Ayn Rand endorsements of presidential candidates

A Chronology of the Candidates Whom She Endorsed — and Warned Against

Persons with a merely-passing understanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy have posted online comments whereby they have attempted to insinuate that their preferred candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election would be supported by Ayn Rand. These comments are easily recognized as misrepresentations by those readers of Ayn Rand who understand her views sufficiently well to realize that her merely having a shared interest with a candidate on one subject would not garner her vote on that basis alone, and that through hundreds of pages of serious philosophy she advocated for seeking a perspective that considers an enormous context.

As an aid to her admirers in the future — and as ammunition against fake fans in years ahead — I have prepared this compendium of her remarks on presidential candidates during her years as a naturalized American citizen. This collection contains her endorsements for particular candidates — and her warnings against particular other candidates, including against candidates from the same party which did offer candidates she could embrace.

Leonard Peikoff — the student of Ayn Rand who was with her the longest — has said that his endorsements cannot be taken to be Ayn Rand’s, and that his endorsements are not Objectivism’s. (See his remarks near the end of this collection.) This should be taken as an indication of what would have been Miss Rand’s attitude towards the ill-informed fans who today arrogate to themselves the claim that they have divined whom she would endorse.

The headers in the sections ahead refer to the winners of the presidential contests, not to Miss Rand’s choice. Read the text below the headers for her views.

• 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944: Franklin Roosevelt (D) prevailed over a different Republican challenger each time

In 1975, Ayn Rand gave an interview which, in the published version, contained this summary statement from interviewer Jo Ann Levine: “Miss Rand pointed out that for decades Americans had been choosing the lesser of two evils as president, and that Roosevelt and Eisenhower were the only personally popular presidents in recent history (though she did not approve of either.)”

Source: “Interview of Ayn Rand,” in Christian Science Monitor, January 6, 1975; reprinted San Jose Mercury-News, January 19, 1975

• 1940: Franklin Roosevelt (D) prevailed over Wendell Willkie (R)

Ayn Rand campaigned for Willkie, answering questions posed by audiences while she stood on the stage of a theater in a pro-Democrat neighborhood of New York City; movie star Gloria Swanson had rented the theater. According to the 1962 authorized biography of Rand, while working as a volunteer on behalf of Willkie, Rand “formed an ‘intellectual ammunition’ bureau, preparing factual and theoretical material for use by Republican speakers and writers.”

In recalling what her motivation had been for joining the pro-Willkie cause, she said two decades later of the 1940 campaign period: “by that time I was very interested in the state of American politics. I was beginning to see that [the Democrats] were really wrecking this country. And by the time the Willkie campaign came, I felt that that’s the campaign... . [I]t was now or never. And, in effect, it was an enormous crusading, pro-capitalist movement at that time, which Willkie destroyed.”

Recalling the candidate from the perspective of two decades later, Rand said that Willkie “had written some marvelous articles, totally uncompromising, proudly pro-business and pro-profit, and that’s what he made his name on. All of that vanished from the moment he was nominated. That was the worst sell-out possible.”

Source: comments by Ayn Rand derived from “her 1960–1961 biographical interviews, audio tapes and a transcript of which are housed at the Ayn Rand Archives,” as published within an article by Michael S. Berliner, “Ayn Rand’s Intellectual Development,” in The Objective Standard, Winter 2016-17; ellipses and bracketed material reproduced here as published in the article

• 1944: Franklin Roosevelt (D) prevailed over Thomas Dewey (R)
• 1948: Harry Truman (D) prevailed over Thomas Dewey (R)

Ayn Rand recalled two decades later that

in 1940 the country was enormously dissatisfied with Roosevelt’s New Deal [...]

Unfortunately, the two leading candidates of that time offered by the Republican Party were not very much nor very inspiring, namely Mr. Taft and Mr. Dewey. Neither of them was exactly a representative of any consistent or philosophical viewpoint and could not arouse any serious enthusiasm among Republicans or the country at large, nor give it any kind of decisive leadership. Nevertheless, such as they were, they might have had a chance at least to turn the country away from the road which the New Deal was pursuing.

