Why many humanists dislike Ayn Rand

The Secular Right traces part of its pedigree to Ayn Rand, who despite making some bad arguments and promoting some empirically dubious ideas, did present an atheistic "philosophy for living on earth" which has gathered a following of many Americans who later became influential. Historian Jennifer Burns, author of one of the recent biographies of Rand, argues that ~ 50 years ago Rand created a niche in the American right for secular conservatives and libertarians who didn't feel comfortable with the christian religiosity displayed by the larger conservative movement, and who certainly didn't want to associate with the secular humanist left despite its nonbelief in religion, so they therefore gravitated in Rand's direction as an attractive alternative. Only a few of them drank the Kool-Aid and became raving Randroids, however; most picked and chose the parts of Rand's world view which seemed defensible and compatible with their own values.

So for the past 50 years, despite Rand's death, the Objectivist movment's various excommunications and schisms, and revelations about Rand's unseemly personal life, Objectivism has flourished as a kind of below-the-radar secular life stance, in competition with the secular humanist version more closely associated with leftist politics and represented by figures like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Corliss Lamont, Gene Roddenberry and Paul Kurtz. Although some prominent writers in the humanist/skeptic/atheist camp like Tibor Machan and Michael Shermer acknowledge Rand as an influence and promote libertarian views, on the whole humanists seem to have trouble figuring out what to make of Objectivists, other than to dismiss them as right-wing cultists and nuts. Even though humanists and Objectivists have wound up on the same side of the reason-versus-religion debate, and therefore should organically become allies in the culture wars in that area, they don't quite get along because they disagree on economic and political issues. You can see this disagreement in action in the pages of Free Inquiry when Tibor Machan writes one of his Objecivist-sounding essays, and the liberal humanists write letters arguing against Machan's "wrong headed" position which show up in the following issue.

I have to wonder if the feud between humanists and Objectivists has economic roots of another sort. Perhaps humanists feel envious of Objectivism because Rand's novels have succeeded commercially for many decades (they stay in print and sell hundreds of thousands of copies a year). Rand writes in a way which many young people find compelling; she knew how to speak to the frustrations and alienation many bright youngsters feel when their elders don't recognize and encourage their abilities. Rand's role in the attrition of American religious belief deserves study; even if young people who have read Rand's novels don't flip over into lifelong Objectivists, enough of the message might remain to turn them towards secular outlooks and projects as adults.

The humanists, by contrast, don't have anyone comparable to Rand on their side, not even Gene Roddenberry, with his humanist Star Trek franchise. In a way, the humanists have a mostly solid but boring product for adults, while the Objectivists have a bug-ridden but more exciting product which gets the job done and attracts a younger demographic. The humanists just might possibly find the Objectivists annoying and problematic because they know on some level that Objectivism draws attention to humanism's shortcomings which make it less competitive in the market for secular philosophies. Humanists wish they had a bestselling novelist like Rand working for them in the long-term project of secularizing the culture. Instead of trying to portray their own life-changing "philosophy for living on earth" in spellbinding novels to compete with Rand's, they knock Rand for her success at working outside of their organizations and challenging their assumptions about the nature of a secular good society.

While one Objectivist organization recognizes some common ground with the humanists, I don't see this mutual disdain ending soon because of the dispute about issues of more practical import than the existence and powers of supernaturals.