ARI Speaks for Rand (by Neil Parille)

The Ayn Rand Institute’s (ARI) Chief Philosophy Officer Onkar Ghate and philosopher Ben Bayer have a new video, Why the Ayn Rand Institute Comments on Current Events.  The discussion is defensive, trying to justify the large amount of time spent on current affairs, including topics that Rand didn’t — or couldn’t have — commented on such as Israel, immigration, Donald Trump, COVID and Ukraine.  These topics get at least as much attention as Rand’s philosophy.  For example, the on-line journal of the ARI (New Ideal), lists 277 articles on Objectivism and Philosophy versus 330 articles on Culture and Politics.

Ghate and Bayer dutifully report that the ARI does not claim to speak for Ayn Rand.  This is incorrect, e.g.  “The Anti-Intellectuality of Donald Trump: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump.”  Not only that, but the founder of the ARI (Leonard Peikoff) has repeatedly claimed to speak for Rand.

One thing I find interesting is that of four issues the ARI seems most concerned about – abortion, immigration, Israel (and the greater Middle East), and Donald Trump  – Rand wrote  about only one (abortion).  Bayer admits that these positions often get criticism from some ARI supporters. Consider immigration. Although ARI doesn’t seem to have an official position on the question, their denizens tend to support what is called “open immigration.”  A person should be free to enter and reside in the United States (or any other country) so long as he doesn’t have a criminal background.*  (ARI supporter Harry Binswanger opposes screening, saying the border between two countries should be no different than the border between New York and Connecticut.)  

The only discussion of immigration by Rand that I can think of is her answer to the following question in 1973:

What is your attitude towards open immigration and what is your attitude towards the effect it may have upon the standard of living in this country? And does not this require that the answer is that you are, uh, opposed to both—

In response, Rand said in part:

If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore, to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim. You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. . .  But above all, aren’t you dropping a more personal context? How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were.

However, Rand never said that her answers to questions constitute Objectivist doctrine.  Indeed, in book after book of Rand’s posthumously published material, readers are repeatedly told that the material not approved by Rand in her lifetime should not be considered Rand’s definitive view on a topic much less Objectivist orthodoxy.  In addition, a fully principled discussion of immigration requires a theory of borders, nationhood, citizenship and voting.  Rand wrote little on these subjects.  Based on this, I’m not sure that Rand would have supported unrestricted immigration.**   And I can’t recall Rand ever used her personal life as determinative in forming a political position.

Ghate and Bayer say that it’s difficult to understand and apply Objectivism, but they are the “experts” in Rand’s thought.  Yet for years the most prominent ARI YouTuber was ARI CEO Yaron Brook, who by his own admission is not an expert on Objectivism. The ARI apparently had no problem in funding his show and his endless (and often uniformed) commentary on contemporary issues.***  (For example, Brook endlessly comments on Christian conservatives in the USA while simultaneously admitting that he doesn’t know what Christianity teaches.)  Perhaps Ghate inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when he says they call it the “Ayn Rand Institute” in part because of “marketing.”  The “Objectivist Institute” that commented on wars in the Middle East wouldn’t get the attention (or funding) that the ARI gets today.

In fairness to Ghate and Bayer, they do make some valid points.  Ayn Rand died in 1982 and no one can be sure what she would have thought about a contemporary issue over 40 years later.  And commenting on only those things Rand held definitive opinions on wouldn’t be all that informative if one is attempting to apply Objectivism to one’s life.  But consider the ARI’s claim that Rand would have despised a Trump presidency.  Maybe after twenty years of woke culture, Rand would have found Trump a breath of fresh air.  On the other hand, maybe she wouldn’t have.

At the end of the day, I’d say a large part of the reason is that for all the claims Objectivists make about the importance of abstract philosophy, the rank and file are more interested in day-to-day events.  In following a fair amount of ARI and ARI-oriented YouTubers, I don’t get the impression that Objectivists are clamoring for an in-depth discussion of the appropriate interpretation of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

___________________

*Some ARI authors support additional screening, for example screening for infectious diseases.  Most ARI Objectivists who have commented on the question have insisted Israel needs to place severe restrictions on immigration.

**An observation I owe to Ed Powell.

***Brook has said recently that his You Tube channel is no longer supported by ARI.