For original source and to check out more material on both Rand and Russell Madden, click here.

In Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, writer Jennifer Burns manages to cloak a biographical “analysis” of one of the most influential pro-liberty figures in a thin veil of impartial academic respectability while simultaneously trying to discredit and undercut the woman and the ideas that form the core of her presentation.

Burns seems to do well at accurately presenting various facts about Rand’s life, her supporters, and her detractors. Though I’m sure she did extensive research and saw sources few others have utilized, unfortunately, not much of new significance is revealed here. The average person will care little what was in some fan letter or how Rand came to change her given name. For those who have read extensively in this area, such tidbits will also fail to provide much sustenance. Much is made of Rand’s use of amphetamines, her growing disillusionment with the world as she aged, and her dysfunctional relationships. All of this is old news.

One reviewer in another venue gushed that this book drew him in, that he finished it in a day. Well, I managed to finish it in a couple of weeks. It’s serviceable. I do have to admire the amount of time and effort Burns put into this tome. Too bad the end result was so lacking in insight and wrong in interpretation.

Despite her extensive readings and interviews, Burns seems to little understand either Objectivism or even libertarianism. Yes, she can summarize or regurgitate the ideas and the words, but her grasp of essentials seems woefully inadequate. A number of instances come to mind. For example, Burns latches on to Rand’s atheism and concludes but for that disagreement, Objectivism would fit snugly within the political right. But opposing the Right/Objectivism with the Left simply perpetuates the myth that the Right and the Left are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, with Rand’s views somewhere “over there” next to the Republicans. But for Rand and Objectivists, atheism is a secondary issue, a result of the basic principles, not a central tenet. It is the Left and the Right that exist on the end of the political spectrum that declares the State owns our lives, differing (barely these days...) on what shall be controlled and how. Libertarians and Objectivists are diametrically opposed to any notion that politicians and government agencies have any right to dictate how adults shall peacefully live their lives. We each own our own lives and property. We are not slaves. By persisting in this theme throughout her book, Burns undercuts her credibility whenever she crosses the line from merely presenting facts to interpreting those facts.

Other examples: repeating the old myth that Objectivism and individualism are “atomistic,” that these views are antagonistic to cooperation and mutual benefit; that Objectivism claims that emotions are to be ignored and is wrong to believe that emotions are founded in thought; that bringing up Kant’s views is “kooky”; that Objectivism opposes helping others; that Atlas Shrugged denigrates the “little guy”; well, it’s not worth my time to fully catalog all of Burns’s errors regarding Objectivism, freedom, libertarianism, or Rand. (For more such examples, see this review.)

Given the accuracy here of the facts about Rand’s life, what grates most is the subtle but distinct disdain Burns evidences — not just for Objectivist principles — but for principled action and freedom, in general. The disparaging adjectives she slides into her narrative; her sympathy for professors who, oh so sadly, must deal with students using Rand as source material in their papers; the undercurrent that conveys the notion that freedom and Objectivist ideals are naive, unrealistic, and often just plain wrong. Yes, Burns acknowledges Rand’s influence on the Right and in society, in general. I suspect, however, that she does not view that situation as necessarily a positive one. Why she wanted to write about a person and a philosophy she has such little sympathy with is beyond me.

I have no desire to defend the mistakes that Rand or Branden or any of those people made. But while Burns nudges the reader to blame the very philosophy of Objectivism and its ideas for those errors, I realize that the human failings of Rand et al. occurred precisely because they failed to adhere to the principles they professed to believe. Perhaps because I read Rand in my thirties I escaped some of the misinterpretations and misapplications that younger people are prone to. But the ignorance or failures of any individual or set of individuals says nothing about the validity and applicability of any philosophy...and most assuredly not that of Objectivism.

For a reader who knows little of Rand or the issues surrounding the rise of libertarianism over the past century, this book might prove a useful summary and introduction — as long as the above caveats are kept in mind. For anyone who truly understands freedom, who truly understands Objectivism, who truly understands him- or herself, the niggling annoyances of Burns’s judgments, biases, and errors will serve to diminish the value that all her hard work was intended to produce.