Setting the stage...

I'm writing on this Substack from a perspective that's heavily influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Even as I write that, I’m well aware that some number of people will stop reading and automatically reject my ideas because of their disdain for Rand and for Objectivism. That’s unfortunate, because this isn’t just a hobby — and also because, in spite of the way she’s perceived and discussed in the mainstream, her ideas are profoundly important.

The problem is, I get it. Some of those who attack Rand and her ideas do so because she challenges their most closely-held beliefs — altruism on “the left” and religion on “the right.” Many who reject her, though, do so because they simply misunderstand her ideas, in part because all they know is what they’ve heard from those with a vested interest in making sure they don’t understand. It’s likely safe to say that relatively few people have read her works and even fewer sufficiently so that they can fully grasp what she said.

But there’s another problem, one that I’ve long suspected (I’ve been aware of Objectivism and its place in our culture for 40 years) but only recently became utterly obvious to me. Many of those who call themselves “Objectivists,” denoting their agreement with and advocacy of the philosophy, are some of its most unfortunate representatives in how well (or poorly) they understand the philosophy and apply it to reality. Even Rand herself had a harsh, polemical rhetorical style, which many Objectivists mimic, that I suspect turned many people off and failed to reach those below a certain basic level of philosophical readiness.

What I mean is: I would wager good money that Objectivism, such that it represents a philosophical movement, has largely been its own worst enemy. Confirming my suspicion is what seems to me the rather bizarre active support among many Objectivists for Donald Trump and those closely associated with him.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir and long the most respected Objectivist scholar, is a case in point. He wrote an endorsement of Donald Trump titled “Anti-Trumpites for Trump” that was published on November 4, 2024, so the day before the election. I won’t go into the details of my profound disagreement with that endorsement here.

But, suffice it to say that I found it — at best — to reflect what someone might have wanted to believe about Trump in 2015 but that has subsequently been proven patently false. I find it hard to comprehend how anyone can know the facts and write what Peikoff wrote. Most pertinent, anyone reading the endorsement and noting the connection with Ayn Rand and Objectivism will come way with the worst possible impression of both.

Rarely have I experienced an Objectivist communicating in the mainstream with a level of factual knowledge and a voice that might appeal to those unfamiliar with or in disagreement with the philosophy’s basic principles. Those who I enjoy reading the most, such as Robert Tracinski, aren’t always explicit in how their ideas are impacted by Objectivism. That’s fine, of course, there’s nothing that says a person must display an Objectivist badge, but it’s not conducive to presenting the philosophy more widely in what might be a more palatable fashion.

If you’ve read this far and you’re not already positively inclined toward Objectivism, I hope you will accept the premise that the philosophy might be something other than what you’ve been led to believe. This applies primarily to those unfamiliar with Rand’s works. I’m sure I won’t change the mind of anyone already convinced that they know what Objectivism is and who believes it’s wrong, or worse. And I’m okay with that.

I'm sure that some of my readers — whether or not they stick around — will be explicitly Objectivist. I am also reasonably sure that some of what I write here will alienate some of them. That’s fine, too. I want this Substack to reach as wide an audience as possible, in part because, as I said above, it’s not just a hobby. I want to provide value that people are willing to pay for. But, I won’t compromise myself to get there.

Independence is a cardinal Objectivist virtue. As such, I acknowledge no authority to which I owe allegiance. All aspects of my philosophy and my applications of it, whether derived from Any Rand’s works or on my own, are the result of my own, independent thought. I have validated, for myself, the principles of Objectivism such that I am confident to use them in living my life.

But there are numerous applications of the philosophy made by many people, including Rand herself, with which I strongly disagree. If you’re an Objectivist, it likely won’t take long to run across some of those applications as I flesh out this Substack. If that causes you to stop reading, then there’s nothing I can, or will, do about it.

I do hope that this Substack has a wide audience. I hope that not only because the Objectivist community is likely too small to sustain me financially (to the extent that even they would support me). It’s also because I would like to see Ayn Rand’s ideas less repudiated than they are outside of Objectivist circles and I don’t want to merely preach to the choir. We’ll see if I’m successful.