April 1989

I am writing to comment on your Calendar of Individual Freedom, two copies of which I bought for 1989. While reading through the months, I was quite impressed until I read the caption for October 20, 1989. In both the American and Canadian versions there is a disparaging remark about Ayn Rand and her role in the House Un-American Activities Committee of 1947. In both captions you state that she was "aware" that her testimony would harm movie industry creators, or that people were being punished for un-American activities. I would very much like to know how you decided to include such an unprovable assertion in your calendar. Did Ayn Rand tell you or someone else this? I doubt it. So how can you assert what she was or was not aware of?

The caption asserts that the Committee was looldng at socialist activities. It is my understanding that the concerns were with communism. Now while I would not for a moment suggest that the state has any business telling anyone what they may think or say about anything, one must remember that the communists are the most malignant of the collectivist-statist forces.

Their goal in general is the eradication of freedom in any form and in particular the destruction of the one country that serves as the last bastion of the political realization of that concept. With that in mind, why shouldn't the government work to see where communists are at work and what their activities are? I have no objection to anyone expressing any viewpoint, but when they try to impose it on me, I would hope my government would protect me.

I was led to believe that your party was founded on the principles of Objectivism, and based on some other quotes of Ayn Rand in the calendar, you appear to have at least an inkling as to how important her ideas are to the cause of freedom. So why the cheap shot? It is something I would have expected from a Libertarian organization; while they love to plagiarize her thoughts, particularly those on politics, they incessantly snipe at her for perceived or imagined flaws.

I had looked forward to putting calendars up in my office and at home, but to date they remain and will remain unused. It is regrettable that an otherwise constructive project would be impaired by such a petty comment.

Michael Aubrey, M.D.
NEWMARKET, Ontario

EDITOR: Your understanding that the Committee's concerns were with communists is correct. In fact, it was an error we discovered and corrected between the printing of our U.S. edition (which was printed earlier) and the Canadian edition where you will find we deleted the word "socialists" and the corrected caption reads: "Ayn Rand testifies to House Un-American Activities Committee, aware such information will harm various movie industry creators (1947)"

But no "cheap shot" was intended. In fact, by her own admission, it appears that October 20, 1947 was a bad day for Ayn Rand herself, not just a bad day in the history of freedom.

According to Barbara Branden's biography of Rand (Passion of Ayn Rand, Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1986): "Friends were later to observe that Ayn appeared to have uncomfortably mixed feelings about both the committee's validity and her own appearance before it. ... 'The hearings were a disgusting spectacle', Ayn was to say in contempt when she spoke of them in later years; Ayn would say 'The whole thing is an ugly, unpleasant memory for me. I disliked being there, I disliked the attitude of most of the committee, I disliked the futility of most of the conservatives --- they had no idea how to fight an intellectual battle --- and I was furious. I couldn't do what I went there to do.' "

According to Branden, and contrary to popular opinion, it was not only the "unfriendly" witnesses who were subjected to Hollywood blacklistings, but "friendly" witnesses as well:

"Many of them were told, tacitly or openly , that co-operation with the committee would be professionally damaging to them. When an acquaintance of Ayn congratulated her on her courage in agreeing to testify, she replied, 'I'm not brave enough to be a coward. I see the consequences too clearly.' "

Of course, Rand was speaking of the philosophical and political consequences, apparently not of the consequences her testimony could have on potentially innocent individuals. We refer you to pages 199-203 of Barbara Branden's book for a complete accounting of the event, including several additional references by Rand herself.

We should mention that the fact we chose to highlight this date as a "bad" day in the history of freedom was not intended as a reflection of Ayn Rand's ideas or philosophy. It was a "bad" day for everyone involved, and serves as an example of the type of committees that should be avoided and condemned.

The lesson to be learned by the experience was the opposite of what you suggest --- that the government should "work to see where communists are at work and what their activities are." As Rand herself concluded: "it was a very dubious undertaking. ...If their focus was to expose communism, it had to be done ideologically --- but it's improper for a government agency to do it."

Whether you find our responses to your concerns adequate, we find it regrettable that on the basis of a single entry in our Calendar(s) of Individual Freedom you have chosen to disregard the hundreds of other entries with which you stated you were "quite impressed". Why?

Like those who refuse to support Freedom Party on the basis of one or two issues with which they disagree (while agreeing with virtually every other issue and platform), consider the unnecessary obstacle you have placed in your way when it comes to advancing and supporting those ideas and issues you do agree with. Unless your disagreement is fundamental in nature (ie. a disagreement based on principle or philosophy), what possible benefit is achieved by such action?

We can't think of any. So before the year is out, we hope you'll follow through with your original plans to place the calendars in your home and office. They were intended to create controversy and discussion. If you throw out the baby with the bath water, the baby might die.