I didn't pick up the book when it was first published (February 2011), since it didn't show up on anybody's radar screen as a book that deserved heavy discussion, but Tucker's review is so contrary to my impression of the book that I will have to read it to see what is going on in it.
Tucker says: "It is highly unusual that a book this bold and heterodox would come from a U.S. senator...[but that] all political books have to be graded on a curve," so maybe it is not that bold afterall, when the curve is taken away.
Specifically, Tucker goes on to say that, in the book, Rand:
....actually spends a substantial part of the book explaining that he actually is a libertarian...Which if accurate, means that Rand is nothing but a flip-flopper, since in the March 17, 2010 issue of Time, the magazine published an interview with Rand, where he said:
They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian.In the review, Tucker does not explain the discrepancy, perhaps he has not kept up on events enough to be aware.
Tucker then goes on to champion the libertarian Rand and tells us not to be too harsh:
If you want to start putting acid tests on his thinking in the book, you will note that he is mixed on the subject of immigration, he is silent on the drug war (but silent is better than endorsement), and he seems to hold out the possibility of some war-making role for the state .In favor of drug wars and "the possibility of some war-making role for the state," sure sounds like quite a "libertarian" curve that Tucker is grading on. I'm sure Dick Cheney would come out quite well. As for silence being heroic, I'm guessing Tucker has a problem with Leonardo da Vinci' s view:
Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.
But, hey, Jesse Benton should be giving the review two thumbs up.