A (conservative) Christian response to Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged reviewed

            OK, now we’ve finally arrived at the moment you’ve all been waiting for (yeah, right): my review of Atlas Shrugged. The main reason I’m delving into this at all is because there’s no way I can examine Ayn Rand’s philosophy without touching on her most famous work. Before I get to it, please be aware that I’m going to assume that you’ve not read the book, but that you’re at least vaguely aware of its main plot points. If you’re not familiar with it, here’s Wiki’s summary:

The book explores a dystopian United States where many of society's most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and disappear, shutting down their vital industries. The disappearances evoke the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the sky. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the disappearances as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the people that drive society's productivity. In their efforts, these characters hope to demonstrate that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society. The title is a reference to Atlas, a Titan of Ancient Greek mythology, described in the novel as "the giant who holds the world on his shoulders." The significance of this reference is seen in a conversation between the characters Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden, in which d'Anconia asks Rearden what sort of advice he would give Atlas upon seeing that "the greater [the titan's] effort, the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders". With Rearden unable to answer, d'Anconia gives his own response: "To shrug."

             I disagree only slightly with the plot summary above, one minor quibble. The main problem the producers (like Galt, Rearden, and Dagny) have with the prevailing zeitgeist is not any certain level of taxation or regulation per se. That's the not the root of the problem. High taxes and loony levels of regulations are just the symptom of the disease: A complete lack of comprehension of what it is that enables our standard of living. This lack of comprehension leads to a vilification of business people who are only out to make a profit, as if that seeking of a profit is a bad thing. As if Hank Rearden, who spent countless hours creating his miracle metal and his own company from the ground up doesn't really own the fruit of his own labor. He doesn't own it. "The people" (i.e. the government) own it. We have the right to take it from him and use it however we wish. That worldview, that complete disregard for property rights leads to things like higher taxes and excessive regulations, but we need to get to the root of the problem, not just the outgrowth. 

The good part or the bad part first, which will it be? I guess we’ll start with the bad first.

·         This is a really honkin’ long book. I mean, you can tell that by picking it up. It has over 1,000 pages.

·         And the speeches, wow. Around the last quarter of the book, the book’s hero, John Galt, gives a speech that goes over a hundred pages. It’s a beating.

·         No one--and I mean no one--in the real world talks this way. The language is extremely stilted.

·         It justifies adultery. As best as I can tell, when two of the heroic characters commit adultery, the only thing they did wrong was hiding it from the world.

·         When I call it a propagandistic, I don’t mean it with the all-bad connotation like most people do. I believe every (or nearly every) piece of fiction comes with a certain worldview. I might agree with the worldview, or I might not. But when it’s this ham-fisted, about as subtle as a two-by-four on the side of your head, it gets a bit old at times. Every character is black-and-white, no shades of grey; every situation and scene is only there to move the message forward. I can’t go into more detail without giving away some spoilers, but if you ever actually read this, you’ll know what I mean. Think of the worst examples of Christian movies which are filmed with the express purpose of presenting the Gospel, complete with bad acting, non-existent plot subtlety, and a script that comes across with all the subtlety of a brick in the head, and you’ll understand how I feel on this. I love (most of) the message, but cringe at the delivery.

            

            Having said this, in the end I have to recommend that you read the book. Here’s why:

·         To my knowledge, this is the only piece of fiction I’ve ever read in which business people and entrepreneurs are presented as heroes, by running/starting businesses. As the plot summary above states, they get tired of being overtaxed, overregulated, and generally maligned by society at large. As I mentioned before, one of the heroes, Hank Rearden, invented a new metal that’s far stronger, lighter, and cheaper than steel. The book goes into excruciating detail of how many hours and effort he put into creating it. It’s his pride and joy. He offers a bracelet made of a small chunk of the first batch to his wife, and she treats it with contempt. Dagny Taggert, another hero in the book, is not an inventor, but she’s incredible at administration, and keeps her late father’s railroad going despite the best efforts of her idiot brother (the titular head of the company). Rand presents a Grand Canyon-wide gulf between the producers and the “looters” (her word). The looters keep taking the producers for granted, and the producers finally get tired of it, and go on strike. In fact, her original title of the book was The Strike.

·         We get to see just how much our standard of living depends on the producers who are solely motivated by profit. “Profit” is considered an evil word by the looters. But when the producers start to drop out, society starts crumbling. People start to freeze in New York City when the power goes out. Shelves in grocery stores are empty. Riots start due to mass starvation.

            I’d like to make a final point here in the review that a lot of people seem to have missed about the theme of the book. One of the first things we learn in literature is that a story has to have some sort of conflict. Without conflict, there’s no drama, and the story gets boring really quickly. So what’s the main conflict in this story?

            At first glance, the answer’s pretty obvious: It’s the producers (led by Galt) vs. the Looters. The Looters want to keep taxing and regulating and demagoguing against the producers. But I don’t think that’s the conflict at all. If it is, it's certainly overshadowed by the much grander one presented. 

            I don’t think I’m spoiling too much to let you know that John Galt spends much of the book trying to convince Dagny to abandon her railroad company, let it (all society) go to the hell it richly deserves, and join him and his community of producers who’ve hidden themselves away from society. He keeps appealing to her over and over and over, and she keeps resisting, demonstrating Herculean (or I guess a better term would be Atlas-like) effort to keep her company running while under the pressure of a crumbling infrastructure.

            The main conflict, as best I can tell, is between Dagny and Galt. It’s not between Galt and the Looters. In the world of Atlas (and I believe it’s pretty much mirrored in this one), as soon as the producers decide to quit being persecuted, the game is over. What are the Looters going to do? How can you really force creative and skillful people to produce? Throw the producers in jail? Point a gun at them and order them to create a new business? Well, I guess you can do it, and tyrannical societies like Soviet Russia certainly have tried.  But even if you have a gun at their head, they'll only produce and create as much as necessary to keep you from killing them and absolutely nothing further. And the way you treat your producers certainly will influence your next generation of producers. They'll either keep their heads down or (if at all possible) escape your system for greener pastures. 

            How’s that going to accomplish anything? The producers will simply stop working, and creative people will stop creating. No matter what happens next--whether the producers pull out physically or just mentally--there’s no way the Looters will be able to continue their parasitical relationship once the producers have had enough of it. The Looters will get away with their wrong-doing only as long as the Producers let them get away with it. 

            So the conflict is between the Galts who say “To hell with all of you! I’m dropping out! See how you like it when I go on strike!!!” and the Dagnys--who continue to try to make the best of a bad situation, still trying to bear the weight of the world while being demonized for doing so. 
            She's the image I think that Rand wanted to portray of the business leader and entrepreneur and company executive who is holding up our economy and getting nothing but persecution and slander and derision for doing so. She's warning us that the moment when the Producers say "To hell with all of you!" and go on strike is on the horizon. 

            So what does this say to me as a Christian?

            Gratitude.

            If you live in America, you need to recognize that a lot of people make your lifestyle possible. You go to a grocery store and take it for granted that the shelves will be filled with food. You stop at a gas station and expect that gas will be readily available. You get up in the morning, turn on your water faucet, turn on lights, turn on your computer, and go to your favorite website, not even thinking about what it took for all that to happen.

            Yes, ultimately it all came from a generous God. But on the horizontal plane, the reason why you have all these things available to you is because of the Free Market System. And business people. And entrepreneurs. Let’s all of us think and talk well of them, shall we?