Source: Radio program episode titled “Today’s Intellectual State” (1968)

• 1952: Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) prevailed over Adlai Stevenson (D)
• 1956: Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) prevailed over Adlai Stevenson (D)

Ayn Rand later said:

you can vote only so long as you think a given candidate has more virtues than flaws. But when it come to two candidates, and you regard both of them as evil, then there is no lesser evil. You just don’t vote. For instance, I abstained in 1952 and 1956. I did not vote for Eisenhower and I couldn’t vote for Stevenson. It’s not wrong, not to vote. In spite of all the things you hear to the contrary, not voting, particularly by people who understand the issues, is also a form of voting.

Source: Ayn Rand during Q&A session of Leonard Peikoff course “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (1976), lecture #6, at 142 mins.

She wrote: “It used to be widely believed that the election of a semi-conservative (a ‘moderate’) is a way of gaining time and delaying the statist advance. President Eisenhower proved the opposite; President Nixon proved it conclusively. Their policies have not delayed, but helped and accelerated the march to statism. A major reason is the silencing and destruction of the opposition.” (Nixon was vice president under Eisenhower, before becoming president himself.)

Source: Ayn Rand, “The Moratorium on Brains,” in The Ayn Rand Letter, October 25, 1971, and November 8, 1971

Ayn Rand spoke in radio commentary about the results of the election of

1952. Eisenhower won that election for the liberal Republicans. The setback to any kind of consistent, specific, or brave opposition to the welfare state trend of the country was all but killed under the Eisenhower administration. The election of 1952 accelerated the trend toward statism more than any election of the Democrats could have done because it had now destroyed any effective opposition or even semi-effective, clear-cut opposition on the part of the Republicans. They could not be pro-capitalism any longer. Implicitly, even though they never dared state it explicitly or draw the issues clearly, the Republicans under Eisenhower were now officially the milder or more timid branch of the same welfare state movement as the Democrats. Any serious opposition to the welfare state all but vanished in the years since.

Source: Radio program episode titled “Today’s Intellectual State” (1968)

• 1960: John F. Kennedy (D) prevailed over Richard Nixon (R)

Ayn Rand wrote an article titled “J.F.K.: High-Class Beatnik?,” which appeared in Human Events magazine, issue of September 1, 1960. She is highly critical of Kennedy, though never names Nixon. (I host her article online at https://www.dhwritings.com/jfk.html)

A month following the election, Ayn Rand related in a lecture a conversation she had the day after the election with “a middle-aged Negro cleaning woman, a conscientious, extremely hard-working, uneducated woman who can barely read or write. The day after the election she told me she was glad that Kennedy had won.” The woman told Ayn Rand her reasons. Ayn Rand recalled of her own vote:

I, who had voted for Nixon regretfully, could not defend him and had to tell her that she was right. She was right in her reasoning on the basis of such evidence as was available to her. She had no way of knowing that Kennedy’s liberal theories would make his foreign policy still worse. She could not judge theories. She could judge only actions and facts. And, on the basis of their actions, she was rejecting the conservatives because she wanted to save this country from communism.

Source: Ayn Rand in speech titled “Conservatism: an Obituary,” delivered December 7, 1960. In the available recording, this comment appears at 14 minutes. This passage is not in the version of the speech published in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.

• 1964: Lyndon Johnson (D) prevailed over Barry Goldwater (R)

In the March 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, Ayn Rand wrote that “Barry Goldwater is the best candidate in the field today.

No, he is not an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism — this is one of the contradictions in his stand. Like all of today’s political figures, he is the advocate of a mixed economy. But the difference between him and the others is this: they believe that some (undefined) element of freedom is compatible with government controls; he believes that some (undefined) government controls are compatible with freedom. Freedom is his major premise.

(This article was published while the Republican primaries were ongoing, so Miss Rand incorporates remarks as to why Nelson Rockefeller would be unworthy of the nomination: “It is impossible for any honest advocate of capitalism to vote for Gov. Rockefeller: he has read us out of the party and out of the nation.”)

