Repairman

The most important purpose a transcontinental border wall would serve is to meet the desires and expectations of the American electorate. Regardless of any conversation about the popular vote versus the legitimacy of President Trump, it has been my experience that the Americans who voted for Trump want that wall. It has nothing to do with economic or security benefits; it's a matter of democracy. Trump supporters were gleeful at the thought of the wall. Now, as the fog of campaign rhetoric is lifting, and these people are becoming slightly more aware of the fact that this wall will be one more expensive boondoggle for the taxpayers to bear, they continue to cling to the vision. Will the wall and Trump's other isolationist policies lead to economic and security disaster? They don't care: Build the wall. It will make them feel better.
Here's a fantasy, although not so crazy: A fortification rivaling the Maginot Line and the Chinese Great Wall spans the roughly 1,954 miles of America's southern border. It does exactly that which it was designed to do. The cost of building, maintenance, and staffing it with troops exceeds anything our budgets could sustain. It would make a perfectly good tourist site; visitors from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia could have their pictures taken while posing atop or in front of the wall brandishing the Trump logo. The heirs of the Trump dynasty would own and operate the hotels and casinos that punctuates the serpentine structure. As our descendants revert to savagery as a means of survival, they can sit around the campfires, and tell their children of the once powerful American Empire, and how the second coming of the Trump-King will once again make America Great!

Dustin86,
The passage you've sited is an excellent choice for summarizing Ayn Rand's position on politics. Politics, however, is more of an outcome, a derivative, of the being point of Objectivism: Existence exists. Here's a quote from Galt's speech: "Do you think they are taking you back to dark ages? They are taking you back to darker ages than your history has known...Their purpose is to deprive you of the concept on which man's mind, his life and his culture depend: the concept of an objective reality." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1040)
Building on the foundation of an acceptance of reality, be it to your liking or not, the true nature of man is better understood. Viewed through the context of history, it was philosophy and/or theology that held human progress in check. The modern Attila's merely arrived at the same outcome of subjecting man to the duty of serving anyone other than one's self. In an age when "Might Makes Right," slave-masters maintained domination over illiterate brutes with greater ease than men of a more enlightened age. Even in Christian Europe, serfs were subjected to mind-control; their lives were at the disposal of the aristocracy, and the only reward for their suffering was the promise of an eternal after-life in God's Kingdom. In the 20th century, the populations of industrialized nations were told that they were a small part of a much bigger goal: The Collective, The State, The Proletariat Utopia. Men were truly convinced that, only through personal sacrifice, they could build a better world. Many willingly accepted the burden. The Nazi Third Reich consisted of highly intelligent, educated, and civilized people; many of the nations that came under Nazi rule did so without much opposition, and passively accepted their roles as collaborators. If you were to study the core of their beliefs, you would find the fatal flaw. It is for this reason that each individual must examine as much of the known facts as available, question those in power, and be as intellectually honest to themselves as is possible.

I was going to add something like this too.  Germany (going back to at least Bismark and Kaiser Wilhelm II) was anything but a primitive or uneducated society.  They were leaders in science, mathematics, industry, engineering, music, the arts, etc.   But they did place the State (as personified by the leader) above everything.

