"But there's a far deeper reasoning behind it that's worth looking into."

Man, I'm seriously asking, who outside of their little cabals idolized Stalin and Mao? I know some foreign policy types in the 40s thought he'd be okay to work with, but that was kind of before the worst stuff was known, and it was a "Strange bedfellows" situation.

1) Meh. Objectivism pays a lot of lip service to the individual, but I don't see what it really does for him (unless I'M the individual in question). Respect isn't about saying, "Oh, you're so great!", it involves action, too. And Objectivism is pretty clear that action for another individual is highly suspect.

"And to be fair, the quote Nabin cites, Reardon's family really are all stupid whining leeches. "

2) Given that "economics" and "social issues" as political/governmental ideas operate very differently, I don't see much cognitive dissonance in treating one of them one way, and the other a different way. Different things ought to be treated thusly, consistency is the hobgoblin, etc.

The problem with the "It wasn't the New Deal, it was wartime mobilization" argument is that war time mobilization was the New Deal on HGH. All of the massive government spending, exploding government payrolls, PLUS strict, unchallenged price ceilings and floors and rationing? The argument is basically "THIS massive…