Peikoff's Dem Pledge and My Thoughts on It

[KendallJ]

I have completed an initial survey of the DIM course, enough I think to conceptually understand the basis for and mentally deal with the Leonard Peikoff posting regarding voting strategy for Objectivists. This hotly contested recommendation to vote consistently Democrat in the past and future elections has been on my mind since it was first published; however, I was not in a position to argue for or against it until such time as I had a chance to listen to the DIM lectures. I can’t say as I have every single detail addressed, but I think I have come to some understanding and wish to put thoughts out there for discussion.

Before previewing DIM, I had stated publicly that I agreed with Peikoff’s assessment of the forces in play but was not sure that I agreed with his assessment of the magnitude and speed with which those forces could play out. During the audit I was looking for ways to challenge the logic, to find a reason that I could still strongly advocate voting for Republicans. I have to say, I am coming up short on rationale. However, I still agree with my assessment that Peikoff is right on the forces in play, but still up for debate is how quickly those could play off.

[before posing my thoughts I’d like to say that anyone who has a problem with the manner in which Peikoff worded his statement really ought to get over it. Those who have a problem with it should remember the purpose and context of the statement: to unequivocally state Peikoff’s position on the matter, and use his authority as the foremost Objectivist scholar to separate himself and the philosophy from those Objectivists who advocate other practices. Can anyone say that they don’t understand after reading the statement that they do not understand where Peikoff stands on the matter, and how strongly he feels it is a direct development of Objectivist philosophy? Good. Mission accomplished. He does not deserve the criticism he is receiving for this statement. Diana Hsieh in her essay “Why I am Voting Democrat” does a very nice job of indicating what she thinks Peikoff meant and I agree with this. If Peikoff’s assessment conforms to reality then it is an extension of Objectivism, and as such in advocating anything I am an inconsistent Objectivist. In the end only one thing will let me come to that conclusion, and that is my own reason, and as such I won’t take Peikoff simply on faith, and I am confident he doesn’t want me to. Dismissing him out of hand and taking him on faith are two sides of the same non-objective coin.]

What I have come away from the DIM course with is a clear understanding that no one can vote for Republicans and consider it a vote placed with a defender (albeit weak or misguided) of individual rights. Brad Thompson’s work on neoconservatism has convinced me that the statist elements of the Republican party are entrenched, well funded, and intellectually backed. DIM has convinced me of the same of the religious influences also present within the Republican party. In addition I am beginning to believe that as a long term philosophical influence, the religious elements may be more dangerous than the secular neoconservative elements. This is Peikoff’s basic assertion coming from DIM.

Accepting this assertion however, I struggled to understand how Peikoff was able to take what are longer term philosophical trends and arrive at a very specific short-term tactic, namely that one should vote consistently Democrat. Also I was worried about what aspect of this tactic was fundamental, and what aspect was tactic qua tactic. My quest was to accept DIM, erase my preconceived bias for voting down Democrats and see if I could derive a basis by which I could advocate voting for Republicans either as a tactic or on principle. My conclusion is: on principle – no, as a tactic – maybe, and only under very specific circumstances. I am tenuous enough on the maybe to concede that it could turn into a no as well, but at this point this is where my judgment stands.

[in the following have tried to distill Peikoff’s argument for this from the DIM lectures I have listened to so far (1-5, 8, 14-15 which are all germane) but please correct what you feel are mis-statements.]

Peikoff’s basic argument for the religious right as a long term danger rest on his characterization of them as an instance of pure mysticism (or M2), and on the argument that it is the fundamental or pure philosophical (I, D2, M2) influences that ultimately determine direction, or in other words that a mixed or partial instance (M1 or D1) cannot defend reason in the long run against a pure instance. I accept this as correct.

Peikoff himself admits that these should be viewed as long term trends; however, he qualifies this view with some extenuating factors which he feels are germane in the present modern-day situation, and which result in an argument for short term caution against this M2 threat. He acknowledges that history up until now might lead one to ask why there isn’t ample time and that a more or less stable mixed case of say, say “basing rational elements on mystical foundations” (M1), might not prevail for some time. His thought is that we are passing through the M1 stage very quickly, and that there are accelerating factors that need to be taken into account.