The way I see it, the key phrase is "the harder their work and the less their gain, the more submissive the fiber of their spirit". The passage you quoted is comparing and contrasting primitive totalitarianism, the kind that controls peasants, with more modern totalitarianism, the kind that attempts to control factory workers, and observing that the former kind of tyrant had an easier go at it, whereas the latter kind has to resort to expropriating factories in order to keep the people under his thumb. She is saying that although the modern dictators act as though they just want to collect the fruits of industrialization's labor, deep down psychologically they're motivated by fear of those factories' power: the power to enable free-thinking men when unhindered by the state.
A farmer in a primitive society isn't as likely to rebel against tyranny since it's so easy for the primitive tyrant to expropriate more and more from him (or just kill him). If you're the farmer in that situation, it's "rational" to submit, because otherwise you could lose your harvest and/or your life. On the other hand, the factory worker uses his mind more than the primitive farmer, needs to THINK more to do his job (you know, assuming his job involves technical expertise and not just working the assembly line), and, in a free economy, it provides him a higher standard of living than the primitive farmer (he doesn't have to worry about going hungry because of a failed harvest as market speculators will warn him through a gradual hike in food prices, giving him more time to plan for it by cutting other spending/dipping into his savings). He's more individualistic and not as easily pushed around, so long as the economy remains free. The modern tyrant needs to seize factories, impose price controls, etc., so that our factory worker has to work harder for a lower standard of living, all the while knowing that if he speaks out against the state it means the loss of his job (or worse). The modern tyrant has to "work" harder to keep people in line.
That some have claimed that "civilized men are docile and tame" shows how ignorant people are of how much civilization we've actually lost, even in relatively free countries like the U.S. Yes, in many ways we've gained tremendous advancements in civilization in terms of technology and social progress, but we've also gone backwards when it comes to government regulation of the economy. The latter is important as it has resulted in, to some extent, people having to work harder for not as high standards of living. Oh yes, overall, standards of living have gone up for everyone in spite of more regulation (don't let those pounding the drum on income inequality fool you), but who knows how much more wonderful things would be now had the past century gone another way?
If modern "civilized" people (especially Americans) act docile and tame, it's because they observe that they don't have it so bad, and government regulations only affect rich people anyway, they think, so what's there to rebel against? If they appear softer, it's because the insidiousness of a mixed economy has made it relatively easy for the government to conceal its role in making things a little more miserable than they otherwise would be, and so people have been lulled into the false belief that government controls are mostly benign, "for our own good", etc.
If you ask, "But what about our more individualistic forebears? Why couldn't they stop this massive increase in the growth of government controls?" 1) Because it wasn't massive for them for the most part, it was gradual over years and decades. 2) To the extent that they rebelled against radical new controls (the income tax, the New Deal, etc.), they lacked the right ideas to consistently oppose them, so they gave in and compromised needlessly.

Dadmonson,
Persuasion is not an easy task for many of us. In most cases, an individual must come to his/her own senses, and realize that they are an individual. To inform them about Objectivism may not be necessary; it may be best to let people be as they are. I know of people who would be quite naturally inclined to approve of Objectivism, but for the fact that they are weighed down with the conventional challenges of life, and won't take the time to read Ayn Rand. While there are only a few of these people that I know of personally, such people tend to take the necessary actions to achieving their goals and happiness. There is no reason to impress them with any details, when they already follow a rational code of behavior. Generally, I let them know that I support their lifestyle, and I might even ask some question to find out if they've any knowledge of Ayn Rand. 
Are you sure these things need to be dealt with? In what way? If a greater understanding of history is what you're looking for, there are many books you could read until you become an expert on the subjects. But my experiences with African-Americans is that their metaphysics are firmly rooted in their religious background. Selling Objectivism to such people would be nearly impossible. If you meet anyone openly atheist/agnostic, exudes confidence in their industriousness, and disapproves of the welfare state, you might find an ally regardless as to the person's complexion. Knowledge is power. I hope you find as much knowledge as will inform you about the history of the march to freedom that led to the Declaration of Independence, and the continuing complexity of achieving universal liberty, for your own sake. Don't be disappointed that people resist reason; it's their life. Freeing one's mind is only a start.

