True confessions: Dagny Taggart is the only fictional
character I ever fell in love with — or at least, when reading the
first third of Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged some two
decades ago, I was so smitten with the heroine that I wished
somebody like her would show up in real life. All of which explains
how high was the hurdle standing in the way of the movie version of
Atlas Shrugged if it wanted me to “buy in” to its
representation of the novel so iconic for individualists
everywhere. To a surprising degree, the new movie, which opens at
theatres April 15, cleared that hurdle. What’s so disturbing,
though, is that the frightening dystopia it portrays seems all too
real a possibility in today’s Obamaworld.
First, let’s dispense with the mini-review of the movie.
Produced by Harmon Kaslow and John Aglialoro and directed by Paul
Johansson, the movie — part one of three — stays remarkably
faithful to Rand’s script while moving it more than half a century
forward, to an eerily believable 2016. Dagny Taggart still runs a
railroad with her rotten brother James, and the railroad still is
plausibly depicted as such an integral part of the national economy
that major newscasts would breathlessly report on its major
initiatives. All the “moochers” and the influence peddlers are out
in full force as well, making their evil deals and abusing their
ill-gotten powers.
Rand fans may hate me for saying so, but only the first
third or so of the novel itself is gripping; after that, it’s
tedious and not-believable, and at places its philosophy borders on
the monstrous. The good news is that with this movie covering only
part one, it captures by far the best portion of the story. Better
still, it captures it well — entertainingly, with good pace. The
breadth and scope of the stakes are well explained; the scenes are
big and lush as Rand would have wanted, except for just those times
when Rand strove to create stifling intimacy. And actress Taylor
Schilling does a more than passable job at inhabiting heroine Dagny
— apart from about three or four quick scenes where her facial
expressions embarrassingly miss the mark, a flaw probably
correctable if a larger budget had allowed for more “takes” on each
scene. Schilling is sleek, determined, and an alluring blend of
indomitability and emotional semi-vulnerability.
One big problem: It’s almost impossible to have the
novel’s “big reveal,” its essential secret that in the book isn’t
really explained until far later in the story, make much sense
within the “part one” covered by this current film. The movie’s
ending really isn’t satisfying, therefore, and is probably even
less so for someone who hasn’t read the book. All that said,
though, the movie is largely a triumph. And the world it shows us
is the one we conservatives right now, right here, are fighting to
ward off.
Rand’s world is one in which the government’s power is
virtually limitless. There’s the “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule” and the
“Equalization of Opportunity Bill.” There is a law forbidding any
one person from owning more than one company. There’s a law
requiring economically well-off states (in this case, Colorado) to
support poor ones. There are unions going on strike and making
threats; a government-run institute of science with vast powers;
confiscatory taxation and flat-out seizures of private industry and
private property. It takes no great insight to see in Atlas
Shrugged previews of TARP and the automobile company takeover
(which still to me seems flat-out illegal) and so many Obama
initiatives. (See, for instance, this excellent column
by Stephen Moore.) Today, as in Rand’s world, virtually everything
productive is hampered; everything original is harnessed;
everything successful is looted. Offshore drilling is brought to a
standstill; oil shale goes undeveloped; nuclear waste depositories
aren’t allowed to be used; coal-burning plants are regulated with
almost unreachable emissions limits; consumer products are
subjected to prohibitively expensive testing for nonexistent
lead and other mythical dangers.
The Justice Department is a den
of
lawlessness. Inspectors general in several
departments are abused.
The administration is found in contempt of court and still
ignores a judge’s order on drilling, and ignores a judge’s order on
Obamacare, and refuses to defend the constitutionality of a law
(the Defense of Marriage Act) which, the administration even
admits, has overwhelming precedent on its side. Selective
compliance with official Freedom of Information requests. Ignoring
lawful subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Intruding into local schoolyards on jihads against heterosexual
“bullies.” Repeatedly imposing new environmental regulations
without congressional authority. On and on the abuses go. This is a
regime in which constitutional limits are no object; it will do
whatever it thinks it can get away with, and even do some things it
isn’t sure it can get away with but is willing to risk
trying.
This is power based not on merit or achievement, but
enforced (in effect) at the point of a gun — or, when it can’t use
government controls, then by ginning up mobs of union goons and
other assorted thugs. And it’s exactly the sort of scenario — in
kind, if not yet in degree — brought to life in both the book and
movie of Atlas Shrugged. It is not much of a stretch, not
much at all, to see in today’s administration the belief, outlined
with disgust by Rand, that “it was society’s duty to see that no
competitor ever rose beyond the range of anybody who wanted to
compete with him.” It is not a stretch to see Obama create a
“Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources.” On the other
hand, as Michael Barone just
noted is true in our age as well, the states that thrive in
Rand’s land as in our own are those where “they don’t even have a
modern government.… It does nothing — outside of keeping law
courts and a police department. It doesn’t do anything for the
people. I don’t see why all our best companies want to run
there.”
Of course we conservatives know that a state with a
limited government is a state to which people will flock. We know
that freedom, not state planning, leads to prosperity and
fulfillment (or at least the best chances thereto). We know that
“entitlement” is the precursor of laziness, and of failure, while
the converse — market rewards for success — breeds a stronger
society.
And we know that the Dagny Taggarts of the world are the
ones who bear the world’s weight, while the Obamites suck the
lifeblood from us. Dagny may be merely fictional, but she’s still
worth being smitten by. Smitten by, and emulated. And that means
resisting the looters in the White House, through every legal
means, with every fiber of our being.
