Am I the only one who doesn't either idolize Ayn Rand as some brilliant savior or demonize her as one of the greatest evils of the 20th century? I just see her as an intelligent woman who had some interesting ideas and insights, and I think it's possible to find some value in her work without accepting the philosophy of Randian Objectivism wholesale.
She was completely right about a few things: her praise of creative expression and technological advancement, her support for women's rights and sexual freedom and legalized abortion, her condemnation of racism and nationalism, her opposition to war and police brutality and draconian security policies and Trump-style crony capitalism, her denouncement of the Soviet Union and other totalitarian dictatorships. Her essay "Racism" remains one of the most compelling anti-racist works I've ever read.
She was also completely and horribly wrong about a few things. Her disdain for homosexuality was completely baseless, rooted in nothing but anti-queer bigotry and personal disgust. Likewise, her dislike of "primitive" cultures led her to support certain forms of imperialism, which sadly undercut a lot of her anti-racist and anti-war and anti-authoritarian messages. And while she was certainly more feminist than the average person of her time, she still had some deeply problematic views on the role of women in sexual and romantic relationships. Yet these flaws were almost entirely unrelated to her philosophy as a whole, and in many ways actually contradicted the tenets of her overall philosophy (which is why even die-hard Randians disagree with her on these points).
But for the most part, she wasn't wholly right or wholly wrong, she just had some good ideas that she took way too far. It's true that collectivism can be used as an excuse for bigotry, oppression, and naked power grabs. It's true that individuality is a crucially important aspect of the human experience that should be valued. It's true that people are better off when they can stand on their own and be self-reliant, and that it's generally bad for them to be in a position of perpetual dependency. I just don't think any of that justifies a complete rejection of welfare or mutual aid. There's a balance to be found between enslaving all individuals to the collective "we," and complete social atomization. There's a balance between devoting your entire life to others at the expense of your own happiness, and complete disregard for what happens to anyone but yourself.
Rand was right to condemn the grotesque collectivism of Fascism and Communism, but made the mistake of going to the opposite extreme. As the old saying goes, "the polar opposite of a very bad idea is usually another very bad idea." Still, I'm thankful for her contribution to sociopolitical philosophy, as deeply flawed as it is.
