It’s a great article that delves into the what and why of how Rand — like many of us — came to curse most republicans and conservatives, declaring them avowed enemies.
Mr. Buckley and his National Review were trying to
build a politically viable postwar right, including a border fence
around respectable conservatism. Rand’s ferocious and uncompromising
opposition, not only to any government action beyond protecting
individual rights, but also to religion and tradition for its own sake,
put her outside that fence. She was too absolutist, too outrageous, too
After that Chambers review, Rand saw mainstream conservatism as her avowed enemy.
And they were. And they still are.
Yet many conservatives still loved her, even if as a sometimes guilty pleasure…
Big deal. She was anti-commie and minimalist government; and communism and big government are the biggest threats to the conservative ideal of eventually ushering in an authoritarian, inquisitorial, tortuous "Christian Nation, under God."
It is not one wit more important or mysterious than the practical admonition to make the enemy or your enemy your friend. It’s not like they have the intellectual will or honesty to acknowledge that the strength of her devastating arguments against a totalitarian state — that would oppress religion — reseted upon her metaphysics and epistemology, both of which are atheist. And if that’s not enough, those very same arguments are even stronger against theocratic totalitarian states; which, in their heart of hearts, is what most religious conservatives long for: so that their fairy tales may be continually reaffirmed, and their doubts quashed, through the blood and suffering of infidels.
Billy has good commentary, which is where I picked up on the link.