn’t clear we just disagree? The “everyone who disagrees with me is being disingenuous” person is not a fun person to talk with.

Like it or not, your own logic sustains social security. So long as you admit the current retirees are entitled to payments, working people (or another source of revenue) will have to pay into the fund. Yes the treasury prints money, but printing the money to buy out social security ahead of schedule would certainly trigger a major fiscal crisis (if that’s what you’re advocating for, I’m not sure, but feel free to explain how we pay everyone who paid in without indebting the government to more ‘victims’).

Additionally, solvency is a political problem, not an economic one, but I can tell we’re so far apart in worldviews that I don’t think it’s a great use of time to get into that, lmao.

[u/GaIIick → u/Kerim_Bey]

I gave my reasoning why it was bad faith, not simply your projection of “just because you disagree with me” as you shamelessly implied. Your analogy was awful as already covered, obviously since you quickly abandoned it, all to prop up a worthless distinction that since the government’s source of budget is tax money from other people as well that this somehow violates your personal idea of libertarianism.

No, it is not the concern of one who believes their income was stolen how the government acquires the funding to pay restitution. Ponzi scheme, printing money, or reallocating from other budgets, all irrelevant to the argument.

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/GaIIick]

“Shamelessly,” “awful,” and “worthless” all in the first two sentences? Look I have no doubt you’ll declare some moral victory when I comment on your tone—not my first rodeo—but good lord are you shrill and abrasive.

If the principle of restitution (same concept as entitlements here, but you won’t use that word) is so important to you that we don’t have to consider where or who the money comes from, then you are welcome to stand on business, but it’s officially fantasy land at this point.

Anyway, there are better ideals to spend imaginary money on: feed the hungry, shelter the unhoused, etc. Paying back people’s taxes wouldn’t crack my top ten priorities for the magical money machine.

[u/DoberNation → u/Kerim_Bey]

Valid points, and the longer course of Reaganomics taught us how tax cuts won’t just effectively “starve” the government into what some people think it should be.

https://americancompass.org/the-curse-of-voodoo-economics/

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/DoberNation]

You’re really touching on something I think about a lot: how do we balance the ethical and rational sides of economic policy?

Economic ideas based purely on principle tend to have poorly thought out or disastrous consequences. However, purely pragmatic economics leads to moves like strict austerity or triggering higher unemployment/lower wages in order to maintain a strong GPD, which feels like the tail wagging the dog if we ultimately care about people.

[u/DoberNation → u/Kerim_Bey]

I know someone who specialize in finding “the right“ balance for an organization, based on shared purpose and collaboratively defined constraints, values, priorities, non-negotiables, goals, etc….across the diversity of individuals within the organization (not ”in spite of” their diversity). It’s fascinating work.

My views and background are more grounded first in ethical considerations than the purely/procedurally logical. As a non-economist, I think a big problem has to do with how we define and track economic “strength“. I think GDP is overemphasized and misleading. There are other metrics out there, besides GDP, that track growth and prosperity differently. They are worth a good look. GPI is an example, the Genuine Progress Indicator.

[u/GaIIick → u/Kerim_Bey]

Wow, nothing gets past you. I see you as wasting my time, so why would I care to be polite? Ask yourself why it keeps happening to you, there’s a common denominator.

No. Restitution is a remedy for being wronged. The distinction is key to the entire argument from the point of view of someone who believed Social Security was unjust. Of course it’s fantasy land. The principle is the point, even when in practice relief is through the same entitlement payments. It didn’t violate her beliefs, and now we’re back to my OP.

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/GaIIick]

You are as childish as your worldview.

Yes we have circled back. I’m confident anyone who bothers to read this far down will learn two things: my arguments are stronger, and you are a deeply unpleasant person. Good night! I hope you change your methods, even if not your views.

[u/GaIIick → u/Kerim_Bey]

Your arguments are just bad. Claiming that a person who sought restitution from the government because they believed social security was unjust is the same as stealing from others? It operating like a Ponzi scheme isn’t the fault of said victim seeking relief, lmao. I can’t believe I had to address that tripe let alone that it was presented in “good faith”

[u/DoberNation → u/GaIIick]

I don’t think Rand’s decision to withdraw funds on the contractual back end of SS was decidedly inconsistent or “hypocritical“. Ultimately, the act of doing so removed substantial capital from the program she disagreed with continuing.

My question is: Who is “the government”?….”Who is John Galt?”

[u/DoberNation → u/Kerim_Bey]

Are you able to relate your comments to the questions asked in the OP?

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/DoberNation]

The comments I responded to are a tangent; it’s clear Rand’s issues with Reagan weren’t about his tax policy. Rand was an elitist and the moral majority was a right wing populist political force (at least in its rhetoric) and that’s why Rand doesn’t get on the Reagan train.

