A long time ago and a short time ago. In a place both near and far away I was watching C-SPAN and they were recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'. I never read the book but it appears to have had a great impact on many people. One of the speakers was Edward H. Crane the founder of Cato Institute. I looked up the Cato Institute while he was talking and I thought that I may have found that there was a difference between the Institutes output and what he was saying. So I e-mailed him the following to ask for his feedback. He appears to be a helpful person so I sent it along.

Edward H. Crane:

I saw you today on C-SPAN and was very impressed. You may be in a unique position in the world if you started your organization to bring forth your own particular story. If so this is far different from most people where timing and distance comes together and we move in to the void of another’s story.

I am requesting your insights because it appears from your discussion of Ayn Rand that you may embrace a different assembled story than people connected with your Institute. I am not suggesting this is bad or good. My academic focus has been to identify imprinted assembled stories we live our lives through. How our actions, in actions, and thoughts linked back to these stories?

I have identified in my research how story elite throughout history control, reward, and punish. Employees work hard to support an assigned story but this requires a suspension of their assembled story. Two stories seeking far different solutions are then at war. This is often not the case with particular neuropathologies.

If you began the Cato Institute to support your own assembled story how do you deal with competing stories that may be changing your focus?

If you started Cato because you identified a particular market how do you assure you get the best work from competing story holders? Have you found the gap between a researcher’s assembled story and the outcome of their efforts significant?

DM