Dadmonson,
Persuasion is not an easy task for many of us. In most cases, an individual must come to his/her own senses, and realize that they are an individual. To inform them about Objectivism may not be necessary; it may be best to let people be as they are. I know of people who would be quite naturally inclined to approve of Objectivism, but for the fact that they are weighed down with the conventional challenges of life, and won't take the time to read Ayn Rand. While there are only a few of these people that I know of personally, such people tend to take the necessary actions to achieving their goals and happiness. There is no reason to impress them with any details, when they already follow a rational code of behavior. Generally, I let them know that I support their lifestyle, and I might even ask some question to find out if they've any knowledge of Ayn Rand. 
Are you sure these things need to be dealt with? In what way? If a greater understanding of history is what you're looking for, there are many books you could read until you become an expert on the subjects. But my experiences with African-Americans is that their metaphysics are firmly rooted in their religious background. Selling Objectivism to such people would be nearly impossible. If you meet anyone openly atheist/agnostic, exudes confidence in their industriousness, and disapproves of the welfare state, you might find an ally regardless as to the person's complexion. Knowledge is power. I hope you find as much knowledge as will inform you about the history of the march to freedom that led to the Declaration of Independence, and the continuing complexity of achieving universal liberty, for your own sake. Don't be disappointed that people resist reason; it's their life. Freeing one's mind is only a start.

Read my Tag Line.

I think it unlikely that Donald Trump has read many books of more than two hundred pages, books without pictures, that is. He may have watched a video of The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper. Critics of Ayn Rand are often trying to fit her words into some narrative taken out of context. I think this passage from Atlas Shrugged, covers it:
"It is a conspiracy of all those who seek, not to live, but to get away with living, those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting corners--a conspiracy that unites by links of evasion all those who pursue a zero as a value:...(she lists a series of qualifying prototypes, including the Trump-like:) ...businessman who, to protect his stagnation, takes pleasure in chaining the ability of competitors..."--from, This is John Galt Speaking; p. 1047.
Conspiracy, indeed, but not of one inspired out of Objectivism.

I think it unlikely that Donald Trump has read many books of more than two hundred pages, books without pictures, that is. He may have watched a video of The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper. Critics of Ayn Rand are often trying to fit her words into some narrative taken out of context. I think this passage from Atlas Shrugged, covers it:
"It is a conspiracy of all those who seek, not to live, but to get away with living, those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting corners--a conspiracy that unites by links of evasion all those who pursue a zero as a value:...(she lists a series of qualifying prototypes, including the Trump-like:) ...businessman who, to protect his stagnation, takes pleasure in chaining the ability of competitors..."--from, This is John Galt Speaking; p. 1047.
Conspiracy, indeed, but not of one inspired out of Objectivism.

I have personally not experienced any kind of success convincing another person about the logic behind Objectivism and why the philosophy is The Way, The Truth, and The Light. Maybe it's too wordy for most people when presented that way, maybe there aren't enough social scenarios where people accept deeper conversations, I don't know the reason, but a brick wall is hit every time.
During the past couple of years I've given up the "lectures" altogether and replaced them with one-off comments in normal conversation, where I really try to think about everything from as realistic a standpoint as I can and then take a second to sum it up succinctly with a somewhat philosophical-style comment, delivered in my own words/formulation for the conversation only. People have really responded to this method, it feels like magic compared to the old strategy.
At the same time, I've focused more on my own life than on an Objectivst agenda (I'm part of a trend, I guess?), with several benefits: a better life, from which to draw examples, and a better understanding of the purpose of philosophy, and why someone would follow principles to begin with, from which I can formulate my summations.
I'm beginning to think there is no other way to get people to legitimately change their views. There has to be something to look at in real life for an "aha!" moment to happen. More emphasis should be placed on Rand's life success and enduring influence as support for the validity of her philosophy. More Objectivists should emphasize their own real life benefits following a stellar philosophy.

