jbgotmar

Chapter 3
More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.com
NOTES TO PAGES 67–74
1. Rand, “Dear Mr.——,” undated fundraising letter, ARP 146-PO4.
2. AR to Pollock, July 20, 1941, Letters, 33.
3. AR to Ann Watkins, May 17, 1941, reprinted in Robert Mayhew, ed., Essays on Ayn
Rand’s The Fountainhead (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), 66.
4. Biographical Interview 11, February 15, 1961.
5. Ibid.
6. Monroe Shakespeare to DeWitt Emery, November 25, 1941, ARP 139-E2x.
7. Emery to Rand, undated, ARP 139-E1.
8. AR to Pollock, June 23, 1941, Letters, 53; AR to Emery, August 14, 1941, Letters, 57.
9. Biographical Interview 14, March 3, 1961.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997). Keynes’s ascendency is described in David C.
Colander and Harry Landreth, eds., The Coming of Keynesianism to America (Brookfi eld,
VT: Edward Elgar, 1996). As the authors rightly note, Keynesianism did not have a direct
effect on New Deal policymaking, nor was the adaptation of his ideas uncontroversial
in academic departments. The attractiveness of Keynes to a young generation of economists,
however, quickly minimized the infl uence of classical economics at key institutions
like Harvard University.
13. Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (New York: McGraw Hill, 1937), 3–4.
New work on Parsons considers him more progressive than previously understood. See
Howard Brick, Transcending Capitalism: Visions of a New Society in Modern American
Thought (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006).
14. Alfred Jay Nock, introduction to Herbert Spencer, The Man versus the State
(Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers, 1940), x.
15. Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, revised ed. (1944;
Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), 52.
16. There is a rich debate about the role played by true Darwinian theory in this tradition
of thought. None deny, however, that laissez-faire theorists drew heavily on scientifi
c theory and the idea of evolution, even if they drastically misunderstood Darwin’s
ideas. See especially Robert C. Bannister’s critique of Hofstadter, Social Darwinism:
Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1979); Donald C. Bellomy, “ ‘Social Darwinism’ Revisited,” Perspectives in America
History 1, n.s. (1984): 1–129.
17. Channing Pollock, “What Can We Do for Democracy,” Town Hall Forum of the
West, undated, 16, ARP 146-P01; Ruth Alexander to AR, February 27, 1965, ARP 137-A2x.
Nock apparently accepted Cram’s bizarre theory as scientifi c truth, and it contributed
to the pessimism of his later years. See Nock, Memoirs of a Superfl uous Man (New York:
Harper Brothers, 1943), 139; Charles H. Hamilton, foreword to Albert Jay Nock and
Charles H. Hamilton, The State of the Union: Essays in Social Criticism (Indianapolis:
Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com
309