• Modern communication technology allows for the much more rapid dissemination of ideas and speeds up the rate of social change.
  

• Philosophically (and much more importantly), the world is much more mature and that sustaining contradiction of a mixed case is much more difficult to do. I will quote from Lecture 15 to be sure I have represented his case clearly here. It is very important.
  

It is much harder to sustain that [mixed case M1]at this stage of history than in the two previous periods. We are no longer at an early or beginning stage of philosophy, where men are not yet clear, even as Aristotle wasn’t, that God and the world are incompatible. Or that reason implies atheism. A great many more people who are oriented to the secular know now… and they know it thanks to history, that any form of religion is incompatible with their outlook. And the religious people are clearly, quickly grasping the fact that the secular way of life is compatible with theirs.

With these two factors, I think he makes a strong case that whatever is coming will be accelerated. He admits that the events that might precipitate significant shifts toward strong mystic control of politics are unpredictable, that some crisis could do so, but when, and that even if such a seismic shift happened it might not mean a lasting dictatorship. However, I think he makes a strong case for change occurring sooner rather than later, and that warrants that we be actively engaged in the war of ideas. This is clear to me and very convincing. We should view the ante as being raised, and possibly to play out within our lifetimes.

So the stage is set, and the actors are upon it. What should our next lines be? Let me preface this by a few background points.

The fundamental battle here is one of ideas. I view my vote, while a morally important action, as but a small effort. Instead we ought all to be upping the level of dissemination of our ideas, and most importantly we need to see that ARI succeeds as quickly as possible of building a strong Objectivist faction within academia. We must view Objectivism as lagging in that war. Regardless of on what basis you do the counts, our numbers are fewer.

That said, I think that our political system with its two-party, primary/general election system provides a stabilizing effect. Unlike a parliamentary system with fractured party platforms, our two party system makes at least helps to cause parties to try to fashion a somewhat integrated argument that will sit with a majority of the population. As such our politics is played “between the 40 yard lines” rather than “goal post to goal post”. I think this structure must be taken into account when considering tactics.

So can I think of a reason to vote for Republicans? On fundamental principles, not a chance. The Republican party of Bush is not the party of limited government or individual rights, and it is no longer even a weak defender of such principles. Peikoff is right when he asserts that Bush is the first avowedly mystic President we have had. “Bush isn’t pretending piety.” Regardless of how much you claim the party is mixed, his campaigns have more openly courted the religious vote on principle more than any President in history. He has consistently (and as I look back on it, I am truly stunned) followed an active policy of Christian altruism during his administration, from his “compassionate” prescription drug welfare, to “compassionate” progressive tax cuts, to the altruistic war to bring “freedom” to Iraq, but not safety to America.

Looking back on the election, I think the tactic to vote Democrat was correct, and I now regret not doing it. While the most strident of the neoconservative/mystic public advocates are decrying the election, and issuing calls to stay the “conservative” course, the party itself appears to be behaving with less of the bravado that followed the 2004 elections, and I am sure that in back rooms, strategists are asking themselves what went wrong.

However, I do not think that having Republicans out of power protects us from the rise of theocracy. In his Noodlefood essay “The Road to Theocracy” Paul Hsieh offers us one of many possible scenarios beginning with an external terrorist attack and resulting in a backlash to the religious right in an effort to get serious about terrorism. Possible? I think so. However, I do not see where this possibility is reduced if Democrats hold a slim majority. Throwing a “Hail Mary” (literally) touchdown pass from the opposing 40 yard line is only slightly more difficult than throwing a touchdown pass from your own.

What I do see in the election results however, and this is where I disagree with the “Dem at any price” Objectivists, is a possible mechanism of change. My fundamental difference is in the following characterizations.

1. The Republican party is not uniform, and it does not have enough strength to sustain a majority of the nation if it consistently practices the religious right’s philosophy.

