An Excerpt from “‘The Moratorium on Brains’”: From Ayn Rand’s Bound Periodicals–Now in Paperback

Between 1962 and 1976, Ayn Rand published a series of periodicals: The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter. Many of the articles she published there went on to be anthologized in the collections of nonfiction essays she published as books. But some were never anthologized and have only been available in bound periodicals, long available for purchase from the Ayn Rand Institute. ARI is pleased to offer these periodicals for the first time in paperback at a significant discount from the original hardback versions.

The bound periodicals are especially invaluable as a means of understanding the historical context in which Rand wrote her nonfiction. Here we see her view of the American cultural-political scene unfolding in reaction to major milestones of the twentieth century: the Kennedy–Johnson administrations, the Vietnam War, the campus student rebellion, and the stagnation of the 1970s. Readers can see a high-level survey of the rich array of content in this earlier article in New Ideal. Rand not only comments on politics but publishes theoretical articles on epistemology and esthetics, reviews of the art and literature of her day. The periodicals also contain numerous philosophical articles by Leonard Peikoff and works on psychology by Nathaniel Branden.

We will publish a total of five short excerpts over the coming months. Each is from an article never anthologized, previously available only in the bound periodicals but now available for purchase from Amazon.

Here we republish a short excerpt from an essay, “The Moratorium on Brains,” in her third periodical, The Ayn Rand Letter, from October 25, 1971. The title of the essay alludes to a chapter from Atlas Shrugged where statists attempt to paralyze the country’s economy. Rand argues that the Nixon administration’s wage–price controls aim to do something comparable and equally vicious, undermining its pretense of favoring free enterprise. You can also listen to Rand’s lecture the article is based on here or at the top of this article. The lecture is followed by a 62-minute Q&A session.

Hell, what it comes down to is that we can manage to exist as and where we are, but we can’t afford to move! So we’ve got to stand still. We’ve got to stand still. We’ve got to make those bastards stand still!

If you have read Atlas Shrugged, you know the meaning — and the relevance — of this quotation. If you have not, I suggest that you read the first sequence of Chapter VI, Part II. It will give you some idea of the political motives, philosophical goals, psychological mechanisms, intellectual stature, and moral dignity behind an event such as the wage-price freeze of August 15, 1971. But please do not think that that sequence is literary naturalism, a journalistic report on the conference at Camp David on August 13–14, with the names changed to protect the guilty. It was published fourteen years ago.

If one knows the principles behind a given policy, one can predict the direction it will take and the ultimate results. Besides, the progression of this particular policy has been repeated in country after country, with consequences that no one but a modern newsman could take as news.

The special twist, in the case of Mr. Nixon, is that his counterparts on the road to statism in other countries were not elected to office on the implicit promise to save the country from a statist trend. In spite of the usual pragmatist evasions, it was clear to his supporters and enemies alike that he was elected as a champion — or semi-champion — of free enterprise. If one needs factual proof of the danger of implicit promises, unnamed hopes, undeclared principles — i.e., of the futility and impracticality of playing it short-range — Mr. Nixon is the proof. He is an immortal refutation of Pragmatism.

The worst thing one can say about Mr. Nixon is that he is sincere. A clever demagogue would not believe that one can protect a country’s freedom by establishing the foundation, the principle and the precedent of a totalitarian dictatorship. Mr. Nixon, apparently, does.

It used to be widely believed that the election of a semi-conservative (a “moderate”) is a way of gaining time and delaying the statist advance. President Eisenhower proved the opposite; President Nixon proved it conclusively. Their policies have not delayed, but helped and accelerated the march to statism. A major reason is the silencing and destruction of the opposition. If Mr. Nixon’s program had been proposed by a liberal Democrat, the Republicans would have screamed their heads off — either on some remnant of principle or, at least, on the grounds of narrow party interests. But when total economic controls are imposed by a Republican President — in the name of preserving free enterprise — who, among today’s politicians, is going to protest and in the name of what?

To read the rest, order your copy of The Ayn Rand Letter from Amazon today.