What do you think?
Rate this book
BARACK OBAMA Vs AYN RAND
This book presents an imaginary debate that juxtaposes Ayn Rand’s ideas against Barack Obama’s ideas on economic issues and the underlying philosophies that inform their thoughts. The major claims made by the two speakers are garnered from the many articles, books, interviews and speeches given by them over the years. The best arguments for their positions are forcefully presented so that they each have the fairest chance to defend their ideas while also attempting to expose the opponent's fundamental logical errors.The debate starts with some combative sparks on concrete economic issues like regulations, taxes, jobs, etc before the speakers delve deeper into proudly defending the underlying moral foundations and goals -- virtuous self sacrifice versus rational self interest, collective salvation versus individual salvation -- on which their positions are ultimately grounded.The debate concludes with closing speeches by each speaker, with last responses to each other’s final remarks. In their summaries, they both emphasize why their way of thinking is what would lead the United States of America to the day of its greatest glory and save it from the present descent caused by the culture's unwitting assimilation of the other speaker's morally dangerous ideology.
55 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 26, 2013
37 people are currently reading
35 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 5, 2017
Title should be more like Obama vs. Ayn RANT
Interesting and thought provoking but the "debate" concept of the book was written poorly. It mostly revolved around a few points of Obama then transitioned into Ayn Rand ranting on about how Obama is Hitler (a bit of an overreach) to solidify her point of view. Her arguments have some validity and any trump supporters should read this to be able to somewhat validate their reasons for voting for someone like him. Even though none would be able to articulate any of Ayn Rand's thoughts. It is a good resource for gaining insight to what kind of person Ayn rand is and gives some perspective when reading her other works.
Interesting and thought provoking but the "debate" concept of the book was written poorly. It mostly revolved around a few points of Obama then transitioned into Ayn Rand ranting on about how Obama is Hitler (a bit of an overreach) to solidify her point of view. Her arguments have some validity and any trump supporters should read this to be able to somewhat validate their reasons for voting for someone like him. Even though none would be able to articulate any of Ayn Rand's thoughts. It is a good resource for gaining insight to what kind of person Ayn rand is and gives some perspective when reading her other works.
April 18, 2020
I am John Gault Trump
At no time does Ayn Chanda Rand say she is willing to pay more for more protection of her property and or her rights.
This debate gives Rand modern arguments that she did not have or perceived and made Obama use arguments of the 30's to defend his positions.
This was a good literary device but Obama's voice should have been someone like Krugman and Rand's someone like Laffer
At no time does Ayn Chanda Rand say she is willing to pay more for more protection of her property and or her rights.
This debate gives Rand modern arguments that she did not have or perceived and made Obama use arguments of the 30's to defend his positions.
This was a good literary device but Obama's voice should have been someone like Krugman and Rand's someone like Laffer
September 28, 2022
Should be compulsory reading
The fantasy that Obama and Ayn Rand could have a debate is made possible by the imagination of the author.
I think it reflects Ayn Randy’s philosophy accurately.
It should be compulsory reading for all.
The fantasy that Obama and Ayn Rand could have a debate is made possible by the imagination of the author.
I think it reflects Ayn Randy’s philosophy accurately.
It should be compulsory reading for all.
March 18, 2017
How easy to understand Ayn' objectivism. Great read!
I struggled with Objectivism having read many of her books. Very easy to now understand. Highly recommend reading this for clarity.
I struggled with Objectivism having read many of her books. Very easy to now understand. Highly recommend reading this for clarity.
July 11, 2017
Ayn Rand's capitalist, propertarian, freedom-focused philosophy was informed by her youth in the Soviet Union and her profound love for the society created by the founding documents of her adopted country, the United States. Her philosophy, objectivism, is acknowledged as a major influence on conservative and libertarian economic and political views
President Barack Obama campaigned and won office on a message that America needs to change profoundly, that businesses should be regulated and that redistribution of wealth is not only good, but the only just approach to the acquisition of wealth. He has publicly identified Ayn Rand's philosophy as the exact antithesis of his own.
Author Chandra Chisala has done a masterful job of presenting these disparate viewpoints, using the published statements, essays, and other public views of the two debaters to compose their arguments on a variety of economic topics. This is an important aspect of the debate: the arrangement is Chisala's, but the arguments from each debater are their own words.
Chisala's own preferences are well-disguised by the careful selection of statement and response, so that the arguments are well-balanced between the debaters. This is no hack job using only weaker points from one side, against strong comebacks from the other.
