Who Is John Gault? Really!

Some of you who are more conservative than I am might have read my Bio and then some of my blogs and thought I was making that Ayn Rand thing up. Nope. I understand her POV (I think) and it definitely changed how I view the world. But I think a lot of other people don't really understand very well at all.

That first paragraph sounds kind of obnoxious. Let me re-phrase. This is how I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

(1) The world of her novels is extreme and unrealistic. The world is not divided into a small percentage of capable "makers" and faceless mobs of parasitic "takers." It just isn't. Most of us are willing to work for what we get even if we do carry with us a sense of entitlement that others may not agree with.

(2) The books are not about campaigning to deprive those we think of an "undeserving." In fact, the protagonists in the books simply work around the "takers" to accomplish what they are driven to pursue. Their disdain may be apparent, but our heroes do not leave industry to undertake politics in order to make sure people they think are undeserving do not receive any benefit. They do their work and reap their rewards. The welfare of the "takers" is simply not their concern. Indeed, in Atlas Shrugged, they just leave the "takers" behind and form their own community. (Oops! Spoiler alert!)

(3) Not all "takers" are lazy and unproductive. If the books teach us one thing, it is that some of the most parasitic people are the ones that have high titles and much claimed accomplishment. And unless you are following them closely and know their secrets, you cannot know the truth of this in the real world.

(4) Not all "makers" are successful and wealthy. In the Rand-world, I refer to Roark. It's hard to name real world example because they are unknown. But don't we all think they exist?

(5) Ayn Rand suffered from a little self-loathing if she thinks a woman in her right mind will fall in love with the man who raped her.

When I read these books, they gave me a way to put context around the way I view myself and the way I view others. But I don't view people as "makers" and "takers." I try to see people not as what they have done, but as what they are capable of doing. Admittedly, I put the books through my own filter. But don't we all? It's just that to me, the thing that separates a maker from a taker, a self-sufficient, deserving person from a parasitic, undeserving person, is not what the person accomplishes, but what the person accomplishes with the tools and opportunities available to him (or her).

Someone who grows up in abject poverty and who spends his or her childhood dodging bullets in the streets simply may not be capable of getting into and graduating from Harvard business school without some help, no matter how smart. Does that help make that person a "parasite?" Or more to the point, do we just give up on that person ever being more than a statistic unless he or she is able to overcome such humble beginnings? Not to me. IMO, that person - every person - should get a little assistance to help him or her achieve full potential.

On the flip side, someone who grows up well off, goes to the best private schools, and ends up masterminding a massive Ponzi scheme, bilking people out of millions of dollars is the ultimate "taker" because he has simply ignored what he is capable of doing - through honest, real work - and stolen from people.

It's not a double standard. If the person who gets help to reach his potential runs Ponzi schemes, he is a thieving taker too. And if that wealthy privileged person works and does honest business, he is our Rand hero.

But is goes further than obeying the law, doesn't it? Consider Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is not a thief or a crook as far as I know, but he has used Bankruptcy with numerous of his companies to build his empire. When he would overextend on a project, he would bankrupt that project, to protect his other successful ones, and just keep going. But what about the creditors who lost millions because he didn't pay them back? He could have. He has the money. But he had a legal way to avoid paying his way, so he did. TAKER, not MAKER. That is not what any Rand hero would do.

Lots of liberal don't like Ayn Rand because of how her philosophy has been used to support a war on the poor. And it definitely has: eliminate the minimum wage, no more unemployment benefits, end medicare, etc. But these class warriors leaning on Ayn Rand have completely missed the point: A Rand hero will always pay workers what they are actually worth, because to not do so would be to take something undeserved. A Rand hero will not lie, cheat, or steal to make a profit, because that would render the gain undeserved. A Rand hero would not dump pollutants in rivers and release poisons into the air because that is stealing as well. Unless and until American industries start behaving like Rand heros - doing their part honestly and only taking what they deserve - it is simply hypocrisy run amuck to ask and expect the working (or unemployed) poor to buck up and be the perfect Randian soldiers.

Bottom line: Rand's books are compelling and interesting. They sure make us think. But her novels no more reflect the real world than Alice in Wonderland or the Harry Potter stories. It's fun to discuss and argue about, even take away some lessons. But we really should not pretend that any group or person in this country exemplifies the traits of the "maker" hero. I've never seen it. And neither have you.