Making Atlas Shrug

I read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for the first time when I was in high school, and more than thirty years later, it has remained one of the most influential books in my life. I have seen reviews that dismiss the literary merits of the book, and those criticisms may be valid. The power of Atlas Shrugged is not in its prose, but in its ideas.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel in which “men of the mind” become so disgruntled with socialism and elitism that they quit; the productive members of the society (industrialists, innovators, technologists, etc.) simply “resign” from their work and emigrate to a secret enclave where they re-establish a world based on personal liberty, free-market capitalism and merit. These producers “disappear” through a technology that allows them to live unseen behind a “force field.” It’s like a magician’s trick that makes the elephant disappear – it’s there, but you can’t see it anymore.

As this “brain drain” occurs, it is as if Atlas – the mythical titan who carries the world on his back – has shrugged, relieving himself of the burden of the non-productive parasites of society (especially governmental and media figures) who provide no value while taking as much as they can through political power and social pressure. When the “men of the mind” quit, they leave politicians and other non-producers nothing to commandeer. Slowly, inexorably, the stability and progress of society begins to disappear.

Just from this brief overview, many readers won’t understand the conflict in Rand’s story. They don’t see government or “social activists” as enemies of productivity or freedom, and they won’t understand why anyone would want to “quit” being productive. But if you read the book, you’ll get it. Of course, the book is over 1000 pages, so for those who can’t handle the volume, here’s a summary of the essential conflict of Atlas Shrugged:

“When the minds of men are free and the resources of the world are apportioned under free enterprise, those who rise to leadership are those who combine original thought, resources and strong work ethics. In a shackled society, those who rise to leadership are those who use their minds to enslave and control others. The latter people fear men who can actually make things and do things, and they work constantly to maintain control over them.”

The preceding was a quote from a September 2007 article from Access to Energy, a “Pro-Science, Pro-Technology, Pro-Free Enterprise Monthly newsletter.” I don’t think you can find a better three-sentence summation of the conflict between producers and controllers, between freedom and socialism, between an ethic that produces wealth and one that wants to seize it.

For Rand, it takes a fictional contrivance to free productive human beings from those who would attempt to control them and subordinate their productivity. In real life, it’s hard to escape the clutches of greedy governments and envious individuals. But that doesn’t mean productive people can’t effectively “shrug” off some of the parasites that beset them. Sometimes, quitting is a very effective response to controlling individuals and organizations. From personal experience, I have found the Atlas Shrugged approach to be effective in some situations, although it may require to taking steps backward in order to go forward. As an example:

For past five years, I was very involved in a non-profit organization. Not only did I volunteer my time, but the bulk of my charitable giving went to the organization as well. Over the course of my involvement (including a stint as treasurer), I became increasingly aware of some negative actions on the part of the organization’s leadership. Several other individuals shared these concerns. After further investigation confirmed the detrimental behaviors, we attempted to correct and improve the situation. When these efforts were rebuffed, we withdrew our financial support and left the organization.

It was difficult to leave behind friends, and walk away from the personal and financial investments we had made in the organization. Further, I know our collective departure immediately impacted the financial well-being of the organization, which has made it harder for the good people still there. And since I am committed to charitable involvement, I’m faced with the task of looking for new places to invest my time, energy and dollars. Initially, leaving was a step backward.

But continuing to stay in the organization (and continuing to fund it) would have enabled the leadership and allowed the procedural problems to persist. Ultimately, our departure spurred direct action from the remaining members, exposed some of the issues to a wider audience, and prompted an oversight committee to be brought in.

SHOULD ATLAS SHRUG AT THE VOTING BOOTH THIS FALL?

As it has been for the past century, the focus of the upcoming 2008 presidential election will be on the Republican and Democratic candidate. But what if you don’t particularly like either one? What’s the value of voting for someone who doesn’t remotely represent your perspectives?

The problem here is that both the parties and the media frame the election discussion as an exclusive contest between the two parties. Everyone in America has to choose between red and blue; there are no other options.

For the pundits, not voting is considered an act of treason, and voting for anyone other than the two major party candidates is a waste of “your precious vote.” But the logical consequence of this you-must-vote-either-Democrat-or-Republican perspective is to support someone you don’t like who will probably deliver some things (via taxes, legislation and the bully-pulpit) you don’t want. Is this a win-win arrangement? I don’t think so. Continuing to vote for unacceptable candidates because you see them as the “lesser of two evils” only allows the evils to be perpetuated.

If enough people stopped voting, it is much more likely that better candidates and better ideas would come forward. Instead of seeing their chances as almost nil because of the two-party monopoly, the number of non-voters would be great enough to convince third- or fourth-party candidates that they had a real chance at winning. And knowing there exists a sizable number of potential voters which could remove them from office, the two dominant parties would have to seriously consider adjusting their policies as well.

All governments, even repressive ones, know the power of their citizens. If the populace is against you, your regime cannot last. In repressive political systems, the tipping point comes when the people’s dissatisfaction overcomes their fear of punishment. In democratic societies, political parties lose their power when people stop voting for them. As long as people keep voting for one of the Democrats or Republicans, they continue to give the two parties power and relevance.

Of course, the short-term consequences of a non-voting approach could initially make things worse. If the only remaining voters are “true believers” who support the principles and candidates of the two dominant parties, their zeal might embolden them to more aggressively pursue their agendas. For either the Republicans or Democrats, this will mean more governmental control and less personal freedom. The apologists for the current two-party system will say “If only you had voted! Your vote, and others like yours, could have been a moderating influence and lessened the damage.”

Perhaps. But continuing to vote for organizations and individuals that don’t represent your views or values may only prolong your problems. And it will almost certainly never solve them. (Do you really think either the Democrat or Republican parties are on the verge of repudiating their current policies and returning greater economic and personal freedom to the citizens?)

If there isn’t a candidate worthy of your vote, then voting for the lesser of two (or more) evils only enables bad candidates to believe they are worthy. Maybe it’s time for the American voter to shrug like Atlas.