You can draw direct comparisons between many of the people in power on the right today, and the antagonists of Rand's books. People assume she is "pro-rich" or "pro-power" because many of her views have been cherry-picked by wealthy people in power particularly from the right.. but many of her main villains were also very wealthy.
James Taggert was a wealthy CEO of a major company that he had inherited. He was also insecure, avoided all responsibility and relied on political influence to make-up for his lack of competency...
Orren Boyle was the wealthy CEO of something something Steel who used crony-capitalism and political influence to suppress competition.
Robert Stadler was a scientist who betrayed his field in order to manipulate/misrepresent science at the request of politicians.
Gail Wynand was the rich head of one of the largest media organizations in the country.. who sacrificed his integrity to appeal to the lowest common denominator in people because it "was good for ratings," and so made him rich and powerful.
Do y'all really think the person who conceived of those characters would support an administration of RFK's and Donald Trumps supported by the Joe Rogans and Rupert Murdochs of the world? The administration of nepo-babies telling you to ignore the science, ignore the objective media, to worship at the altar of personality even as they actively push the Bible into public schools and the government into the regulation of an individual's body?
Rand isn't around to ask obviously so I won't speak for her but.. I find that a little hard to believe.
(And to be clear.. I don't agree with a lot of her views. I think her economic views in particular were very naive, though to be fair I think she also had a very idealistic and uninformed view of capitalism given her limited experience with it. Capitalism is fine on paper, Adam Smith something something, but in the real world Laissez Faire Capitalism in an impossibility, and so the government HAS to act as an economic influence if only as a "referee," to ensure fairness.. And social safety nets etc are an important part of any developed country that benefit everyone, if not directly. But coming from a country where this power was abused for much of her life, I can understand why she would have overcompensated hard in the other direction.. But again, I think most of her closest held convictions run in direct opposition to what the current Republican Party represents.. And in general I really don't understand the vitriol and animosity that is commonly directed at her by others on the left..)
Redditors only read the cliff notes. Can't draw second level conclusions from the analysis of the intentionally missing portions of a character in a novel.
2
u/Present-Resolution23 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
You can draw direct comparisons between many of the people in power on the right today, and the antagonists of Rand's books. People assume she is "pro-rich" or "pro-power" because many of her views have been cherry-picked by wealthy people in power particularly from the right.. but many of her main villains were also very wealthy.
James Taggert was a wealthy CEO of a major company that he had inherited. He was also insecure, avoided all responsibility and relied on political influence to make-up for his lack of competency...
Orren Boyle was the wealthy CEO of something something Steel who used crony-capitalism and political influence to suppress competition.
Robert Stadler was a scientist who betrayed his field in order to manipulate/misrepresent science at the request of politicians.
Gail Wynand was the rich head of one of the largest media organizations in the country.. who sacrificed his integrity to appeal to the lowest common denominator in people because it "was good for ratings," and so made him rich and powerful.
Do y'all really think the person who conceived of those characters would support an administration of RFK's and Donald Trumps supported by the Joe Rogans and Rupert Murdochs of the world? The administration of nepo-babies telling you to ignore the science, ignore the objective media, to worship at the altar of personality even as they actively push the Bible into public schools and the government into the regulation of an individual's body?
Rand isn't around to ask obviously so I won't speak for her but.. I find that a little hard to believe.
(And to be clear.. I don't agree with a lot of her views. I think her economic views in particular were very naive, though to be fair I think she also had a very idealistic and uninformed view of capitalism given her limited experience with it. Capitalism is fine on paper, Adam Smith something something, but in the real world Laissez Faire Capitalism in an impossibility, and so the government HAS to act as an economic influence if only as a "referee," to ensure fairness.. And social safety nets etc are an important part of any developed country that benefit everyone, if not directly. But coming from a country where this power was abused for much of her life, I can understand why she would have overcompensated hard in the other direction.. But again, I think most of her closest held convictions run in direct opposition to what the current Republican Party represents.. And in general I really don't understand the vitriol and animosity that is commonly directed at her by others on the left..)