Predicting the future is a funny thing. I don't believe anything to be fated or guaranteed, so surely there are many ways things could go... but based on my understanding of history, and my observations of the world today, here are my thoughts:
I think Objectivism will win out in the end. This is to say that reason will win out in the end, and that additionally, I expect Rand to one day be given her due as the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. But the future's rebirth of reason will also depend upon great thinkers who follow her, and neither Rand nor Objectivism will in that sense stand alone. It will not be "an Objectivist world." Rather, there will likely be many variants of thought and philosophy (as there are today), but they will be united by their foundational respect for reason -- just as so many of the unfortunate philosophies of today can be traced back to Kant, and to Plato.
I do not believe that this will take place quickly. I do not expect to see it in my lifetime. In fact, I would not at all be surprised if man lurches farther away from reason before a return. There may even already be evidence of that, in the US and in the world, in (among other things) the recent conspicuous reawakening of nationalism. Leonard Peikoff has (or so I've been told) predicted a fundamentalist rise in the United States, and Onkar Ghate (in a remarkable essay) wrote on how Donald Trump's rise suggests that the US is becoming increasingly accepting of dictatorship. These are not glad tidings.
It is possible that, from a future perspective, we will already be placed in (or on the cusp of) some kind of a "dark age" -- the 20th Century, among other things, must surely be remembered for its unprecedented bloodshed and wars, and the rise of communism and fascism and Islamic terrorism. Perhaps this is not yet fertile ground for Objectivism. Or it is possible that our approach to "activism" warrants re-examination. I think at the least that those who would like to see reason ascendant need to make common cause with potential allies, rather than continue the history of internecine warfare which has characterized the short history of "the Objectivist movement."
Whatever happens with the world, I think Objectivism is at least a personal awakening, and I would counsel every Objectivist (or every person, actually) to live the best, happiest, and most fulfilling life possible. Whatever becomes of the world, whatever happens in the future, that is Objectivism's truest meaning to me.

I would like to see more well recognized persons speak about the influence of Ayn Rand. Someone with celebrity status is more likely to draw attention among the younger audience. This would make it possible for a victory, whether major or minor, in the cultural battle.  Off hand, I can only think of a few that have made mention of Ayn Rand in a positive light: Neil Peart, (drummer for Rush), and Penn Jillette, (Los Vegas illusionist, and media star.) Perhaps there are others, but these are the only ones of which I know.
That being said, it would reinforce my optimism to see more people identifying themselves as atheist; I wish to see fewer people assuming that there must be some good in anyone who believes in any form of deity.
I wish to see more people acknowledging the rights of the individual, and positively acknowledging their own status as a minority of one, rather than demanding rights for a collective, of which they are a mere percentage. I seek the day when identity politics is consider passe. I wish to see more people say with conviction: "You damn right I'm looking out for myself!"
If, one day, more nations develop institutions allowing stability within their borders, it will likely be the result of reforming laws that stifle entrepreneurial activity. Greater economic stability would naturally lead to domestic and military stability. A true meritocracy would emerge, and more prosperity for those who've earned it. 
While this all seems a bit beyond the scope of my present-day vision, it doesn't do any harm to fantasize. But if this vision of the future does come about, I won't care it is called Objectivism, or merely a revision of good ole common sense. I can only suppose that some intelligent individuals will rediscover the 20th century writer who espoused the philosophy that respected the virtues of intellectual honesty and industrious action. And I hope they'll more than: "She was ahead of her times."

Like Aristotle, Rand's philosophy will percolate through cultures with free speech until it develops a large enough root system to sustain another golden age of reason. Our job as individual roots in that system must first be to achieve our own happiness and be as great as we can possibly be at whatever we enjoy doing. We need more great Objectivists to figure out great ways to influence others and bring them to our side of the intellectual battle.

