The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

“Mad Men”: Villains, Victims, and Lies

I suffer from cultural claustrophobia. What is “cultural claustrophobia”? It is the feeling of being imprisoned in a culture that is basically anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-reason, and anti-value. In short, of being marooned in an alien, hostile, leftist culture determined to wear or beat down anyone who won’t yield to its propaganda and beseechments and stealthy osmosis and refuses to get with the collectivist program. Writing critiques like this one is my way of pushing away the moldy, fly-specked walls that threaten to suffocate me, of kicking down the closet door, and breathing some fresh air, before the walls close in again, and I push back anew.

I do not think I am alone in suffering this phenomenon. It is quite common among men who see the civilized world slipping into anarchy and tyranny and cannot understand why. Ayn Rand called it “our cultural value- deprivation.”*

Oft times, as an antidote to contemporary culture, and feeling lonely for a cleaner, rational, and more honest world, I will re-read a classic novel or nonfiction book, or watch an older movie (pre-1965, when the last of the epics was made), or just listen to music that was meant to be listened to and enjoyed, and not endured. Mostly classical, some popular, but rarely contemporary.

“One can feel nostalgia for places one has never seen,” remarked Greta Garbo in Queen Christina. And, of course, one can feel it for times one has lived through.

But, some sojourns of nostalgia do not necessarily take one back to happier times. It all depends on who is tinting the photographs. A Marxist will blur Rockefeller Center and call it a slum. The creators of “Mad Men” populate it with scoundrels, prostitutes, neurotics, power-lusters, and fools, and call it “life in America.”

AMC’s “Mad Men” is a lavishly produced instance of literary naturalism, “things as they were” in the early to mid-1960s, with no real plot direction, no real resolution or denouements of any of the plot or subplots, posing as “social criticism.” Actually, is it a super-sized nighttime version of a daytime soap opera. There are no heroes in the series; virtually all the characters are manipulative, dishonest, repressed, or blindly avaricious frauds. If a character isn’t a villain, then he is a victim of the villains.

But then, literary naturalism cannot tolerate heroes. Heroes overcome conflicts and solve problems. There is a multitude of conflicts in “Mad Men,” but no defining resolution or closure of them, except by happenstance or on the whim of the director; there is no way to distinguish which. All the principal characters repeatedly succumb, and without much resistance and often with relish, to their flaws, foibles, and amorality.

I watched all five available seasons of “Mad Men” on Netflix. There are plot spoilers ahead, for anyone who has not seen any of the series episodes. The sixth season has already debuted, which I have not yet seen. A seventh is in the works.

When I lived in New York City, I worked on Madison Avenue, in the 1970s, for two large firms as a teletype agent and as a proofreader. I recognized the trade culture in the series, and the ads, the brand products, the offices, the smoking, the drinking, the clothing styles, and all the other recreated concretes that went into lending “Mad Men” a large and credible dose of verisimilitude.

“Mad Men” obviously, as a “slice of (nostalgic) life” of the 1960s, seeks to indict a country seemingly free of government controls and regulation, when in fact the groundwork for a welfare/regulatory state had been laid many decades earlier. This is what happens when men take for granted and approve of a welfare/regulatory state, and view remaining liberties with a jaundiced and critical eye. Consequently, the 1960s seem to creator Matthew Weiner to be a period of unbridled freedom that needed to be reined in, when in fact the political trends of the preceding 1950s and earlier had doomed those “excessive” liberties to ultimate regulation if not virtual extinction. Today, smoking, cigarettes, cars, employment, professional associations, and even diets are regulated by the government.

Before overseeing the production of “Mad Men,” Weiner was an Emmy-winning writer and co-producer of “The Sopranos” series.

The chief, and, incredibly, the most popular fraud is Don Draper (played by Jon Hamm), creative director of a Madison Avenue advertising agency, Sterling Cooper. He’s handsome, ruthless, and debonair, gets all the women, and looks like a casting gem for a hero of Atlas Shrugged. But, he’s a fraud, a liar, and a master of deceit.

