First a liberal has to admit there are other viewpoints just as valid as their own.
Second, you'd have to spend money and give them the DVD so they can say later, when they deny the truths, that they didn't spend their" money on the damn thing.
Lastly, liberals can't ignore the reviews/media, its their collective brain where they get their walking orders from.

Ayn Rand has never influenced my views, my morals or my sense of life. She helped me put into words what I already knew. She helped me define my values. I was introduced to Ayn Rand’s philosophy at a very early age by both of my brothers and I fell in love with her immediately. My response to her was “But of course!”.

I told a liberal friend that he sounded like a villain our of an Ayn Rand novel when he said something that was almost a direct quote of Ellsworth Toohey from "The Fountainhead". He took it as a complement.

Good post. +1. This is what I want to see in the Gulch, a philosophical discussion, not another political/religious post.

Liberals generally refuse to be educated beyond what their propaganda masters tell them. I had a discussion with a socialist, who was dumbfounded when I quoted Karl Marx, Lenin,Trotsky, and Stalin, showing him I knew more about his philosophy than he did. I also have Hitler's Mein Kampf in my library, and his favorite philosopher, Nietsche's Man and Superman (Hitler completely misread that work).

Those volumes are accompanied by Adam Smith's tomes on capitalism and morality, Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, and a broad spectrum of religious works. I also have all of the military strategy volumes (a result of a 20 year Air Force career), as well as antiwar and anti-military writings. My technical library is extensive as well. You won't find such a collection in a liberal's library.

My brother in law, who has two technical PhDs, is a serious liberal, but I assumed someone with his education would at least be willing to consider alternative views. No such luck. He quit trying to engage me on points of philosophy and politics, because he said I was "unfair" for relying on facts and logic, instead of feelings. I have little hope you'll have much luck convincing any liberal to watch Atlas Shrugged.

Unfortunately, the liberal thought process isn't based on logic and truth. It is only based on their feelings about themselves and how others see them. The liberals in power don't care about any of their stated "issues" either. They only care about the end result flogging these issues in conveying power to them.

That Ayn Rand advocated against racism has no meaning for them because her premise starts with freedom for all. That is not what a liberal is about. They want freedom and power for themselves and themselves alone. Flogging the racism issue is only a means to that end. That is why racism can never be "cured".

As such, it is my layman's observation and opinion that liberalism is a mental disorder that must be studied and classified as such. Megalomaniacs, narcissists, and maybe even, if I may be so harsh, schizophrenics have nothing on liberals.

The liberals hate Ayn Rand because they are unwilling to see the truth in her philosophy and the hypocritical results of their stated intentions for the greater good.

Amazing article!
Though I would be surprised if it gets read by those who should read it the most.

I recall AS1 having a strong influence on me. Up until then I had never heard of Ayn Rand (or if I heard the name it went into one dino ear and out the other).
It was a Christmas gift from a brother who later Santa Claus followed up with A2 and A3
Now years later my memory of it has become cloudy. Think I'll stick it back into my DVD player tonight should no other distraction present itself.

I had read the book in college (@64-66) just after "The Fountainhead" which a friend had given me. When the 35ft Anniversary Edition showed up as a book club reading selection I bought it and have read both in succession three or four times since then. What struck me first was that actions of Mouch, Ferris, and James Taggart read like the playbook for the Obama administration. Odious regulations, conformity to 'public opinion' (a la Ellsworth Tooey), and equalization (redistribution) of wealth and resources to make things fair, the public good of which the public has no input but the politicians know what's best; "I'm from the government and here to help you!", No thanks. The last is the destruction of those who oppose the above, Hank Reardon, read Donald Trump, for the liberals are still at it. The scary thing in Part II that became reality was when Obama told businesses, "You didn't create that!" They had no right to the exclusivity of their processes or patents, they should be shared by all.
Part I and Part II caught the essence and spirit of the book, (Part III was a mish-mash on a cheap budget that deviated fo far from the book that I can't..!), I'll even forgive some time-line shifts but miss certain nuances, especially Eddie Willers who opens the story line, acts as the common man caught up in events he has no direct control over but is affected by them, and in the end is looking into the uncertainty by the light of the engine following the tracks which disappear into the uncertain darkness. The tag at the end is only a promise.
For liberals to watch this would be like holding up a mirror to their souls and they would either turn away or dismiss it conservative propaganda; it is but it was a vision of the future which they made reality. They won't like it because it mostly about people expressing ideas (a real no no), talking; the action is limited to a train wreck, pouring Reardon Metal, and the oil field fire!
"I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine!" The antithesis of liberal doctrine: the subjucation of individualism, the bending of the will to serve the state, and the abolition of liberty and freedom!

Most liberals didn't like A.S.1 for two reasons. #1 No big explosions or car chases. #2 Dwayne Johnson wasn't in it.

Maybe liberals would be more willing to see it if you quit tarring them all with the same brush and assuming they're all alike and hold the same views? I know of many liberals who've read the book and have varying views on it.

Well, if they are sincere on wanting to serve the public good, this might wake them up. The problem is that they are not sincere.

I was having a discussion about rational self interest with a very left-leaning family member the other day. I made the comment that I believe it to be true that most people on this planet are actually good people and want to leave happy, productive, and honest lives. He was absolutely appalled and perplexed at my "idealism" and declared that he believes in the exact opposite. I thought that was a pretty sad, cynical world view, but it explains everything.

It would be totally useless for hillary supporters (liberals) to be exposed to Objectivism. Their attraction to collectivism is 100% EMOTIONAL, and has no relation to reason. They should go live in Venezuela or one of the socialist havens and be happy there.

Amazing article, not to degrade the benefits of Part II, or Part III. Now I'm going to have to go back and review my AS Video's ( I got 'em all) again, just to hear some of those lines that may have just gone over my head the first time. And I just might have to send your link to the few liberal friends I have left the next time they send me some of their biased media links. In fact I might even invite them to a showing at my house. And if they admit that they appreciate it I just might even loan them one of my copies of Atlas Shrugged. I've even got one reel of the film, of which I was supposed to get the rest to have a complete set, but never did.

I'd suggest not just liberals, but everyone watch Part I.

I have heard interviews with Shermer on scientific/skepticism podcasts, and I agree with this article.
"So...liberals, conservatives, progressives, libertarians, Tea Partiers, and politicos of all stripes — ignore the reviews and go see Atlas Shrugged for yourself and tell me what you think. Ayn Rand is not who you’ve heard she is. Read her works, watch the film, and judge for yourself."
That's so true. His suggest also applies to non-politicos of all stripes. In one of the movies (I can't remember it being in the book) Dagny tells her brother it's amazing how much you can accomplish if you stop playing politics and just roll up your sleeves and get to work.

I have a real problem with so-called liberals, referring to themselves as "Liberals." They are NOT! As are most of the folks who comment here, and as are most Conservatives, I am a Liberal! I believe in freedom of thought and expression, in people being free to do what they want, so long as they do not infringe on others' rights. They are NOT free to throw cigarettes out of a car window, etc., etc. - but are free to think and act pretty much as they wish. If you agree with the "Golden Rule," you are a liberal. Many refer to the fascists who shut down free speech at Berkeley as "Liberals." REALLY?

Hello, K,

Great contribution. Thank you. I will save it in my files for then being able to hand it out as a lesson for people who attack AR without ever having read a line from her writings.

Thanks, again. All the best to you.

Sincerely,
Maritimius

I'm a liberal and have read Atlas Shrugged twice and own all the DVD's. The problem I have with conservatives is that they are not objective at all. I don't think Ayn would agree with their lack of reason. Where are all the real thinkers? For instance, trickle down economics has never worked, yet the Republicans are at it again. Second, people need to have money in their pocket to spend so they buy things and companies have to hire more people. Thus raising the minimum wage is a good idea.

I'm not for socialism, but the military is where we spend most of our money and that is true socialism The government owns every tank, gun, and bomb etc.

Objectivism to me is being objective and too often our politicians and Ayn Rand supporters are not objective at all. She would be ashamed.