In such a frank discussion, would it take into consideration this excerpt from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?
The difference between political power and any other kind of social "power," between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
She considered it such an important, seldom recognized distinction that she repeated it twice in the same paragraph.
In the Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 4  November 20, 1972, The American Spirit she parenthetically stated:
 [C]ulture and politics are always two mutually reinforcing manifestations of the same philosophy.
The "aristocracy of pull" is a phenomenon she outline via Francisco at Jim's wedding, as arising within the culture/political climate. She refers to it as graft and pull via Francisco again, at Hank's wife's anniversary party.
So, what is the culture? From the three lexicon entrees, this one has the best fit in this context.
A nation’s culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation’s way of life. Since a culture is a complex battleground of different ideas and influences, to speak of a “culture” is to speak only of the dominant ideas, always allowing for the existence of dissenters and exceptions.
So what makes an idea or a set of idea dominate within a "culture"? You're suggesting
In a sense I agree. The dominant ideas do not have to be what the masses demand. Where I disagree is how the power for the dominant ideas comes from the masses. It is not brought about by their advocation for "aristocracy of pull", "insider trading", or even the "civil rights" legislation. The power is derived from the masses accepting such slogans/cliches as "that's the way things are, there is nothing we can do about it", or "you can't fight city hall". In a metaphorical passage from Philosophy: Who needs it,
There is an old fable which I read in Russian (I do not know whether it exists in English). A pig comes upon an oak tree, devours the acorns strewn on the ground and, when his belly is full, starts digging the soil to undercut the oak tree's roots. A bird perched on a high branch upbraids him, saying: "If you could lift your snoot, you would discover that the acorns grow on this tree."
In order to avoid that pig's role in the forest of the intellect, one must know and protect the metaphysical-epistemological tree that produces the acorns of one's convictions, goals and desires. And, conversely, one must not gobble up any brightly colored fruit one finds, without bothering to discover that it comes from a deadly yew tree. If laymen did no more than learn to identify the nature of such fruit and stop munching it or passing it around, they would stop being the victims and the unwary transmission belts of philosophical poison. But a minimal grasp of philosophy is required in order to do it.
So when Dr. Hurd says:
instead of the majority, substitute what most people in the culture consider the "will of the majority"—the dominate ideas.
I'm familiar with the the cronyism. I'm familiar with the term capitalism. A is A. Referring to a mixed economy, or the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications, as being a subset or even an adjectival variant of capitalism (corrupt capitalism, crony capitalism) countermands the introduction to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal recognition that:
Objectivists . . . are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.
 

Trump's call for "make America great again" is very much like Obama's campaign for "change". The people vote for what their conception of what the slogan means in their minds.
Trump campaigns to cut taxes, to build a wall, repeal Obamacare, come up with healthcare reform, etc.
Dr. Hurd is countermanding the claim that Trump will be a dictator by selecting the proposals that do not sound like a dictator. This is cherry picking, and both candidates offered plenty to cherry pick from.
 
In the end Dr. Hurd says to make America great again, we have to make ourselves great again. Donald Trump is not going to do it for us. The value of freedom is one to be gained or kept. It was gained at the zenith of the enlightenment. Ben Franklin alluded to virtue when asked about the type of government that had been formed. A Republic, he had said, if you can keep it.
He has this backwards.
Compulsory education has been shaping the intellect for over a century. Early intervention into health care started with local licensing of doctors. These were challenged in the court system and found to encroach on the freedom to pursue a profession, as well as the freedom to choose a care provider. It was only later and thru a back door—a voluntary medical association was created—that mandatory state licensing was reintroduced. (Lin Zinser: Intellectual Activism: A Case Study in Health-Care Activism)
 

I love these sorts of questions. I think future historians will say that human societies clung to collectivistic philosophies because they were too ignorant to properly integrate individualism with government. Why are we, as a species, still so ignorant? Perhaps we lack the psychological tools required to make individualism universally obvious, like the telescope and space travel made the solar system universally obvious to even moronic onlookers. Perhaps we gave up on enlightened monarchy too early. Perhaps we should have developed individualism more before designing a new rights-based constitutional Republic. Perhaps we are suffering the inevitable consequences of institutionalizing even a little bit of irrationality in making rights God-given and government part-statist.

I voted Johnson/Weld based on their credentials as two term red governors of blue states, and their rejection of the current duopoly.  I also changed my political affiliation from republican to libertarian based on a party platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (in that order).  They (and myself) may not represent the best political expression of Objectivism, but are at least making an effort to re-shape politics into a more positive approach of securing the rights and properties of individuals.

That being said, I hearken back to what my first piano teacher used to tell me:

It does speak to the clarity of the position as it was taken.
I missed the punchline here.
And this does little to help clarify it for me.

There are allegations that Rand hated the poor. Such allegations haven't been substantiated, to the best of my knowledge.