He was born Richard “Dick” Whitman, who enlisted in the Army during the Korean War. His commanding officer, Lt. Don Draper, is killed when, after an attack, an accident blows up a fuel dump and the officer is burned beyond recognition. Whitman, who is merely wounded, exchanges dog tags with the officer, and is sent home with a Purple Heart as Don Draper, while the body of the officer, now identified as Dick Whitman, is also returned to the States.

Years later, the actual wife of Don Draper, Anna, tracks down the false Draper and confronts him with the knowledge that he is not her husband. Whitman tells her what happened in Korea. The storyline glosses over how they both agree to let bygones be bygones – requiring enormous evasion on both their parts – and they become friends. Technically, the false Don Draper is married to Anna. They do not enter into a romantic relationship, but the false Draper agrees to take care of Anna for the rest of her life but divorce her so he can marry another woman he has met. Anna agrees.

This relationship is based on a disturbingly twisted – nay, corrupted – sense of benevolence, on especially Anna’s part. She is willing to help Whitman maintain the pretence that he is Don Draper, her late husband; in short, to help the man who stole his identity sustain a lie. However, we learn nothing about what she thought of her late husband, the real Don Draper. In an authentically adult storyline, she would have insisted that the imposter stop faking reality. She could have turned him in to the authorities. From a storyline perspective, she did him no favors by abetting his crime, which resurfaces later on and causes him angst and problems with his new wife, Betty, and with other characters in the series.

Later, a sole surviving relative, Adam Whitman, a younger half-brother, comes to New York after seeing Draper’s picture in a newspaper story, and tries to befriend Whitman-alias-Don Draper, who is now a successful advertising executive. Fearing that the truth about his false identity will harm his career and marriage, Whitman-alias-Draper spurns the man, denies their relationship, and bribes Adam with money to go away. Adam, distraught over the rejection, sends his half-brother a shoe box containing photographs and other evidence of his past life, and hangs himself in his hotel room.

Whitman-alias-Draper is tempted to destroy the contents of the box, but keeps them because he doesn’t want to entirely erase his past. His wife, Betty, however, angry about his suspected philandering, finds the box in his home office desk. This discovery adds fuel to their conflict, which ends in divorce. She could have legally turned him in and that would have been the end of Whitman-alias-Draper’s career. But later in the series, when Whitman-alias-Draper is being checked for a security clearance for a client’s government contract with the agency, she is interviewed by the FBI and lies when the agents ask if she suspects he isn’t who he claims to be. She answers no. Her motive for the lie is left begging, contrasting with her hatred of Whitman-alias-Draper.

But the incriminating box was first mistakenly delivered to a colleague at the ad agency, Pete Campbell, who discovers Whitman’s secret. Campbell tries to blackmail Whitman-alias-Draper, and failing, tells a senior partner of the firm. The partner expresses indifference to the discovery. “Mr. Campbell, who cares?” The lie means nothing to him, either.

This character, Bert Cooper, twice recommends in the series that Whitman-alias-Draper read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Cooper’s nonchalant attitude about the truth is somehow intended to reflect ironically but not flatteringly on the novel. This was not a throw-away reference; it was a subtle, but intentional smear of the novel. Dishonest men with knowledge of a fraud, it is implied, read great novels that contain themes alien to “Mad Men,” in this instance, honesty, facing reality, and exposing frauds.

Why didn’t Weiner and the screenwriters use Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, or Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, instead? The choice of book title wasn’t random or whimsical. It was conscious and deliberate. It was intended to indict the author. “See?” Cooper says in unwritten dialogue, “This is what selfishness and greed lead to. But, that will be our little secret, eh? We’re all frauds.”

Whitman-alias-Draper contributes to another death when he learns that another partner, a Briton named Lane Pryce, has embezzled a large amount of money to pay his British taxes and forged Whitman-alias-Draper’s signature on a bonus check. He tells Pryce that he will not call in the authorities or tell the other partners about the crime if he resigns from the company. Pryce subsequently hangs himself in his office, leaving behind a short letter of resignation that reveals nothing. Whitman-alias-Draper does not enlighten his partners about Pryce’s motive.