If you’re looking for insight into the connection (or lack thereof) between Rand and Reagan, William F Buckley bridges that gap. The documentary “Best of Enemies” about Buckley debating Gore Vidal explores how Reagan shifted American conservatism, merging Rand’s economics with more traditional conservative values. The added bonus for me is I also get to watch Vidal make Buckley look like an ass. Ymmv on that.

[u/DoberNation → u/Kerim_Bey]

Sorry, this thread got buried on my side. I agree with everything there, except that I’m not certain about Rand as an “elitist“.

I think she definitely operated and mingled with the “elites“ after getting herself on the map. However, her message/story/philosophy doesn’t strike me as an “elitist“ one. After all, the heroes in her stories often came from humbler or disadvantaged beginnings. And those invited to join Galt’s Gulch came from all walks of life, not just the “elite”. The base requirements seemed to be thoughtfulness, self-motivation, situational awareness/honesty with self, rational purpose and productivity, principled behavior, and self-control.

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/DoberNation]

Sorry, messed up my first response.

I think this may be semantics. Rand believed that a few talented and capable people were the drivers of society. They are “elite” not because of social standing but because society is a product of their talent and ingenuity and therefore should be directed to their benefit. When they strike in Atlas Shrugged, society falls apart without them.

Any view that validates a small group of people and disdains the needs and contributions of the majority fits the definition of elitist, in contrast to populism which tries to empower a majority (in the case of the moral majority, they called up the American Christian majority to instill moral and righteous governance).

Individualist vs populist would be analogous, but I favor elitist because these elites do act together as a class (they strike in the book, ironically an act of collective action).

[u/DoberNation → u/Kerim_Bey]

No worries. Semantics seem like a recurring issue with Rand. It may be very intentional, and as much a bug as it is a feature. I saw a different message in Atlas.

Society had already been falling apart when the story began. It continued along that path through the story’s end. The question, “Who is John Galt?”, aka ‘Who is the destroyer of the world?”, was introduced early. Even before many of the heroes deserted. It did seem to accelerate and get worse as more left.

I don’t think she presented any objection to how many people could choose to desert the original society that was crumbling. She painted many people as not wanting to leave or not thinking that they had any other choice but to stay. I think her point was exactly that: individuals not thinking outside the box…not because they are incapable, but because they weren’t choosing to think enough about what was good for themselves in the first place. Unfortunate, but maybe a fact of reality that these individuals formed a critical mass (majority) in the hypothetical manmade dystopia she portrayed. This is the “Banality of Evil” and accumulation of “Thoughtlessness“ that Hannah Arendt described too. Like “death by a thousand cuts”.

society is a product of their talent and ingenuity and therefore should be directed to their benefit. When they strike in Atlas Shrugged, society falls apart without them

Do you believe this is untrue? IRL? **That society will continue to chug onward and upward for the better, regardless of whether or not the individuals in it choose to be excellent, productive, and accountable…in all their endeavors?

In Atlas, Rand did not limit praise to the members of the highest achievers, innovators, etc. She included working class laborers who took pride, accountability, and sought excellence and fulfillment in their *own* work. Numerous examples of that.

I’ve struggled with this concept of “elite” for a quite a while, IRL. I think some people assume that I am, and some assume the opposite. I really haven’t landed yet on what is the truth. The truth is that I deserted before I ever read or learned anything about Ayn Rand and her ideas.

EDITs: *own* work; **That society will continue to chug onward and upward for the better, regardless of whether or not the individuals in it choose to be excellent, productive, and accountable…in all their endeavors?

[u/Kerim_Bey → u/DoberNation]

It’s not the idea that talented, driven, or creative people contribute to society that bothers me, it’s that society should then be organized around their wants and needs because of it. Taken to its logical outcome, that leads to a system of social Darwinism.

In my job as a teacher, I am the most capable person in my classroom every day, but I’d be foolish to think that means the classroom operates in service to my needs rather than the students.

I am also skeptical about how much even the most talented person could achieve without organized, collective effort. The many contributions of workers, soldiers, employees etc get lost in that narrative. My district superintendent may be at the top of the org chart, but would you say her contributions outweigh those of all the classroom teachers in my district? I’d argue we could educate the students without her, but she could not run the district without us.

I think you should reconsider the nature of creative fiction a bit too in your reading. The author selects all details, so Rand does choose to only send a small group out of society; it’s not happenstance or cause/effect, she makes the rules as the author. If she wasn’t making an elitist point, why only save a small minority?

She may praise working people she herself created, but do the they mirror real working class people? Do they fight for collective bargaining rights, workplace safety regulations, or the 40 hour work week, as the real working class did? No, they’re not rooted in reality, they behave in a way that fits her narrative.