As infants, we are all impoverished when it comes to knowledge. Each of us has to mine and refine into finished product our own stockpiles of knowledge.
If the mining aspect refers to the evidence of the senses, first one needs to distinguish the ore from the rest of the perceptual field. When it comes to refining the ore, what steps were taken to convert it into a finished product?
As delineated, the process is already two-fold deep. This can diverge into those that are knowingly trying to pass off counterfeit product, those who are holding counterfeit product and are knowingly or unknowingly trying to pass it off, and those seeking to ensure they are using the best methods available to convert their raw materials into finished product in the most efficacious methods available.

This still leaves open the relationship between one's stockpile of knowledge and one's stockpile of wealth.  The answer is eloquently stated in Atlas Shrugged via John Galt saying:
A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?—Right or Wrong? Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow—right or wrong? Is a man's wound to be disinfected in order to save his life—right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power—right or wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have—and the answers came from a man's mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right.
 

Eioul,
If you've got a better way, that's just fine. I'll stick to mine. This is my answer to one more subjective critic.

How on Earth could that have happened? You spelled it out so brilliantly.
And of course, Spooky Kitty, you never will see the difference between your satirical position and the truth. That's because there is no difference. You've enlightened me to the lameness of Objectivism! Let's see if I got it right:
So, the poor, as you've identified them, have a right to an expensive service, for which someone else has the obligation to pay. That expensive service, an opportunity to earn college credits by being permitted to attend the most expensive schools is their entitlement. The underlying morality that makes this so is that the improvident, illiterate, and sometimes foul-smelling poor have needs just as the middle-class and the rich. And while the rich can always afford to pay a mere pittance of their vast and unlimited wealth, the lower middle-class kid, who parents make too much money to qualify for any state supported funding, can go pound sand up his/her ass. Working parents can afford to pay for both their kid's and the kids' of strangers through their tax contribution. Those "poor kids" are so much more deserving, especially if they don't have the time or resources -- the same time and resources made available to the lower middle-class kid, such as public libraries and elementary schools -- to study in preparation for higher education. In the meantime, the kid who did his/her diligence in public schools, scored sufficient grades, but has working parents with an income just above the threshold can be required to pay more for college, when the courses are inflated from the public policy of entitling all to higher education. Screw that lower middle-class kid; let him get a menial job. That kid's been bred to have the kind of work-ethic that makes him/her perfect for unskilled labor or the trades. Maybe he/she will be lucky enough to have offspring who will be poor enough to deserve my sacrifice and the sacrifice of greater society for the greater good.
The social safety-net should rightfully be designed, not so much to empower those on the low-end of the economy, but rather to ensnare the taxpayers and keep them in their place! Oh, and of course it should catch some of those rich people; those parasites make for exquisite dining, yum yum. Eat the Rich!
 

Thank you all for your contributions to this thread. I’d like to add three notes.
Firstly, I’ve gathered that in the West, the Revolution in Russia was much opposed at the time because of the communist ideology of the revolutionaries. In the post-revolutionary period, which is the setting of Rand’s We the Living, there was extremely cold winter, lack of fuel for heat, and lack of food. And of course there was the terror of imprisonment and killing by the new iron fist and its ideology. Some private assistance was sent from America. I recall reading that in this period there was also a shortage of paper in Russia, and the Rockefeller Foundation sent them paper. Also there were communists/unionists in Britain who were encouraged by the revolution; they made ties and visits in the Stalin era to report back good, progressive things the new regime was getting done, such as health facilities.
Secondly, I was born in 1948, and my awareness of the wide world and politics emerged during the Eisenhower presidency. It was Godless Communism that was the great threat to our country, from ideological currents in that direction within the country, and more urgently, from USSR and Red China, who fostered People’s guerilla warfare in countries around the world in their aim to set up communist dictatorships throughout the world. USSR possessed, by the time of my first political awareness, atomic and nuclear bombs and rocketry, and they had an enormous Red Army poised against Western Europe. In NATO we opted to outpace the Reds in weapon technology, rather than match their army and its expense. Decades later that expense would become part of the reason for the collapse of the USSR. The main thing I want to add to this thread is that it was the nuclear weapons and delivery systems above all that made the USSR a threat, a widely recognized threat, to the USA from my earliest political awareness in the ‘50’s to the end of the Soviet Union. It remains a threat from Russia in the years since then, and we can still get into games of Chicken and its relatives with Russia in potential nuclear exchange, even though Communism is now out in Russia.
Thirdly, I’d like to share some lines near the end of Rand 1943, Toohey speaking to Keating: “Look at Europe, you fool. Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass—as God. No motive and no virtue permitted—except that of service to the proletariat. That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race—as God. No motive and no virtue permitted—except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the cold reality of two continents already?”
Today is much safer for America (and Europe) than those earlier times. I think that another force remains, however, pushing towards collectivism, and that force is nationalism. Then too, the human impulses to self-sacrifice and contrivance of greatest virtues as beyond oneself and one’s immediate loved ones; the chasing after things by many in the manner of Keating; and the lust for power by those akin to Toohey—these remain. “History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” –Mark Twain