While the revelation of Whitman-alias-Draper’s shady past causes emotional fireworks between Betty and her husband, leading to a divorce, the same revelation is made “off stage” without explanation or drama to Whitman-alias-Draper’s new wife, Megan. She apparently is comfortable with the lie. Betty, now married to political huckster Henry Francis, maliciously attempts to ruin Whitman-alias-Draper’s new marriage with the information (using her pre-teen daughter as a cat’s paw), but fails when Megan concedes that she knows the truth about Whitman-alias-Draper.

When Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, the new agency, loses the Lucky Strike cigarette account, Whitman-alias-Draper, still the creative director, concocts a sly but deceptive saving gesture by buying a full-page ad in the New York Times in which, over his signature, he announces that the agency will no longer accept tobacco company business. It reads like a conscience-ridden apologia. It is in conformance with the government’s and advocacy groups’ campaigns against cigarettes and smoking of the time. Whitman-alias-Draper and his smoking colleagues, however, continue to smoke and drink to distraction and, from their perspective, continue to help their clients tell “lies” about their products. The ad was a ploy to draw attention to the agency, a tactic that ultimately brings it more business and saves it from folding.

Product placement” in movies and novels is an anathema to advocates of “pure” literature, unless the placement helps to denigrate the product. Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels are chock full of “product placement” – such as his cigarette brands, cars, his favorite drinks, his wardrobe, even places, such as Monte Carlo – but no one ever objected because those very real products helped to romanticize Bond and reality. The anti-business New York Times, however, received an invaluable “product placement” boost in the series, thanks to Whitman-alias-Draper’s controversial ad. Whether or not the Times paid for the placement, or received it gratis, no one is saying.

Finally – although this isn’t the last instance of lies, frauds, and deceptions – Joan Harris, office manager for Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, has a baby conceived by one of the partners, Roger Sterling (shortly after they are mugged, in a bizarre heat of inexplicable passion only a few feet away from where they were robbed), but passes it off to her husband, an Army doctor serving in Vietnam, as his own. Later she is divorced by him, but only because he prefers his career in the Army (because he is “needed” there) and never learns the truth from her.

When the new agency, Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, stands a chance to win a prestigious Jaguar car account, a fat, obnoxious dealership executive says he will help the agency land the account if Joan spends a night with him. The partners delicately suggest to her that she oblige him. Initially outraged by the proposition, she ultimately agrees to the “trade,” but bargains for a lucrative partnership in the agency in exchange. Whitman-alias-Draper, ostensively disgusted by the partners’ readiness to proposition her, salvages his friendship with Joan when he tells her that he wasn’t present when the partners voted to behave like pimps. But he doesn’t discourage her from accepting the offer, either, and acquiesces without a word when the agency wins the Jaguar account. No one discusses Joan’s “sacrifice” or mentions it to the company’s staff.

What is Whitman-alias-Draper’s philosophy of life, and philosophy of advertising? Here are some choice quotations that reflect on his character and on the whole “Mad Men” series:

“The reason you haven’t felt it is because it doesn’t exist. What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons. You’re born alone and you die alone and this world just drops a bunch of rules on top of you to make you forget those facts. But I never forget. I’m living like there’s no tomorrow, because there isn’t one.”

Translation: Love is chimerical, artificial, and false, and so are all your other values. Reality is an illusion and optional.

“Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. And do you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It’s freedom from fear. It’s a billboard on the side of a road that screams with reassurance that whatever you’re doing is OK. You are OK.”

Your happiness is fraudulent. You are basically unhappy, which is all capitalism’s fault because it persuades you to value and buy things you don’t really need and would be better off without.