2. However, the mystic faction is clearly growing. Peikoff believes that the secularists increasingly see that religion is not compatible with their view, but my concern is that to many in Middle America the distinction is as strong between secularism vs. religion as it is between the disintegration of the liberal left vs. the “values-based” mis-integration. In other words, in middle America, the “values” based appeal is a better offering than the “secular.”

3. Objectivism is still weak as a philosophically organized offering. As such I don’t expect to see a slowing of the above trend any time soon.

This said, I think abdicating the Republican party to a strong mystical element while Objectivism is still weak is a mistake. As such, I think votes for Republicans could be justified but only in the name of taking the fight to the enemy. I think Objectivists must campaign for change from within the party and eliminate the religious threat before it attains majority status in the main stream. The scenario I fear more than Paul’s is that Objectivists abdicate the Republican party, and cannot build enough of a principled Integrated stand to fight the threat at the national level, before the Republican party has enough of a Christian majority to be able to squelch such a threat.

Change from within the party happens at the local and primary level, and I believe that Objectivists must fight at this level. We must view this as a fight to take over the Republican party before the other factions are strong enough to not need our faction’s vote anymore. This may mean consistently voting anti-Religious Republican in the primary, and Democrat in the generals.

The obvious response from the “Dems at any cost” Objectivists may be that such a vote in some way acts to strengthen the religious right, that it is a dangerous mix of poison and food, and will in some way lead to a Sanction of the Victim scenario. This is the question I have agonized over for a long time, and the one on which I’d welcome the most comments.

My biggest concern with the consistent Dem approach is, I have yet to see an articulation of what we do next. Do we vote Democrat and wait for the ideas to sink in? Is this all there is to our action on the political level? Certainly I have seen many advocate that we make our votes and reasoning known to the Republicans that we didn’t vote for. But is this not engagement with the Republicans of a fashion? What is to happen next in the Republican party? This brings up the question of how change occurs within the party system, and how it is influenced. I would love a discussion on this. Obviously the religious influence did not pop into the Republican party overnight, and so it will not be banished overnight. But certainly it will not be banished if the party is abdicated and left solely to that influence. A mixed M1 cannot stand up to a pure M2, but then what is the rule in the other direction. Can a mixed M1 stand up to a pure I?

In the following part of lecture 15 Peikoff tries to concretize and quantitate the influence of the religious right by looking for population indicators or proxies. While he freely admits that this is very unscientific, and for illustrative purposes only the analysis would lead one to believe that all hope is lost within the Republican party. That statistics are here, but one should listen to the analysis so they understand the context.

· M2 – pure mystics

population of evangelical Christians – 68 Million

Viewers of The Passion of the Christ – 60 Million

Readers of the Left Behind series – 19 Million

· M1 – rationalists

Population of Dr. Laura Listeners – 15 Million

· D1 – empiricists

Population of B.A.’s and B.S.’s given in last 20 yrs – 15 Million

· I – Objectivists

Best estimates from ARI is in the thousands to tens of thousands

While I don’t in anyway want to minimize the threat of the first three categories, I thought that the analysis mixed classes. The larger populations include both the purist proponents of a philosophy and all its mixed-premise followers, while the category of I’s included really just the purists and proponents of Objectivism as a pure philosophy. My question is “Where are the I1’s?” i.e. who are the populations who hold ideas that are closer to ours, may have some mixed premises within them, but would vote for strong I candidates given the philosophical leadership to do so? I went hunting…

There is a third faction within the Republican party, which popular media fondly refers to as the “Libertarian wing” or the “Goldwater Republicans”. These are “limited government” or “pro-business” types. Go search the net and you’ll find that this whole issue about the Republican party is raging within that category. In fact, I seriously doubt it was purely the Objectivist vote that swung the elections this fall. How big is this faction? The Cato Institute places this population at about 15% [approximately 16 Million voters] of voting Americans, and while they generally vote Republican, they are viewed as a “swing vote”. Can the win over the Republican party by themselves? No, they lack the philosophical basis to do so. What they need is philosophical leadership. Maybe I have more hope than I should and if anyone wishes to smash it, please offer up a reasoned argument as to why I’m sanctioning my enemy. But I think that instead of being a swing vote, what you have is the “Objectivist base” and rather than letting them swing, they need to find a home. One could abdicate the Republican party, but I think the fight has to be taken to the mystics before they fully control a national majority.

