I believe that the recent resurgence in the popularity of Ayn Rand's works is based in fear, a fear similar to the kind that slave owners felt while Atlanta was burning.
As an arrogant youth, I too was seduced by the logic of Ayn Rand, mostly because I felt that because I understood For the New Intellectual, I could assume my rightful place amongst them. It was a bit like Revenge of the Nerds. Having been shunned by those more popular, with popularity being based on a mindless willingness to conform, it was our turn to have a table in the lunchroom, to be the cool kids who didn't care whether the masses liked us or not, to shun others. Why? Cuz we were better than them, anyway!
I confess that, while my arrogance has diminished somewhat, I still share Rand's contempt for the masses, especially for their willingness to conform. Secretly, I hold them responsible for everything from the warfare of organized religion and the mediocrity of television to the existence of fast food and knick-knacks. Collectively, they represent the lowest common denominator---superstitious, easily manipulated, and eager to please the powerful. Why are they eager to please? Because they do not take responsibility for their own survival, but rather, foist the responsibility for it upon others without their consent. They expect jobs to be created for them. They want to continue to exist no matter what degree of exploitive indignity they are subjected to, no matter how immoral the job is, in order to prolong that existence. Their acquiescence, and subservience, to mediocrity and immorality in the name of survival at any cost without regard to quality of life has lowered the quality of my own life considerably, and yes, I resent them for it.
Government subsidized breeding has certainly lowered the national average intelligence by several points, making society a much lonelier place for those of us who fancy ourselves intellectuals. Of course, the government knows what it's doing, knows that it needs disposable bodies to fight its wars, minds incapable of original thought to follow orders. Although the Darwinian survival of the fittest paradigm is supposed to be the model for Ayn Rand's brand of capitalism, American capitalism is no such utopia. Of course, there are a few notable exceptions, like Bill Gates or Ted Turner. These are individuals that even I, as an arrogant self-proclaimed intellectual, would gladly grant my willing subservience. Actual mental giants, creative visionaries whose innovations benefit all of mankind, which I would love to participate in and take credit for in even some small way. The trouble with both Rand's followers and her detractors is that they tend to view things as either/or, in black and white.
The truth is that one cannot intelligently discuss being human without acknowledging the dual nature of humanity itself, that is, that we humans want to to free ourselves of the boundaries of our individual egos in order to become part of the universal ONE, simultaneously insignificant and completely necessary to the identity of the totality, at the same time that we want to be valued as individuals. We want to both worship and be worshipped. Rand preferred being worshipped to worshipping, but only because she was able to find so few worthy of worship. Yet in all of her works, one can see the hunger to worship, the emotional devastation of being denied that privilege by virtue of living in a society so mediocre that it produced so few worthy of even respect, much less worship. She had to create fictional characters to look up to, to worship.
I always laugh when one of her detractors points to her open marriage as evidence of her selfish lack of compassion because they are merely advocating the same religious and social conformity that leads us away from the unselfish compassion they claim to be advocating, towards judgmental dishonesty and denial of the human condition, which according to divorce statistics, isn't really a monogamous one. The one thing that does strike me about her works, however, is the absence of children. While I am in agreement that to foist responsibility for one's continued existence upon others without their consent is heinous, and breeds sadistic resentment, part of being human is willingly accepting responsibility for others by choice in exchange for the joy of the power and privilege that comes with that responsibility.
Rand, who wrote so much about non-consensual social power dynamics, wrote very little about consensual, mutually satisfying ones. Clearly, she was unable to have anything but contempt for those who, while perhaps having limited abilities, develop those abilities to their fullest in service to someone or something greater than themselves, and who do so with great beauty and dignity. Sadly, I am in agreement with her that too many do so in service of an imaginary God completely unworthy of such devotion. Equally unworthy of the gift of their service and devotion are those who have amassed great fortunes and therefore power, not by virtue of genius or innovation, but merely by exploiting the poverty and misfortune of others (indeed, causing it if necessary).
We long for the simplicity of Darwinian survival of the fittest, so long as we classify ourselves among the fittest. At times in our lives, we all fall into the category of helpless, dependent upon the herd to protect us. What would become of one such as Steven Hawking in Rand's utopia in which there are no children and those in need of assistance or protection are deemed unworthy of continued survival? There is no black and white choice between compassion and sociopathy. Many times, what poses as compassion is itself a form of sociopathy. One need only look to "helping" institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to be convinced that the wisest course of action to take when confronted by someone who wants to "help" you would be to flee, as fast and as far away as possible. No, when we have true compassion for someone, when we want to prolong their existence of our own free will, it is because their existence in some way enriches our own, and that is as it should be.
It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, yet nobody acknowledges that absolute powerlessness corrupts just as absolutely. Cruelty is cruelty, whether it is born of arrogance or of jealousy. The victims of the shootings at Columbine by those who felt rejected and powerless are no less dead than those hung from trees in the south by those who felt themselves powerful and superior.
All of us want power at times, while wishing to relinquish it at other times. Cruelty is born of the non-consensual aspects of the power exchanges that we all participate in on a daily basis. When we are forced to serve either persons or principles that we don't feel are worthy merely because we want to survive, we become cruel. Conversely, when we are forced to take responsibility for someone who does not enhance our lives in any way, we become cruel.
Consensual power exchange is educational and fun--having power teaches us the ways in which we are not yet ready to have it. It challenges us to become fit to hold it compassionately and successfully for longer periods of time. Voluntarily giving it up gives us freedom from responsibility for a time and the opportunity to learn humility, to learn to value, the beauty and dignity of service to others. Life cannot go forward without both vision, and service to carry out that vision, and humans need to be reminded that it is ultimately they who have the power over themselves to choose which role they want to play at any given time, to acknowledge and nurture both the powerful and the powerless within themselves.
Neither being powerful or powerless makes one worthy of contempt. It is the non-consensual cruelty that results from both refusing to own one's own power at all or refusing to ever accept the reality of one's own powerlessness that deserves contempt. So let's accept Rand's worthwhile contribution to the human dialogue as a link in our evolutionary process and move on. Let's reject mindless conformity and unprincipled mediocrity, but accept our full humanity, in all its gradations of power and ability.