“When a man walks into a room, he brings his whole life with him. He has a million reasons for being anywhere, just ask him. If you listen, he’ll tell you how he got there. How he forgot where he was going, and that he woke up. If you listen, he’ll tell you about the time he thought he was an angel or dreamt of being perfect. And then he’ll smile with wisdom, content that he realized the world isn’t perfect. We’re flawed, because we want so much more. We’re ruined, because we get these things, and wish for what we had.”

A wise man knows that he’s a fraud, a walking Kleenex box of tissue-thin lies and self-deceptions, and not an angel or perfect. He’s flawed, and that is all he can expect to be. Freedom only helps him maintain the self-deception and the lie. He is a helpless pawn of his social environment. “Everyone knows” that social conditions, heredity, and environment shape his character and influence his choices. He is the capitalist dupe of determinism.

“Mad Men” is a glitzy, fashion-conscious, slick, exposé-obsessed rendition of the kitchen-sink, “social criticism,” anti-capitalist genre whose better-known practitioners are Frank Norris (The Octopus), Upton Sinclair (The Jungle, the Lanny Budd novels), and James T. Farrell (the Studs Lonigan trilogy). Upton Sinclair, who unsuccessfully ran for president and the governorship of California, was particularly savvy about marketing his socialist ideas and getting them accepted by Americans. In a September 1953 letter to fellow Socialist Party of America member and unsuccessful presidential candidate Norman Thomas, Sinclair wrote:

The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to “End Poverty in California” I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.

That deceptive out-flanking “brand name” label is Progressivism. Hollywood is over-populated with Progressives, from its directors down through its casts, cameramen, and key grips. President Barack Obama and his whole cabinet and all of his political appointees are “Progressives.” So is most of the Mainstream Media.

So are the ranks of critics. Critics and blog roadies of the series have tittered over the series like high school girls raving about or dissing some envied Prom Queen’s gown and escort. See The New York Times Arts Beat blogs to read the screaming squirrels as they discuss the pros and cons of “Mad Men” and fawn over it, too, fans who behave like housewives yakking about a favorite daytime soap opera. “Mad Men” has received dozens of awards, including four consecutive Emmys and four Golden Globes.

No one bothers to note, or cares to observe publically, or direct the TV audience’s attention, to the fact that “Mad Men” is a lie itself, created to advance a political and social agenda which, too, is a lie, if all the failed socialist, progressive, and communist experiments around the planet and over the last century are any guide.

And when one examines the political and artistic premises of Matthew Weiner and his colleagues, one can only conclude that they, and not the TV-watching American public, are the helpless, uncritical, deterministic pawns of the culture, the doyens of “our cultural value-deprivation,” moved by a vested interest in sustaining a moral fraud.

*”Our Cultural Value-Deprivation,” by Ayn Rand, in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. Ed. Leonard Peikoff. New York, NY: New American Library, 1989.


Boston: The MSM’s Exploded ‘Journalism’


“Mad Men”: The Left’s Hidden Persuader


  1. Edward Cline

    Readers: I could have gone on for six more pages on "Mad Men." I chose to limit my critique of the series to the role of lies in the story. I could have focused on the shallowness of most of the characters, its progressive (no pun intended) development from 1960 through 1966 and the beginning of the "counter culture," the evasiveness and dishonesty of other characters than Don Draper, and other topics. I might write a follow-up review later. So, please don’t take me to task on other subjects. Mention them, but I do have word limits to these columns. I'll be happy to discuss other topics concerning "Mad Men."

  2. Unknown

    I watched the first few seasons of Mad Men. At first, I enjoyed seeing their recreation of the 60s. The characters were obviously flawed people, but a few were likable, and I expected them to learn and grow as the series went on. Instead, the reverse seemed to happen. For example, Joan started out as a strong, capable and admirable office manager, and look where she ended up. It took me a while, but when I finally realized what the writers were really trying to say, I was so repulsed I couldn't watch another episode. In retrospect, the series is not as much a commentary on the 60s as it is on the dominant philosophy of today: whim-driven emotionalism.

