In a rare fit of ambition, I began reading the truly epic Ayn Rand novel, Atlas Shrugged, with the intention of finishing it by the time school starts in a few weeks. At the moment, I’m up to page 217. (I guess that makes me about 1/6 of the way through.)

While I’m not quite ready to lay down my liberal ideals at the altar of the free market, these first few chapters have brought on some hardcore thinking and questioning – and a whole lot of inner turmoil.

Obviously, mine is a simplistic (and likely quite flawed) interpretation of Rand’s philosophy, since I still have much, much more to read. I’m just afraid that I’ll forget everything I’m thinking if I don’t write it down now. I’ll try to keep this as coherent and organized as possible, starting with my thoughts at a societal level, and moving down to the level of the individual. I also plan to revisit these ideas as I progress through the book.

Overall, I find myself agreeing with quite a bit of what Rand has to say – up to a certain point. Much of her philosophy, at least as I understand it so far, seems to be very pro-free market, and very anti-government regulation. First of all, I’m beginning to realize how much I tend to sell short the private sector. I appreciate the idea that good businesspeople should be free to produce good products. The good will rise to the top, and the not-so-good will go under. In theory, that seems fine enough, but I’m still skeptical as to how that really works in practice. I don’t think it does.

Another thing that really struck me has been her scathing portrayal of shirking and bureaucratic ineptitude. With these people, nothing ever gets done, because no one wants to take responsibility. Everybody’s covering their asses, all of the time. I’ll admit, the government does fuck a lot of stuff up and can be frustratingly inefficient. It’s maddening, even to someone who is generally a cheerleader for the public sector. However, these shortcomings are found in the private sector, as well (something that Rand acknowledges) – and I still believe that the government’s role can, ideally, provide something of a needed balance to the private sector. I still think that some degree of regulation is a pretty good idea.

Intertwined with this is the concept that everyone is not equal, and to presume otherwise is misguided idealism at best, jealous sabotage at worst. To be of value, one must be productive. Of course, I’m still a little murky on what Rand means by ‘”productive.” She seems to idolize the people running large businesses. The people creating great works of art. The people who are producing. The most depraved form of humanity, according to Rand, is the “man without a purpose.”

Productivity is undoubtedly something that should be encouraged and rewarded. But Rand seems to favor the bottom line over interpersonal relations. Here’s where I find myself terribly conflicted. It seems that taken to its extreme, her philosophy comes perilously close to a kind of social Darwinism. The weak should be left by the wayside. Compassion is a waste of energy.

Is there no use for humanitarianism? Must everything be driven by pure self-interest?

Of course, I think Rand might argue that to not pity and coddle others, is to show true compassion. I’ll buy that. To a degree. And I kind of like her emphasis on meritocracy. She shows as much disdain for those who are simply born into money and do nothing to earn it as she does for the “moochers” who push for arbitrary redistribution of wealth. I can appreciate the idea that hard work should be rewarded, but that just because you have more money, doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily worth more as a human.

I think that seems very fair. But again, I think what sounds appealing in theory isn’t necessarily so in practice. I don’t believe that we live in that kind of world. Bad, “purposeless” people prosper, while decent, hard-working folks don’t always get ahead. And, while a meritocracy may be just, it can be hard to digest for those of us who suddenly realize that we might not have the same “value” as others. The appeal of “everyone is equal” is in the fact that the alternative is very, very uncomfortable.

This is where it gets painfully personal.

I can accept the idea that not everyone is of equal merit. That seems rather obvious. There are the “go-getters” – the people with ideas and the drive to see their ideas realized, and they should certainly be recognized as such. People who sit around and do nothing should not receive the same level of compensation as those who have done something. I get that.

So for me, the question is: how does someone who is, at least by these criteria, worth less, come to terms with that?

I find myself relating more to the characters Rand mercilessly skewers, than I do the “go-getter” protagonists. I see shades of myself in the misguided socialists, with their ideas of “the public good,” as well as in the person who has accomplished little, and is resentful and jealous of those who have accomplished more. I deeply understand all of these people.

I have friends who just get up and do things, while I sit around, planning, strategizing, and usually talking myself right out of whatever it was I was going to do. I plod away on my course to nowhere, while they zip right past me in the blink of an eye. (Of course, they’re going somewhere, not nowhere.) And to my horror, I’m resentful and jealous as all hell – even as I recognize that it’s appallingly unfair to blame anyone but myself.

Clearly, we can’t all be leaders. We can’t all be the person who’s up in front, getting the attention and calling the shots. Some of us are followers. Some of us are actually happier working behind the scenes, doing the things that need to be done. Sure, there’s no glory in that, but it’s still important. The “up front” people need the “behind the scenes” people, as much as the “behind the scenes” people need the “up front” people. There must be followers as much as there must be leaders. It’s a symbiotic relationship, and everyone has their role.

So my question then becomes: is it possible to change your role?

I definitely fall in the “behind the scenes” camp. My entire life, I’ve been the epitome of a follower. I have mediocre ability, a whole lot of laziness and not a drop of assertiveness. My ambition is as short-lived as most of my interests. I’m aimless. A dilettante. And when I’m honest with myself, I recognize that I don’t really like having responsibility, and I generally prefer doing the “busy work” then being the Big Idea Person. It feels natural.

So why am I so unhappy about that? Is it possible to develop the Type-A personality of a leader, to become the alpha dog? And if it is possible to change yourself in such a fundamental way, is it even a good idea? Would it simply make you more miserable, trying to be something you’re not?

I think that, for me, my problem is less with the behind the scenes work itself, and more with the fact that the narcissistic side of my personality needs attention terribly. The idea of being one of the anonymous, unwashed masses is utterly terrifying. I need to feel special, and every page of Atlas Shrugged reminds me that I’m not.

It’s not easy to accept that you’re not as good as other people. Admitting that you don’t have as much “value” as someone else hurts, even if it might be the truth. And this is where I, obviously, struggle with Rand’s philosophy. To say that not everyone is equal, that I’m not equal, goes against not only my desperate, defensive ego, but against everything I’ve ever believed in as a good liberal.