Luis Enrique Colon,
Welcome to the forum.
I'm not sure where you were informed about United States policies prior to 1940, but the leadership in Washington definitely opposed the Bolshevik revolution, the Comintern and its international mission of infiltration, and the subsequent Soviet leadership. The exception to this policy came only during the Great Depression, when trade and diplomatic recognition resumed, and at the onset of the Nazi expansion (Operation Barbarosa.) These were pragmatic decisions; there were no ambiguities regarding the Soviet Union and Stalin. It was well know that the USSR was also a threat to freedom. 
At the conclusion of the European war, the nations of Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation in fact were supposed to be allowed to choose there own governments. But any government not meeting full approval with Stalin was destroyed. I guess you could say that Stalin was smart for having opposition leaders thrown out of windows, that is if one uses tyranny as the standard of smart. I refrain from using the term, "Communism" as the governing principle; Tito in Yugoslavia was a communist. Kremlin leaders turned on Tito for not falling in line as a vassal state. But unlike the nations directly on Russia's borders, Tito's nation was spared full-scale military invasion.
I would prefer to use the term, Eastern or Oriental Despotism rather than Communism. While Communism was the ideological foundation of the Iron Curtain countries, it was the Stalinism, a form of oriental despotism that dominated those unfortunate nations ceded to rule under Moscow by agreements reached at Yalta. It wasn't that Roosevelt didn't care about Russian domination; it was his sense of pragmatism that set the stage for the Cold War.

Reidy,
I was unaware of Ayn Rand's opinion of WW2 as it reached the point of US entry. I have read her assertions on the justifications of the use of force against aggressive despots, and coming to the aid of free nations under attack by aggressors. And thank you for adding the details of US involvement in Asia during the preceding years leading up to the war. There were activities taken before the war by President Roosevelt that supported Nationalist Chinese forces as well as Great Britain, activities that would hardly qualify as neutral, and largely unnoticed by the public. It is likely that Roosevelt saw the opportunity to establish US hegemony as one more part of his personal legacy.
As for the draft, it was an option the government chose to use throughout the period between 1940 til 1970. It was one of the more obvious examples of a free nation, a nation championing individual rights, transitioning toward a nation requiring every man to serve his duty for his countrymen, i.e. an altruist social order. If it was unnecessary, we'll never know. But the legacy of public duty lingers on, and no doubt Ayn Rand would disapprove.

The CEI has been instrumental in forcing the EPA to provide records demonstrating that the legally required due diligence had been performed when the EPA declared CO2 as a "pollution" (it wasn't) and thus subject to regulation.
And  while I can't speak to how many at CEI have been influenced by Ayn Rand, it's clear that some have per this article.
This is also true of the Heartland Institute.  And in fact, this is true for much of the opposition to Global Warming. And it's fairly common to find references to Rand in comments/posts of various skeptic blogs, such as Watt's Up With That.