  3. Edward Cline

    Rick: I sent a link to this column to Mattwhew Weiner's and Jon Hamm's Facebook pages. I don't expect a response, or that either of them will bother reading the column.

  4. Anonymous

    You´re not alone in suffering from "cultural claustrophobia." As I read about your personal experience of using literature and music as an antidote to our value deprived culture, I saw myself. Not only, could I relate to the antidote but the type of people you’ve described from Mad Men are the same type I desperately avoided when I worked in the public sector. School bureaucracies are but a microcosm of the authoritarian state, the sure place where the scrupleless power lusting cheats and frauds rise to the top. These self’ perpetuating bureaucracies, where socialism and altruism are the lesson of the day, day after day, are the principal culprits of our cultural value deprivation. It´s no wonder that the liberals who are mostly products of the indoctrination camps that are public schools, are the very ones to spurn values. Only someone who has been fed the propaganda of the state via the subjectivist methods of John Dewey, can have such a warped view of love and happiness, and such disdain for individualism and capitalism.


  5. madmax

    Here is a comment I wrote about 'Mad Men' on another blog:

    "The Left is like Islam. Islam sees everything before the time of Mohammed as "the time of darkness". The Left sees the same but only the demarcation point is the 1960s. Pre-1960s, or pre-modern liberalism, was a time of oppression and inequality, a time of the evil white male patriarchy. 'Mad Men' is a condemnation of pre-liberal America."

    By "liberal" I mean Leftist. And 'Mad Men' is Leftist nihilism on display. But IMO organized Objectivism should be actively exposing the horrid philosophy of Hollywood and the artistic "elite". (Instead the 'TOS' is praising Ann Hathaway's work ethic. Some activism there.) Isn't that what Rand did in "The Fountainhead"? That novel was her condemnation of the cultural Left. Or do Objectivists think it was her condemnation of the "imminent Christian theocracy"?

    With the death of post-Enlightenment Christianity and the traditional morality that governed America up until the 1960s, the Left has created a nihilistic, soulless culture. The challenge for Objectivism is to create a secular value oriented one and to prove that Objectivism can provide for mankind's spiritual needs. So far the movement has not even tried to do this. And futher, most Objectivists share sympathies with the cultural Left because they are secular.

  6. Edward Cline

    MadMax: Your other blog comment was spot-on. I'm taking notes for a follow-up column on Mad Men to cover points I didn't have room to develop in this column. Stay tuned. But, the series is definitely Leftist, and that fact has been entirely missed or overlooked by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and all the screaming squirrel critics and fans.

  7. madmax

    Stay tuned. But, the series is definitely Leftist, and that fact has been entirely missed or overlooked by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and all the screaming squirrel critics and fans.

    And Objectivists too. But that is one of my central complaints; i.e. that we live in a Left-liberal culture which is shaped by Leftists and Leftist ideology. But the Objectivist movement somehow thinks that our fundamental enemy is Christianity as well as Conservatism. This is everywhere in the Objectivist movement. Its dumbfounding to me.

    The only group that correctly sees the Leftist nihilism in 'Mad Men' is the alternate Right blogosophere. I don't agree with their entire philosophy but they are the only group in America to understand that Leftism is the primary evil we face, with Islam being the second great evil.

    I know I'm acerbic but when the "drooling beast" is staring you in the face and no one wants to acknowledge it, it can make you angry.

  8. Unknown

    If it's any consolation, most of the Objectivists I know understand that the Left and liberal culture are as much of a problem as conservatives and the Right. In fact, if anything, there seems to be a growing understanding that at their philosophical core, there really isn't that much difference between them.

    One of the challenges we face as a movement is that Leftist propaganda is not only omnipresent in the US, it's also very powerful — to the point where it influences even seemingly rational thinkers. The degree of omnipresence didn't really hit me until after I spent quite a bit of time out of the country.

    Yaron Brook gave an interesting talk recently where he pointed out that secularism should mean a belief in the objective world, not just the lack of a belief in God. The Left, like the so-called atheists of the Soviet Union, simply preach sacrifice to our neighbors and to the State, rather than to God.

