The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted Johnny Carson’s 26-minute interview of Ayn Rand, aired in August 1967. This was his first of 3 interviews with her.
I recommend the whole thing, whether or not you like or agree with Ayn Rand. Although she was hugely important in my intellectual development and there’s a substantial probability that I would be neither an economist nor an American if I hadn’t read her when I was 16 and almost 17, there are things I like her about her philosophy and things I dislike.
The timing of this interview is interesting to me personally. In August 1967, I was running the dishwashing machine at the Minaki Lodge and I quit around the end of the month to move into our apartment we rented in Winnipeg. I started at the University of Winnipeg in around the middle of September. When I expressed to a friend of my brother’s how bored I was in college (except for Calculus) in about late October, he said he had a book I might like. He lent it to me. It was The Fountainhead.
What stands out is how seriously Johnny Carson took her. He asks good questions. In more modern times, I could imagine Brian Lamb of C-SPAN being as good or better if he had had the chance. Is there anyone else?
A few highlights follow.
13:30: The fly buzzing around. Notice Ayn Rand’s comment.
15:44: This is the first time some in the audience applaud. Notice the statements of hers that they are applauding.
18:25: Notice her opposition to the Vietnam War and her relatively narrow reasons for opposing it. I now think that I must have been one of the “beatniks” whom she criticized.
24:20: Notice who got bumped because Carson found Rand so interesting.
HT2 Alex Tabarrok.
READER COMMENTS
Scott Sumner
Jun 9 2022 at 6:31pm
My favorite part is where she suggests that the best way for the US to insure world peace is for the US to be an example to the rest of the world.
David Henderson
Jun 9 2022 at 10:26pm
That was nice.
Capt. J Parker
Jun 13 2022 at 4:44pm
Around 15:00 Rand said that the philosophers should set the moral code and the philosopher who is objectively correct is the one who can prove his case without any contradictions. This got me wondering if Rand ever squared off against Rawls in a debate. I found this interesting analysis that uses Rand’s rational self-interested actor to bring into question Rawls one of Rawls basic assumptions.
Comments are closed.