Yet in the end, the author's choice of Ayn Rand to deliver the argument for self-determination, choice, and property rights reveals Chisala's prejudice. In Rand, he could not have chosen a stronger proponent for each citizen's right to retain their own wealth, choose their own careers, partake of their own poisons, and purchase (or forego purchasing) health insurance as they choose.
In short, to NOT change America to the kind of authoritarian, redistributive, socialist society Ayn Rand had fled as a young woman.
The debate as constructed by Chisala is not perfect. For example, to refute Obama's argument that "selflessness" is the height of morality, accepted as such by all religions, Chisala culls from a essay in which Rand responded to those who took issue with the title of her essay collection, "The Virtue of Selfishness". The positioning of this argument makes it appear that Rand is appealing to the Gospels as an authority.
When I read the original essay, it came from a hot debate about whether Rand's title would serve to turn new readers away from her philosophy. Her response in that context was perfect. Here, it is disturbingly "Christian right" in tone, especially when you know that Rand herself was an atheist.
As to which wins the debate, I expect that those who read this intriguing effort will take away the same opinion they bring to the debate. Neither has been permitted an overwhelmingly persuasive argument.
And that is the best evidence that Chisala has done a very good job indeed.
President Barack Obama campaigned and won office on a message that America needs to change profoundly, that businesses should be regulated and that redistribution of wealth is not only good, but the only just approach to the acquisition of wealth. He has publicly identified Ayn Rand's philosophy as the exact antithesis of his own.
Author Chandra Chisala has done a masterful job of presenting these disparate viewpoints, using the published statements, essays, and other public views of the two debaters to compose their arguments on a variety of economic topics. This is an important aspect of the debate: the arrangement is Chisala's, but the arguments from each debater are their own words.
Chisala's own preferences are well-disguised by the careful selection of statement and response, so that the arguments are well-balanced between the debaters. This is no hack job using only weaker points from one side, against strong comebacks from the other.
Yet in the end, the author's choice of Ayn Rand to deliver the argument for self-determination, choice, and property rights reveals Chisala's prejudice. In Rand, he could not have chosen a stronger proponent for each citizen's right to retain their own wealth, choose their own careers, partake of their own poisons, and purchase (or forego purchasing) health insurance as they choose.
In short, to NOT change America to the kind of authoritarian, redistributive, socialist society Ayn Rand had fled as a young woman.
The debate as constructed by Chisala is not perfect. For example, to refute Obama's argument that "selflessness" is the height of morality, accepted as such by all religions, Chisala culls from a essay in which Rand responded to those who took issue with the title of her essay collection, "The Virtue of Selfishness". The positioning of this argument makes it appear that Rand is appealing to the Gospels as an authority.
When I read the original essay, it came from a hot debate about whether Rand's title would serve to turn new readers away from her philosophy. Her response in that context was perfect. Here, it is disturbingly "Christian right" in tone, especially when you know that Rand herself was an atheist.
As to which wins the debate, I expect that those who read this intriguing effort will take away the same opinion they bring to the debate. Neither has been permitted an overwhelmingly persuasive argument.
And that is the best evidence that Chisala has done a very good job indeed.
June 22, 2017
Biased toward Rand
This book gives both perspectives from Obama and Rand in a hypothetical debate format. It however leans toward Rand which is obvious a few pages into the book.
You can draw your own conclusion as what ideology is closer to your heart. I just want to point out one thing - Jesus supposedly sacrificed his life for the collective. Try reconcile that with Rand's ideology.
This book gives both perspectives from Obama and Rand in a hypothetical debate format. It however leans toward Rand which is obvious a few pages into the book.
You can draw your own conclusion as what ideology is closer to your heart. I just want to point out one thing - Jesus supposedly sacrificed his life for the collective. Try reconcile that with Rand's ideology.
December 28, 2013
Interesting theoretical debate
well written and researched, this fictional debate is ultimately defeated by the author's attempt to make Christianity compatible with objectives. It comes toward the end distorts Rand.
well written and researched, this fictional debate is ultimately defeated by the author's attempt to make Christianity compatible with objectives. It comes toward the end distorts Rand.
July 19, 2016
Not The arguments Obama would have used
The points used in Obama's statements appear to be chosen so they could easily be countered. As an example, the one about giving to the poor to reduce crimes.
The points used in Obama's statements appear to be chosen so they could easily be countered. As an example, the one about giving to the poor to reduce crimes.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews