NRO weighs in on the influence of Ayn Rand

I'm a huge fan of National Review, many of its writers, and its founder, William F. Buckley. One area where I part ways with the mag is its dislike of Rand. This in itself is not a problem, but NRO - just like Parker, Frum and others invoking Rush Limbaugh - knows that writing about Rand is a great way to create quick traffic. 

My issue with its latest symposium, Going Galt, is that many of its contributors don't seem to have read the book in years, if at all, which as I've stated many times before is the highest sin for a critic writing about any expression of art. Some (and I am not familiar with any of the contributors or their work, for what it's worth) fall back on the common cliches that surround Atlas, while others - including the snippet below - take the elitist view that people who find Rand's work excellent literature are simpletons:

Ayn Rand’s novels passionately interest young people, but no person of mature literary taste would willingly reread them. Rand’s books are for young adults what the Oz books are for children — with greatly superior economics. In that role they have been extraordinarily valuable, introducing several generations of budding American intellectuals to economic realities, the possibility of a consistent philosophy of life, even the law of non-contradiction — truths that have led many of them through Objectivism to better things.