What’s remarkable about these essays is not that they’re sloppy, error-filled, slanted, or smears. These essays are apt case studies of a tribalist mindset. Both articles, moreover, cite sources, name facts, and even include some actual reporting - all in support of their highly unfavorable conclusions. One asks about the appeal of Rand’s ideas among young people the other is on the relation between Rand’s moral ideal of selfishness and President Trump. It’s not because of what these articles say about her, but in how they say it.īoth articles raise worthwhile questions - at least, nominally.

Two recent articles about Rand - one in Salon, the other in the New Republic - are different. Rand quipped to him, “People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast.”īut articles that misrepresent, or outright distort, Rand’s ideas continually find their way into print. The editor, Harry Binswanger, relates that Rand became increasingly enthusiastic about the Lexicon project, in part because it could serve as a corrective and eliminate any excuse for the continual misrepresentation of her philosophy. That fact came up in a conversation she had with the editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon, a kind of mini encyclopedia of her philosophy, Objectivism. Inaccurate, misrepresented, and even willfully distorted reporting on Ayn Rand’s ideas has been common in the media since she first gained public prominence.

Ayn rand was an avowed