Source: Ayn Rand, “How to Judge a Political Candidate,” in The Objectivist Newsletter, March 1964

In a newspaper article based on an interview of Ayn Rand five months prior, this report is given of her views: “‘A slight hope on the horizon’ is how she described Sen. Barry Goldwater. His domestic policy is ‘mixed,’ liberal and conservative, but his foreign policy is the ‘only one for American self-interest,’ Miss Rand declared.”

Source: Portland Oregonian, October 3, 1963, pg. 15, in an article titled “New Frontier Tagged With Fascism Label”

In a different interview of Ayn Rand, this in Playboy, March 1964, she exchanged the following remarks:

PLAYBOY: If Senator Goldwater is nominated as the Republican presidential candidate this July, would you vote for him?

RAND: At present, yes. When I say “at present,” I mean the date when this interview is being recorded. I disagree with him on a great many things, but I do agree, predominantly, with his foreign policy. Of any candidates available today, I regard Barry Goldwater as the best. I would vote for him, if he offers us a plausible, or at least semiconsistent, platform.

PLAYBOY: How about Richard Nixon?

RAND: I’m opposed to him. I’m opposed to any compromiser or me-tooer, and Mr. Nixon is probably the champion in this regard.

Source: Playboy, March 1964

On the last page of The Objectivist Newsletter issue of October 1964, Ayn Rand demonstrated that she remained committed to Goldwater’s candidacy by writing, “As of this writing, Senator Goldwater’s campaign has been conducted so badly that unless he changes his methods, he is moving toward defeat.” She made recommendations on how to argue for him.

Source: “Special Note,” in The Objectivist Newsletter, October 1964

In the issue of Look magazine bearing the date of the 1964 presidential election, Ayn Rand is quoted:

“Since I am for individual rights, I am for Goldwater. I don’t think he believes in full capitalism, but he is the best political figure to emerge for 50 years. Not only will I vote for him, I will help his election in any way I can. The Goldwater movement is a movement of anti-statism—a demand for a return to individual rights. This movement has been a subculture underground. It has gained no recognition from the press except in the form of smears and distortion. The liberals pretend we don’t exist. There are some very prominent economists whose works are never referred to; for example, [Ludwig] Von Mises of New York University.”

Source: Look, November 3, 1964; bracketed content reproduced from original source

Two days after Goldwater’s defeat in the election, The New York Times included in an article this report:

Ayn Rand, the guiding spirit of the philosophy of Objectivism and an advocate of “laissez faire capitalism,” endorsed Senator Goldwater [“]as the best of what is available.”

“I think this campaign was conducted very badly,” she said. “I believe that this is the end of the old-fashioned, anti-intellectual conservatism, and that the advocates of capitalism have to start from scratch, not in practical politics but in a cultural philosophical movement to lay an intellectual foundation for future political movements.”

Source: article titled “Hope Still Found For Conservatism,” in The New York Times, November 5, 1964

• 1968: Richard Nixon (R) prevailed over Hubert Humphrey (D) and George Wallace (Ind.)

In the issue of “The Objectivist” published in October 1968 (but bearing the issue date June 1968), Ayn Rand wrote:

It should be obvious—and, according to the polls, it seems to be obvious to an overwhelming majority of the American people—that the man to vote for this year is Richard M. Nixon.

From an Objectivist viewpoint, he is not an ideal candidate; one can find many flaws in his political ideology and in his past record. But in today’s context, in contrast to his adversaries, he appears to be almost a giant. Or rather, to be exact, he appears to be the voice of sanity and civilization—in the midst of a howling chorus of primitive irrationality.

As my readers may remember, I was critical of Nixon’s policy in the presidential campaign of 1960. But, judging by his performance to date, he has grown and improved.

Source: Ayn Rand, “The Presidential Candidates, 1968,” in The Objectivist, issue dated June 1968

She was guarded in making comments about Nixon on radio that year:

Today, in 1968, we have a third opportunity of this kind. [...] This is the time for a Republican to bring a new unity, if you wish, or a new leadership to the country by offering a platform and a philosophy of pro-capitalism and away from the bankrupt welfare state of today, bankrupt financially and ideologically. The leading candidate of the Republicans today is, in a somewhat feeble way, the best of the lot, and that is Richard Nixon. He did not do such a good job in 1960. He was quite immature. He seems, however, to have improved, to have grown somewhat. I hope that no one will take this statement as an endorsement of Mr. Nixon.

All I can say is that at present, up to the minute, and I have no way of knowing what he will do or say tomorrow, but up to the minute, he seems to be doing better than he did previously. He seems to have grown more mature and more consistently pro-capitalism and observe the attempt to kidnap or switch this opportunity.

Source: Radio program episode titled “Today’s Intellectual State” (1968), at 27 mins.

• 1972: Richard Nixon (R) prevailed over George McGovern (D)

Ayn Rand wrote articles in The Ayn Rand Letter devoted to exposing the statism of McGovern’s platform, in “The Dead End” (issue of July 3, 1972) and “A Preview” (issues of July 31, August 14, and August 28, 1972). In the last of these, she wrote:

To the great credit of the American people, the polls taken immediately after the Democratic Convention showed a significant drop in McGovern’s popularity and a significant rise in Nixon’s. At this writing, Nixon leads by the enormous figure of 26%.

I am not an admirer of President Nixon, as my readers know. But I urge every able-minded voter, of any race, creed, color, age, sex, or political party, to vote for Nixon - as a matter of national emergency. This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils. The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization - and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies.

If there were some campaign organization called “Anti-Nixonites for Nixon,” it would name my position.

Seven months after the election, when the newly-re-elected Nixon Administration was under Congressional investigation over the Watergate break-in, Ayn Rand wrote:

I do not regret that I voted for Nixon, because I would vote for almost anyone against Senator McGovern or Senator [Edward M.] Kennedy, but this is not saying much.

Source: Ayn Rand, “The Principals... and the Principles,” in The Ayn Rand Letter; this particular remark appears in the June 18, 1973 issue; the article continues into subsequent issues

• 1976: Jimmy Carter (D) prevailed over Gerald Ford (R)

Ayn Rand wrote:

I am a supporter of President Ford—because, among today’s candidates, he is the most honest defender of free enterprise, and his policy has demonstrated its success in dealing with our economic crisis.

Source: Ayn Rand, letter to the editor appearing under the heading “Ayn Rand Explains,” in The New York Times, letter dated “Aug. 5, 1976,” but appearing in the newspaper edition of August 11, 1976

To an audience with a large component of Objectivists, she stated,

I certainly could not vote for either Reagan or Carter, and Mr. Ford’s stand on abortion is a disgrace. All I can say is he has some redeeming qualities, but my tolerance is very badly strained right now, I’m sorry to say. Still you have to vote for him because the opposition is hopeless.

Source: Ayn Rand during Q&A session of Leonard Peikoff course “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (1976), lecture #6, at 142 mins.

Over three years after Gerald Ford left the presidency, Ayn Rand was asked, “Of the current presidential candidates, then, are there any whom you favor?” She answered:

No. I would have voted for Gerald Ford, as I did in 1976. He is not ideal, but he is the nearest to a civilized, conservative candidate. But I will not vote for any in this year’s election.

Source: “Interview with Ayn Rand,” conducted by Jerry Schwartz, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 27, 1980; reprinted in The Objectivist Forum, issues of June 1980 and August 1980. (In the recording from which the print interview was derived, she is asked how she would vote if the election were to be held today with the choices of candidates offered, and she responds, “I will either stay home or vote for Gerald Ford by write-in to register my vote.” In the recording, this occurs at 8 minutes.)

• 1976 Republican Primaries: Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan
• 1980 (general election): Ronald Reagan (R) prevailed over Jimmy Carter (D)

Twelve years prior to Reagan’s participation in primaries challenging Ford for the 1976 Republican nomination, Ayn Rand had some guarded positive remarks about the then-newcomer to politics:

Granting the philosophical chaos of our age, was it possible to conduct a better campaign in purely political terms, and did we have a right to expect it? It was and we did. A brief glimpse of it, the best of the campaign, was a speech by Ronald Reagan, televized much too late—in the last week before the election.

Source: Ayn Rand, “Check Your Premises: It Is Earlier Than You Think,” in The Objectivist Newsletter, December 1964

Nine years prior to the Reagan-Ford primaries, she continued to express hope in the now-newly-installed governor of California:

As of this date, Governor Reagan seems to be a promising public figure—I do not know him and cannot speak for the future. It is difficult to avoid a certain degree of skepticism: we have been disappointed too often.

Source: Ayn Rand, “The Wreckage Of The Consensus,” speech given April 16, 1967, published in The Objectivist, May 1967

A year prior to the 1976 presidential election and prior to that election’s primaries, Ayn Rand had been disappointed, as she wrote in her periodical:

I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word--i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose--see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.

Source: Ayn Rand, “A Last Survey,” in The Ayn Rand Letter; this remark appears in the November-December 1975 issue; the article continues into the subsequent issue

During the primaries, Ayn Rand said in her one speech that year:

I am profoundly opposed to Mr. Ronald Reagan—for many reasons, but the one relevant here is the fact that to exaggerate the power of the most incompetent nation in the world, is not a patriotic service to the United States, just as fear is not the proper motive to invoke in order to inspire Americans.

Source: Ayn Rand, “The Moral Factor,” speech delivered April 11, 1976, subsequently published as a pamphlet

Three months prior to the 1976 general election and just days before the 1976 Republican Convention (when any last chance for Reagan to secure the nomination was scuttled), written comments by Ayn Rand appeared in the mainstream “newspaper of record”:

I am profoundly opposed to Ronald Reagan. Since he denies the right to abortion, he cannot be a defender of any rights. Since he has no program and no ideology to offer, his likeliest motive for entering a Presidential race is power-lust. His choice of an ultra-liberal running mate serves to prove my point.

Within days of Ford losing to Carter in the 1976 general election, Ayn Rand told an audience gathered to hear a lecture on Objectivism that Reagan had said after losing the Republican nomination that

he will stand by Ford, and he did not. He refused to campaign in the important states, where given the American people, I don’t think they would have gone for Reagan very much — but at least as a moral performance and an initial keeping his word, Reagan should have campaigned in certain states where he allegedly had a following, particularly Texas, North Carolina and some say Tennessee, but the states which Ford lost. It’s specifically those states Reagan never went to. He obviously, wanted Ford to lose, and the first squeak that comes out of him the day after the election, [is] he doesn’t rule out the possibility of running in 1980 already. Ladies and Gentlemen, if any of you in 1980, if this happens—I don’t think it will happen—but should that monster succeed, any of you who would compromise with him or help him, or vote for him, and I hope to be dead by then, because I wouldn’t want to see such a day, but let me tell you, I will place on you the equivalent of what a religious person would call a damnation. Unfortunately, there is no such equivalent Objectivism accepts except moral damnation. What he has done should not be forgiven, because it’s you, who will be the victims. The next four years will probably be hell.

Source: Ayn Rand during Q&A session of Leonard Peikoff course “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (1976), lecture #7, at 157 mins.

Ayn Rand’s judgment after over two years of Carter’s presidency was that it was indeed awful. Appearing on the NBC television interview program “Tomorrow” in 1979, Ayn Rand answered host Tom Snyder’s question to her about how altruism is being taught by revered institutions by pointing out: “Well, open [a] daily paper and look at Mr. Carter — a very peculiar creature — who is telling you that we are going to overcome the oil shortage by driving less, by giving up: let us all make a sacrifice, let’s lower our standard of living and we’ll all be living better. Now, is that a proper philosophy to tell a country that has pride and self esteem?”

Source: “Tomorrow,” NBC-TV, broadcast the overnight hours of July 2-3, 1979

Reagan did secure the 1980 Republican nomination and then went on to win the presidency. Three months into Reagan’s presidency, as Ayn Rand began her first public speech in three years, she said:

I shall begin by anticipating the question period—at least, to the extent of answering one question I know I will be asked. The answer is: No, I do not approve of the Reagan Administration.

I did not vote for Mr. Reagan. I did not vote for any presidential candidate in the last election. There is a limit to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Later in the same speech:

The reason of my distaste for Mr. Reagan in the role of president, is the philosophy he hasn’t got. I do not mean that I disagree with his philosophy; I mean that he hasn’t any. Judging by his statements on television, he is a pragmatist who leans to the right—which puts him in a more contradictory position than that of a pragmatist who leans to the left. The worst thing I can say about him is that he appears to be sincere: he seems to believe that the awful, populist, religionist hodgepodge of stale patriotism and folksy sentimentality which he utters is sufficient to set this country on fire and turn it back to its original principles.

Source: Ayn Rand, “The Age of Mediocrity,” speech given April 26, 1981, published in The Objectivist Forum, issue of June 1981

The 1980 general election would be the last presidential election in Ayn Rand’s lifetime.

• 1992: Bill Clinton (D) prevailed over George H.W. Bush (R)

Leonard Peikoff lectured in Ayn Rand’s place at the Ford Hall Forum following her death. When he offered evaluations of the alternative major-party candidates, he did so using the principles that Ayn Rand had employed. Just as Ayn Rand was guarded as to whether a preferred candidate would remain worthy, so did Peikoff. He, as did Miss Rand, made a point that a particular philosophy can not lead to a specific choice of candidate, and Peikoff said that his choice couldn’t be declared to be Ayn Rand’s.

Republicans out of power at this juncture are better for the country than Republicans in power. In power, as Mr. Bush has demonstrated, they will docilely abet the growth of statism. Out of power, they may promote governmental paralysis—which we desperately need.

Let me mention another point here. A number of economists are expecting a catastrophe within several years—whether a depression, a runaway inflation, or something even worse, such as a major war. As a lifelong Republican, I would not be unhappy to see this catastrophe strike when the Democrats are in the White House. They richly deserve such a fate—and it would be an albatross around their party’s neck for decades, just as the '29 Depression was an albatross around the neck of the Republicans.

The Republicans have now sunk to their lowest point ever, and (if possible) it is crucial to get them back onto a semi-plausible path, by showing them that they can’t get away with it, i.e., with the leadership they are currently offering. Perhaps, if Mr. Bush is defeated, they will learn from it and offer us someone better than Quayle or Baker in 1996.

Please don’t ask me who their next nominee should be: I’ve never heard of the man so far.

I want to stress at this point that the above is Peikoff’s recommendation for November, not Ayn Rand’s or Objectivism’s. A philosophy is a view of the universe; it does not back candidates. There can be legitimate differences among people of the same philosophy in regard to political tactics and strategy. So please think the issues over and judge for yourself. I have merely told you how (and why) I propose to vote in November—if I can. To be honest, I am not sure that I can physically bring myself to vote for the Democrat once I am in the booth. But if my arm can rise to pull the lever, I will do it.

(An update on August 21st, the day after Bush’s acceptance speech, as this piece goes to press: Clinton is even worse than I thought in April—e.g., picking Gore the environmentalist as his running mate. But Bush remains Bush. So I’m still voting for Clinton.)

Source: Leonard Peikoff, “Some Notes About Tomorrow,” speech given April 26, 1992, with a supplemental remark written four months later, published in The Intellectual Activist, issues dated August and September 1992

Note: Peikoff did go through with casting his vote for Clinton in 1992. He told of doing so, with his reasons, as the next election loomed:

I’m ready to vote for the lesser of two evils if he’s not a monster. Now, last time around, I thought Bush was a monster. So even though some of his economic policies were better than Clinton’s, I would always have voted for any opponent of Bush.

Source: Leonard Peikoff speaking on “The Leonard Peikoff Show,” live broadcast on KIEV radio, August 16, 1996

• 1996: Bill Clinton (D) prevailed over Bob Dole (R)

During the 1996 Republican primaries, Dr. Peikoff clearly preferred candidate Steve Forbes over eventual-nominee Bob Dole, and in his comments on Dole on the March 25, 1996 broadcast of his daily radio program, Peikoff ridiculed Dole for not having decided yet on the purpose of his intended administration.