    The good news is that I think it's possible to show and explain this to open-minded O-ists. The bad news is that I suspect quite a few people who call themselves O-ists really don't understand Objectivism as well as they think they do.

  9. madmax

    In fact, if anything, there seems to be a growing understanding that at their philosophical core, there really isn't that much difference between them.

    I don't agree with this. There is NO equivalence in the threat between Leftism and Conservatism. Modern Conservatism is misguided. Leftism is EVIL. You are just repeating mainstream Objectivist ignorance regarding this. I'm sorry to be rude, but that pisses me off.

    Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc are NOT EVIL PEOPLE. Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Tim Wise ARE. Yes, Conservatism is very flawed at its foundation but most of today's mainstream Conservatives are not really Conservatives. They are watered down Classical liberals (far too watered down).

    The degree of omnipresence didn't really hit me until after I spent quite a bit of time out of the country.

    Its worse out of the country if by that you mean Europe or South America. The Asian world is better in that it hasn't accepted multiculturalism or feminism; and egalitarianism for that matter. What is better is that in Eastern Europe and Russia, there is much less feminism but they are still pretty much Marxist in their political economy. It seems that the Left has done more damage to the culture in the Anglo-sphere largely because it is wealthier and poorer countries can't accept nonsense like multi-culturalism and feminism. Poorer countries can't demonize white heterosexual males. That is a luxury only wealthy countries can afford.

    So Rick, I see you as the typical Objectivist in this regard (Left vs Conservative). Think of it this way, where is there the equivalent of Thomas Sowell, Walter williams, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Geert Wilders, Diana West (a one woman army of truth), Andrew MacCarthy, etc on the Left? There are NO GOOD LEFTISTS. NO EQUIVALENCY in the threat from each side. Not knowing that is cultural ignorance.

    I know. I'm acerbic. But I'm right.

  10. GDW

    For anyone who's interested, I maintain a blog specifically devoted to analysis (from an Objectivist perspective) of contemporary television commercials. I have analyzed over one hundred commercials within the last three years, and I've discovered that while the artistic creativity of today's TV advertising is, in my view, just as strong as it has ever been, the philosophical creativity is completely non-existent (read: destructive). It all boils down to today's prevailing philosophical trends. It has been interesting to grasp first-hand how advertising has devolved into a detractive, disintegrating, destructive element in the culture – where advertisers, desperate to make money in the short-term, exploit some of the worst philsophical corruptions around – from it's essence as a positive, informative, and even uplifting element. Of course, this is only because of the mixed economy (and the fact that it becomes more "mixed" with each passing day) – which is why it's especially ironic that people like Madmen's Weiner struggle with the "creative – profitable dichotomy." If not for their leftist philosophies – which causes the mixed economy – such destructive "art" wouldn't be profitable, as it is now. They attack the inevitable results of their philosophies as the inevitable results of their ideological enemies'. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    In any case, this is the link to my blog:

  11. Unknown

    @madmax: I mostly agree with you.

    What I meant is there's little philosophical difference between modern-day Democrats and Republicans; they are two sides of the same Statist coin. They differ in the areas of our lives that they want to regulate, but neither party believes in individual rights, and both believe that Big Government is a good thing. They quibble over minutia, in what looks more like theater than anything substantive. It's not Beck vs. Matthews; it's the Patriot Act vs. Obamacare — or Romneycare vs. Obamacare.

    That doesn't mean there aren't some truly evil Dems and some well-meaning Repubs.

    I agree that it's not right to include true small-government conservatives in the Republican camp. However, they are currently in the minority.

    Regarding being out of the country: what I was trying to say is that propaganda is much easier to see when you're not in the middle of it every day. Having a different culture for contrast is more important in that process than what the values of that culture are.

  12. Blogger

    Are you paying over $5 per pack of cigarettes? I'm buying high quality cigarettes at Duty Free Depot and this saves me over 60%.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén