NI StaffBetween 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 now happy to offer these periodicals, for the first time in paperback, at a significant discount from the original hardback versions.
The bound periodicals are 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, along with reviews of the art and literature of her day.
New Ideal is pleased to feature short excerpts from those bound periodicals over the coming months. Each is from an article never anthologized, exclusively available in the bound periodicals, and now available for purchase from Amazon.
Here we republish a short excerpt from an essay in her first periodical, The Objectivist Newsletter. “‘The National Interest, c’est moi,’” from June 1962, is a takedown of the Kennedy administration’s attempt to control the price of steel. The essay has perennial significance for understanding how the governments of mixed economies attempt to rule by decree.
“He was looking at them with the anger of a man declaring that the country’s troubles were a personal affront to him. So many men seeking favors had been afraid of him that he now acted as if his anger were a solution to everything, as if his anger were omnipotent, as if all he had to do was to get angry.”
Any resemblance of this passage from Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, to any political leader of today is purely co-incidental — since it is blind chance that determines what particular individual rises to power in a society that abandons principles. But the philosophical, political and psychological principles behind that passage are not coincidental; principles, like laws of nature, continue to operate, whether men choose to recognize them or not — and those of you who have seen President Kennedy on television on April 11, have seen a concrete illustration, as eloquent as and much cruder than a work of fiction could offer you.
The President of the United States was denouncing the steel industry, with the trembling intensity and rage of a spoiled, petulant child stamping its foot at a universe that had disobeyed its whims. The same man who had repeatedly declared, in a manner of gravely courteous tolerance, that he would always be willing to negotiate with Khrushchev or any other foreign aggressor on any continent, was pouring violent abuse upon a group of American citizens. But since these citizens were businessmen, he felt, apparently, that it was safe to attack them. Who hasn’t?
The temper tantrums of any one man do not necessarily indict a culture; but what does indict it is the fact that most of the press accepted the meaning of that tantrum on his terms. “The ruler is angry!” was the leitmotif of the press comments, which proceeded to speculate on what Mr. Kennedy’s displeasure might do to the steel industry and to all business, as if such concepts as “rights” or “law” had never existed, as if we were a country where the emotional moods of the ruler are of paramount public significance, where his frown or smile determines one’s fate. “The Kennedys do not like to lose,” wrote the liberal James Reston in The New York Times. “They do not like to be crossed.” Change the name to read: “The Bourbons do not like to lose,” and ask yourself whether the spirit of that comment would be appropriate to the reign of Louis XV (or to the reign of the Hitlers or the Khrushchevs who “do not like to lose or to be crossed,” either).
What has brought a free country to this state?
To read the rest, order your copy of The Objectivist Newsletter from Amazon today.
Ziemowit Gowin
Elan Journo
