Recently, Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) Chairman of the Board Yaron Brook decided to “unload” on fellow Objectivists Andrew Bernstein, David Harriman, and (to a lesser extent) Leonard Peikoff. This was surprising for a couple of reasons. First, Brook has said over the years that he doesn’t want to comment on specific Objectivists. Second, Leonard Peikoff is 92 and the status of his estate (and Rand’s papers most importantly) might still be up in the air.
What prompted this tirade was a question about Andrew Bernstein’s recent essay on President Trump, where he argued that Trump was a hero. Brook said that, on the contrary, Trump is a horrible president and may be the worst president in American history. Not only that, but he’s also a flat out “villain,” hates the United States, and says Bernstein’s piece is “B.S.” (he didn’t use the abbreviation). However, he went on to say that Trump is supportive of business and businessmen. In addition, he says that Trump – for whatever his flaws – speaks his mind and doesn’t care what people think about him. However, the few topics he mentioned was Trump’s support for tariffs and attacking drug dealers. At the end of the day, it looks like what is driving Brook is that Trump is an anti-intellectual populist.
Brook next turned to Peikoff. According to Brook, around 2013 Peikoff decided to stop commenting on politics and culture on his podcast and turned these topics over to Brook. According to Brook, Peikoff said that commenting on politics was too time consuming in terms of research (“he doesn’t want to do the work”) and his main source of news in recent years is the New York Post and Mark Levin. Brook said that Peikoff supports Trump and that he supports a more restrictive immigration policy. Brook said that with advanced age it’s hard for Peikoff to “integrate” all the necessary news sources. While Brook seems to be giving Peikoff a pass, it sounded to me like “damning with faint praise.” In any event, Brook said at Peikoff’s recent 92 birthday party the first thing Peikoff said to him is that he continued to support Trump, which Brook interpreted as an attempt to goad him into a discussion on Trump. Looks like Peikoff doesn’t think his intellectual capacity is as impaired as Brook thinks it is.
Speaking of Peikoff’s birthday party, Brook ended by saying that David Harriman (another Trump supporter) was at the party and spoke to Peikoff (apparently there had been some speculation that Peikoff and Harriman were no longer friendly). It's not clear why Brook dislikes Harriman, but he did say that eventually (“maybe sooner rather than later”) he’d tell everyone just what he thinks about him. Harriman is an interesting person. Long time watchers of Objectivism may recall that in 2000, Objectivist philosopher Allan Gotthelf (one of the few Objectivist philosophers at the time who specialized in non-Randian topics) published the book On Ayn Rand. This book was a volume of the Wadsworth Philosophers Series, a series of brief introductions to various thinkers, so it was likely to gain circulation outside of typical Objectivist circles. Although the book was fawning (for example Rand was always referred to as “Ayn Rand” and read like a precis of Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), Peikoff wasn’t amused and ganged up with Harriman to attack the book. They said it contained (unspecified) errors and wasn’t very exciting to read. (My guess is that the main factor was Gotthelf’s referencing Barbara Branden’s biography of Rand, a book which Peikoff said was evil, although conceding that he would never read it.)
Harriman also edited Rand’s journals for publication, a work which contained an introduction by Peikoff. In 2009, historian Jennifer Burns (who had access to the originals) said in her biography of Rand that the book was so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless. Harriman has in recent years admitted that Peikoff directed the editing and the book has its flaws.
Perhaps more significantly, Peikoff and Harriman collaborated on a theory of induction. The result was the book The Logical Leap published in 2010 (under Harriman’s name only). Shortly after the book was published, Objectivist historian of science John McCaskey wrote that, while he agreed with much of it, he thought it had its problems. McCaskey also was a wealthy businessman who supported Objectivist causes. Nonetheless, once McCaskey’s criticism came to Peikoff’s attention, Peikoff was irate. He threatened to withdraw his support from the ARI unless McCaskey was booted out. The Board (including Brook) caved to Peikoff. This schism resulted in collateral damage to others such as Craig Biddle and Diana Hsieh (no longer an Objectivist but at the time a prominent blogger and podcaster).
I don’t know how close Peikoff and Harriman are now, but given the McCaskey episode, you’d think Brook would be a bit more cautious. Also, it looks as if Peikoff’s main source of information on the outside world of Objectivism is the fabulist James Valliant with whom Brook doesn’t appear to be on good terms.
I’m not sure why Brook decided to “diss” fellow Objectivists particularly when the status of Peikoff’s estate may be uncertain. Peikoff has said that he’s leaving the rights to Rand’s novels to a committee. But he has also said that he’s leaving his books, his papers, Rand’s nonfiction and Rand’s papers to the ARI. The ARI gets a certain amount of “street cred” from its link to Rand by way of Peikoff. (Put in religious terms, the ARI considers itself in the line of Apostolic Succession.) A few possibilities:
1. Peikoff’s grant of the above-mentioned material to the ARI may be irrevocable.
2. In light of his claim that Peikoff left the political and cultural commentary to him, Brook wants to cement a claim that he is in effect Peikoff’s heir or at least the official ARI spokesman on these topics. Brook admits that he isn’t particularly knowledgeable on the finer points of Objectivist philosophy and tends to leave that to Objectivist philosophers he invites on his show occasionally.
3. The ARI is in a predicament with Peikoff’s position on Trump and immigration. The ARI has said that Rand would have denounced Trump and that its de facto open borders policy on immigration finds support in Rand’s work. Yet Rand’s proclaimed intellectual heir doesn’t agree with these positions. It looks like Brook is giving a warning shot to potential ARI dissenters -- Peikoff may get a pass because of his age and alleged lack of interest in politics but Bernstein, et al. don’t.
4. Maybe it’s just Brook’s personality: he admits that he has an abrasive style and thinks holding grudges is a virtue.**
_________________
*I reported on this schism in detail here and here.
**Perhaps a stretch, but religion may play a role. Bernstein, although an orthodox Objectivist, has been less critical of Christianity than many other Objectivists. Brook hates Christianity (although admitting that he doesn’t know much about it). In fact, he’s said that long-term Christianity is a greater threat to Europe than Islam. It’s been reported that Peikoff’s wife Grace is a practicing Christian as was his lady friend Alice in his retirement community.
No comments:
Post a Comment