(Excerpts from that March 25, 1996, radio show can be heard online at https://dhwritings.com/PeikoffDole/)

Bob Dole delivered his nomination-acceptance speech on August 15, 1996, at that year’s Republican Convention. The following day, Dr. Peikoff on his radio show gave his tepid endorsement of Dole:

He made some statements at which I cheered and applauded aloud. Believe it or not, I think I’m going to vote for him. [...] As it stands right now, assuming there is no October surprise and that Dole behaves as he has last night, I think I’ll vote for him.

A half-hour later into that hour-long broadcast, Dr. Peikoff provided detail:

He definitely has a pro-American side to him. And several times, despite this awful muck that he preached, there were things which he said sincerely and with a passion and a clarity that made me applaud and yell, yes, I’ll vote for him. For instance, his passion against multiculturalism, even if he didn’t know the answer. [...]

Dole is an honest, straightforward, pragmatic American Christian with an emphasis on Christian, but there is an American element in him. There is honesty in him. Clinton, by contrast, is a dishonest, devious, Christian multicultural pragmatist. He’s not a Christian at root, he’s a pragmatist at root. I’d much rather take a Christian over a pragmatist. A Christian at least stands for something. A pragmatist stands for nothing but a wheeling dealing. Dole has an American element. Clinton has no pro-American element. He’s multicultural through and through. Dole is honest. Clinton is a devious manipulator. That’s why, given a choice between the two, I’d still vote for Dole.

Source: Leonard Peikoff speaking on “The Leonard Peikoff Show,” live broadcast on KIEV radio, August 16, 1996

On his next broadcast, Dr. Peikoff said that he was impressed by Dole’s view aligning with Peikoff’s that (in Peikoff’s words) “the purpose of government is to protect the individual against physical force, to protect his rights from criminals at home and aggressors abroad.” Peikoff acknowledges that Dole is “a vast mixture” of different premises, but “if he’s as strong on crime as he dares to say he is, a lot of credit to him.” Likewise, according to Peikoff, Dole was right to oppose Clinton’s policy of appeasement towards Iran and Libya while those countries engage in terrorism.

Source: Leonard Peikoff speaking on “The Leonard Peikoff Show,” live broadcast on KIEV radio, August 19, 1996

Two months later, even without an October surprise of war (some anticipated Clinton going to war so that voters would not change leaders), Peikoff found Dole’s weaknesses and flip-flops too inexcusable to continue holding Dole as worthy of the highest office. Peikoff told his radio listeners on October 17, 1996:

I do want one thing out of this election, and that is as bad a case of gridlock as it’s possible to achieve. If we could arrange that ~~one house~~ [Peikoff corrects himself:] one party controls the legislative branch and one controls the executive, and they’re at each other’s throat for years — that is the greatest chance this country would have, because government right now is a force for evil. It’s a force moving us in the direction of disaster, and anything that paralyzes the government and prevents either party from getting away with their malicious schemes, is to the good. Therefore I’m going to hold my nose, I’m going to take for granted that Clinton is going to be elected for president — I just dislike Clinton too much to do it, to actually vote for him, so I’m going to vote for nobody for president. But I’m going to vote for all the Republicans for House and Senate, however bad they are! I’m just going to hold my nose and do it, with the hope that somehow or other, which I don’t believe, the Republicans will eke out a uh narrow victory in at least one house, and be able to obstruct the Democrats, with the result that they’ll get nowhere, and we’ll have a few more years to breathe before they’re unleashed against us in the future.

Source: Leonard Peikoff speaking on “The Leonard Peikoff Show,” live broadcast on KIEV radio, October 17, 1996

Ayn Rand had not voted for any candidate whose name was printed on the ballot in 1952, 1956 and 1980. Leonard Peikoff stated that he would do likewise in 1996. Ayn Rand had cautiously noted what might have been positive signs for the future in a California resident as he started a second career in politics in the 1960s, then — armed with more information — had to declare subsequently that she couldn’t and wouldn’t support him. Following the same pattern, Leonard Peikoff had been willing to overlook some defects in the Republican’s 1996 nominee owing to some positives, but additional exposure to the candidate led Peikoff to declare that his support could not be offered.