REVIEWSrnNietzsche for Kidsrnby Thomas E. Woods, Jr.rnThe Letters of Ayn RandrnEdited by Michael S. BerlinerrnNew York: Dutton;rn681 pp., $34.95rnIt is a rare polemicist who makes a successfulrncareer in fiction. But in ThernFountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shruggedrn(1957)—and with all the subtlety ofrndropping a grand piano on her reader’srnhead—Avn Rand conveyed her harshrnphilosophy to a broad audience andrngamed what has invariably been describedrnas a cult following. Rand’s philosoph’rnof Objectivism, which championedrnreason, egoism, and capitalism,rn iewed man as a “heroic figure.” Anythingrnthat detracted from his properrnstature it cast furiousK’ aside. The churchrnwas thus a frequent target of Randianrnin cctive, for just as man should not subordinaternhis will to that of the mob, asrnthe socialists demanded, neither shouldrnhe kneel before an’ god.rnWhile legendary for her ideologicalrnrigidit, Rand was not entirely withoutrnher irtues. In a colleetivist age, she understoodrnwhat made leftists tick, hi herrnpublished work and now in her Letters,rnshe acknowledged the impotence ofrnmere economic theory against an onslaughtrnthat was fundamentally moralrnand ideological. And as an inveterate enemrnof any kind of religion, she wasrnacuteK sensitive to the kind of secular eschatologyrnand millcnnialism so commonrnin socialist theory. (Rand thus dismissedrnboth Christians and socialists asrn”mystics.”) Hence her criticism of Ludwigrnon Mises, perhaps the greatestrneconomist of the 20th century. She wasrna great admirer of Mises, to be sure, but,rnlike Murra’ Rotlibard, Rand denied thatrnthe economist qua activist could diorcerneconomics from ethics and still hope tornbe persuasive. Mises “did prove, all right,rnthat colleetivist economics don’t work,”rnshe wrote. “And he failed to convert arnsingle colleetivist.”rnBut Rand took this appreciation ofrnideolog’ to absurd lengths, hi her personalrnlife, even trivia] events becamerncharged with ideological significance.rnHer letters reveal, among other examples,rna telling incident in which herrnyoung niece innocently asked her auntrnand uncle to lend her $25. An extremelyrnreluctant Rand agreed to lend the money,rnwith a fixed repayment schedule,rnalong with the following warning: “If,rnwhen the debt becomes due, you tell mernthat ou can’t pay me because you neededrna new pair of shoes or a new coat orrnvon gave the money to somebod in thernfamily who needed it more than I do . . .rnI will write you off as a rotten person andrn1 will never speak or write to you again.rn… I would like to teach you, if I can, veryrneady in life, the idea of a self-respecting,rnself-supporting, responsible, capitalisticrnperson.”rnSetting aside the pros and cons ofrnlending this particular sum, the very idearnof natural obligations was utterly foreignrnto Rand. “No honest person bclie’esrnthat he is obliged to support his relatives,”rnshe wrote. “I don’t beliexe it andrnwill not do it.” For Rand, every humanrnrelationship took on the character of arnmarket transaction. She repeatedly denouncedrnthe idea, for example, that childrenrnnecessarily owe their parents evenrnrespect or love. Everything in life mustrnbe earned. Anything else would be irrational,rnand therefore anathema.rnHer understanding of Christianity—rnfrom her erroneous interpretation of therninjunction to “love thv neighbor as thyself”rnto her ignorant and contemptuousrndismissal of Original Sin—was simplyrnembarrassing. But to explain such thingsrnto Rand would have been a waste ofrntime. She had made up her mind. Forrnthe most part, she evaluated Christianityrnnot as a creed that could be shown to berntrue or false but as a violation of her ownrnpri’ate ethical system, hideed, whilernVbltaire believed that if God did not exist,rnit would have been necessary to creaternhim. Rand seems to have agreed withrnBukharin: if God did exist, it would bernnecessary to destroy Him.rnThis is not to suggest that Rand believedrnnothing that could be described asrnreligious. Her outlook, as she explainedrnin her introduction to the 25th anniversaryrnedition of The Fountainhead, wasrnone of “man-worship,” a belief systemrnshorn of religion’s “man-debasingrnaspects.” Protagonist Howard Roark, shernexplained to Frank Lloyd W right, “representsrnmy conception of man as god, ofrnthe absolute human ideal.” It is revealingrnthat Rand’s ex-boyfriend, NathanielrnBranden, now writes books with titlesrnlike The Power of Self-Esteem and ThernPsychology of Self-Esteem. Man-worshiprnmust be depressing work.rnIf Russell Kirk was correct that thernconservative shuns the confines of ideolog’.rnRand did well to disassociate herselfrnfrom the conseratie moement. Ilerernwas a woman who formulated a distinctrnideology and, to the exclusion of all else,rnproceeded to order her life, down to thernsmallest detail, according to its demands.rnHer letters will stand as a curiousrnpostscript to an exceedingly strangernchapter in the history of philosophy.rnThomas E. Woods, jr., an IntercollegiaternStudies Institute Richard M. WeaverrnFellow, is a doctoral candidate in historyrnat Columbia Vniversitv.rnPatriotic Gorernbyf.O. TaternAmerica First! Its History,rnCulture, and Politicsrnby Bill KauffmanrnAmherst, New York: Prometheus Books;rn296 pp., $25.95rnThis volume is particularly notablernfor readers of this journal for twornreasons: First, some of it has appearedrnin these pages, and, secondh’ and morernimportantly, the truths it con’es havernbeen a part of the core vision of Chroniclesrnas, literally, a magazine of Americanrnculture. But I think too that there arerncertain flaws in Kauffman’s version ofrnthe essential American culture—thatrnculture, like others, having shown contradictionsrnwe might attribute more tornhuman nature than to political theory.rnBill Kauffman deserves much creditrnfor the good he has done in revising somernof the cliches, the received opinions that.rnlANUARY 1996/31rnrnrn