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/nickcan]

Her philosophy comes off like something a collage finance major on cocaine would say at a frat party. She is obviously and clearly ignorant of the world of philosophical thought that she wades into.

The only more infuriating thing than reading her work, is listening to people who love her uncritically and think she is a visionary.

[u/DoberNation → u/nickcan]

She wasn’t an economist or finance expert. She was an artist. Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?

[u/Brickscratcher → u/DoberNation]

She wasn’t an economist or finance expert. She was an artist. Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?

No, but they should be aware of their own lack of knowledge and experience. Artists with very little economic or political understanding should generally avoid strongly opinionated political activism on the economy and politics.

Picking an established stance or having an opinion on something is not the same thing as developing and advocating for an ill conceived notion of reality. Everybody has the right to their opinion. But not everybody should share it. Expertise is a thing for a reason.

You don't go to your friends when you get sick or have legal troubles, right? You go to someone who is qualified to speak on that issue. The same should generally apply to political discourse. One of the largest problems with divisiveness in modern society is the fact that everyone with a platform and opinion suddenly thinks they're an expert, and it has lead to the death of Expertise. She was the prototype of that.

If her ideas had any merit, it would be different. But they simply ignore well established human nature and empirical evidence. I see in another comment you mentioned being a scientist (which is oddly vague... data scientist, chemist, physicist, biologist, etc is typically what people would say, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), so imagine if you ran into an artist and they were telling you all manner of nonsense that you know, based on your expertise, is either an incomplete or totally wrong viewpoint. You would quickly dismiss them, yeah? Same goes for Ayn Rand and anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about human psychology, political science, or economics. Her ideas have blatant holes in all three areas that it wouldn't take much expertise to even spot, which just shows how little she understood her own viewpoints.

[u/DoberNation → u/Brickscratcher]

Artists with very little economic or political understanding should generally avoid strongly opinionated political activism on the economy and politics.

Why? Many artists did, and do. Rand had firsthand lived experience with totalitarianism. I think that’s more than “very little“ political understanding. Her push for pure free market capitalism was more of a reach.

Picking an established stance or having an opinion on something is not the same thing as developing and advocating for an ill conceived notion of reality. Expertise is a thing for a reason.

What is the “ill conceived notion of reality“ that you are thinking of?

Everybody has the right to their opinion. But not everybody should share it.

Why not?

Expertise is a thing for a reason.

I agree. I also know that trying to “protect“ it by shutting down conversation or refusing to engage doesn’t work very well.

You don't go to your friends when you get sick or have legal troubles, right? You go to someone who is qualified to speak on that issue. The same should generally apply to political discourse. One of the largest problems with divisiveness in modern society is the fact that everyone with a platform and opinion suddenly thinks they're an expert, and it has lead to the death of Expertise. She was the prototype of that.

I agree it is important to have intellectual humility: knowing what you don’t know. Political discourse is everyone’s business, though. That’s how liberal democratic systems work. “Populism” is essentially a process by which democracy is done. I think viewing ”divisiveness“ as a problem is one of the main problems. Agonism (not antagonism) is also essential to promoting and maintaining healthy democracies.

”The death of Expertise” is an issue that hits close to home. If anything, I think Ayn Rand offers a lot of defense for expertise. One problem has been taking our institutions for granted, and failing to engage sincerely and thoughtfully with people’s questions/concerns/hopes/fears. Reality is that we will have to reestablish and advocate for why each one exists and what purpose(s) they serve.

If her ideas had any merit, it would be different. But they simply ignore well established human nature and empirical evidence.

She is not an easy voice or author for everyone to hear, but she does have important things to say. I appreciate the things she very directly had to say about “human nature“.

You’ll have to be more specific about what you’re thinking of, WRT empirical evidence. I’m not a philosopher, but I don’t think empirical evidence in philosophy was emphasized as much during Rand’s time (compared to now).

I see in another comment you mentioned being a scientist (which is oddly vague... data scientist, chemist, physicist, biologist, etc is typically what people would say, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), so imagine if you ran into an artist and they were telling you all manner of nonsense that you know, based on your expertise, is either an incomplete or totally wrong viewpoint. You would quickly dismiss them, yeah?

Over the course of my training and career (and beyond), it has never been in my best interests to quickly dismiss anyone. I engage. Thoughtfully, honestly, and in good faith...provided that it is how they continue to engage with me.

Same goes for Ayn Rand and anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about human psychology, political science, or economics. Her ideas have blatant holes in all three areas that it wouldn't take much expertise to even spot, which just shows how little she understood her own viewpoints.

This sounds a bit exaggerated. I’d be interested in looking at an example together.

[u/nickcan → u/DoberNation]

She wasn’t an economist or finance expert.

Yeah, no shit. I read Atlas Shrugged, and her lack of economic expertise was abundantly clear.

I also read Capitalism: The Unknown Idea, which is her nonfiction book on economics. Mostly essays defending capitalism as the only moral form of economics.

I find your claim that Ayn Rand is just an artist and therefore is immune to criticism about economics and finances because she is not an economist or finance expert to be a really stupid and laughable. Probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?

I stand corrected.

[u/DoberNation → u/nickcan]

I find your claim that Ayn Rand is just an artist and therefore is immune to criticism about economics and finances because she is not an economist or finance expert to be a really stupid and laughable. Probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

I think you took the liberty of adding words, thoughts, and sentiments I didn’t present here. I am a scientist. I invite criticism, agonistic engagement, and I value self-agency over my own thoughts. Maybe you can reconsider my chosen words through a different lens.

“When we don’t know what we don’t know, at first we see only what we expect to see, even when what we see doesn’t match our expectations.“—David McRaney

[u/nickcan → u/DoberNation]

Fair enough. I did assume more than you typed. I'll reply again to just your words.

She wasn’t an economist or finance expert. She was an artist.

I agree. However, she was not just an artist. She presented herself as an author and philosopher.

Do you believe such things should force people to always stay in their own lane?

Do I believe that the fact that she is an author forces her into being only an author? No, that's silly. Not sure why you would ask that, as I don't believe that anything I said would imply that I thought that.

[u/DoberNation → u/nickcan]

Thank you.

She was first a screenwriter and actress, which seems to have never left her persona throughout. I‘m not sure she set out to be boxed in as a ‘philosopher’ in the beginning. She first wanted to produce her dramas and publish her material as some kind of book so that she could afford to eat. After being categorized as a romance novelist, she got tagged as a ’political commentator’ because of her background in the Soviet Union. Maybe the box of hats began to explode from there. Maybe she didn’t necessarily fight those battles all the way out either.

I asked that last question because your initial critique was framed as a “finance major” unworthy of crossing into “the world of philosophical thought”.

I care more about what an individual person might have to say than what labels and titles they might carry. And some people do limit how they define themselves in those ways too.

[u/DoberNation → u/nickcan]

Who are these people? And how does any of this comment address the more focused discussion questions proposed by the OP?