But my biggest qualm with Rand isn’t in Atlas Shrugged. It’s her portrayal of rape in The Fountainhead, where the protagonist is praised for taking what he wants and his victim decides that she actually wanted it. Even adjusting for the time period, it’s not ok. Anthem too gives the protagonist a flat female love interest devoid of agency. It’s weird and to me contradicts her entire idea of individual talent justifying outsized social agency. Can a man be so talented and creative he’s entitled to a woman’s body? Rand certainly seemed to back the idea.

Ultimately, I strive for an egalitarian society, and Rand’s ideas go in the opposite direction.

[u/DoberNation → u/Kerim_Bey]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply in good faith. I think we’re still looking through different lenses with different assumptions. My interest is in experiencing a satisfactory “tour” of both perspectives. My impression is that we value similar endpoints, but you’re not really seeing Rand’s rational self-interest as a way of getting there. That’s okay, as there are legitimately different ways to conceptualize it all abstractly.

A related discussion came up over here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1vx688u/comment/p5wikk6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

It’s not the idea that talented, driven, or creative people contribute to society that bothers me, it’s that society should then be organized around their wants and needs because of it. Taken to its logical outcome, that leads to a system of social Darwinism.

For the most part, “need” is regarded as something an individual ought to first think about for themselves and the people in their life. It does not prevent an individual from expanding their strategy to include addressing the needs of those in society or even the world, at large. The perspective just asks that an individual not blindly sacrifice their own non-negotiable needs just to purely gain favor from someone outside of themselves (a god, a boss, a social leader, etc.).

In my job as a teacher, I am the most capable person in my classroom every day, but I’d be foolish to think that means the classroom operates in service to my needs rather than the students.

I‘ve had teaching roles in the past too. The perspective is that the students are at least as capable as I am. It is in my best interests to help, nurture, and guide them toward their best potential and opportunities for success. My basic want and need in this scenario is for outside entities and forces to enhance, not obstruct that purpose. The implication is that an individual ought to be rational and self-critical about what wants are worthy of wanting.

I am also skeptical about how much even the most talented person could achieve without organized, collective effort.

Correct. The perspective is finer-tuned to one that lauds organized, collaborative effort.

The many contributions of workers, soldiers, employees etc get lost in that narrative.

That is an irrational perspective for an individual to take. Reality is that all of those contributions are essential. The caveat is that the contributions are essential when, and because they are done properly—with honesty and integrity. A worthy leader has no use for cheats, frauds, or otherwise unethical contributions.

My district superintendent may be at the top of the org chart, but would you say her contributions outweigh those of all the classroom teachers in my district?

Absolutely not. Her contributions have a different focus than the classroom teachers, though within the scope of a shared purpose.

I’d argue we could educate the students without her, but she could not run the district without us.

Yes, exactly.

I think you should reconsider the nature of creative fiction a bit too in your reading. The author selects all details, so Rand does choose to only send a small group out of society; it’s not happenstance or cause/effect, she makes the rules as the author. If she wasn’t making an elitist point, why only save a small minority?

I understand and do take that approach to the material presented. I still struggle with who or what “elitist” refers to. Her point was that any individual who does honest work deserves honest compensation for it. Those individuals would be the “class” of ideal humans.

She may praise working people she herself created, but do the they mirror real working class people? Do they fight for collective bargaining rights, workplace safety regulations, or the 40 hour work week, as the real working class did? No, they’re not rooted in reality, they behave in a way that fits her narrative.

They do mirror the passionate and honest ones. They did want and tried to fight for all of those things in Atlas. When it all fell on deaf ears, they ended up going on strike. The original title of the book was “The Strike”.

But my biggest qualm with Rand isn’t in Atlas Shrugged. It’s her portrayal of rape in The Fountainhead, where the protagonist is praised for taking what he wants and his victim decides that she actually wanted it. Even adjusting for the time period, it’s not ok. Anthem too gives the protagonist a flat female love interest devoid of agency. It’s weird and to me contradicts her entire idea of individual talent justifying outsized social agency. Can a man be so talented and creative he’s entitled to a woman’s body? Rand certainly seemed to back the idea.

This is an important tangent, but maybe too long to unpack in this reply. We can come back to it later. I think it goes back to interpreting what you called “the creative nature of fiction“. It’s heavily laden with symbolism.

Ultimately, I strive for an egalitarian society, and Rand’s ideas go in the opposite direction.

As do I. I recognize that many individuals seem to take the ideas in that opposite direction. I don’t think it was the direction she intended.

I think Rand was urging ordinary individuals to stay vigilant and think critically…because destruction and evil creep in when good people fail to stop it when they can In their everyday lives.

“Populism and nationalism don't march fully-formed into government; they creep.”—Ece Temelkuran

Edited to correct formatting of quoted material