What this means is that any Objectivist who votes Republican must view their vote as an activist vote. i.e one must continue to make clear the terms on which one is giving or withholding their vote. You cannot risk having your vote confused as a vote of sanction, and you must openly advocate your ideas. If you consider yourself content to let your vote speak for itself then you must vote Democrat per Peikoff’s request. Additionally, one must be able to philosophically detect and vote consistently anti-religion or risk contributing a vote to the enemy. Again, if you feel that you’d rather not take the time to do this, then you must vote Democrat per Peikoff’s request. (Hmmm… I’m willing to admit that maybe what I’ve just done is argue myself directly into the pure Peikoff position, as the above requirements limit the pool of Objectivists who could reasonably execute this – I’d welcome thoughts.)

I agree with Peikoff in his philosophical assessment, but rather than retire to Galt’s Gulch as my form of protest, I view myself as Ragnar, taking the fight to the enemy before they have the strength to bring the fight to me. If you think instead, I’m Dagny or Rearden continuing to sanction my enemies, I’m interested in your thoughts.

I’ll leave you with a few questions

1. Under what circumstances would you come back and vote Republican on principle?

2. What factors would lead you to believe one way or the other that continuing to vote Republican.

[Edited to fix a couple of grammar and formatting errors]

Edited November 25, 2006 by KendallJ

[Capitalism Forever]

Did Dr. Peikoff's analysis consider the influence of the environmentalist movement on the Democrat Party at all? I think if there ever was an "M2," enviromentalists are it.

[KendallJ]

Did Dr. Peikoff's analysis consider the influence of the environmentalist movement on the Democrat Party at all? I think if there ever was an "M2," enviromentalists are it.

It was not brought up in the lectures I audited, but I cannot say wether he addressed it or not as I only listed to what I thought were key lectures. Idid not get all the way through 8 yet which is Politics.

[KendallJ]

Interestingly, this morning's local paper had an editorial from Larry Reed, the President of the Mackinaw Center for Public Policy, whose offices are located on Main St. of my town located a few minutes from my house. It and he are illustrative of the Republican faction I mentioned above, committed free marketers, well-educated and studious, generating concrete research on the impact of free markets and statism from reasoned economic principles. These aren't wacky (capital "L") Libertarians, philosophically, they are M1's as this Thanksgiving Day essay would show, but as close to being I's as we would find anywhere (as close to the deism of the Founders). However, the same essay also indicates the extent to which Free Market think tanks have developed over the last decades, specifically to counter statist tendencies.

So am I being too optimistic? If a very rational M1 cannot stand in the face of a mystic M2, is it not the case as well that the most rational among them would also not stand in the face of a fully pure reasoned I? As well, is it not the case that these are stabilizing organizations (at least in the short run) against the tide? What I am excited by is the fact that the research they are generating is concrete, and generally devoid of philosophical tendencies. Is this research not ammunition that new Objectivist academics could use to jump start their advocacy?

[RussK]

Did Dr. Peikoff's analysis consider the influence of the environmentalist movement on the Democrat Party at all? I think if there ever was an "M2," enviromentalists are it.

Why would an environmentalist be considered M2?

[Inspector]

It was not brought up in the lectures I audited, but I cannot say wether he addressed it or not as I only listed to what I thought were key lectures. Idid not get all the way through 8 yet which is Politics.

He did mention the Environmentalists enough to say that he considers them M2.

Why would an environmentalist be considered M2?

Because M2 is nihilists and environmentalists are as close to pure nihilist that you can get.

[KendallJ]

Because M2 is nihilists and environmentalists are as close to pure nihilist that you can get.

Inspector. I'm not sure that's right. M2 is pure mysticism, two-reality.

I think nihilism belongs in the D2 category. I didn't hear the passage so I can't speak from the course itself.

[Inspector]

Inspector. I'm not sure that's right. M2 is pure mysticism, two-reality.

I think nihilism belongs in the D2 category. I didn't hear the passage so I can't speak from the course itself.

You're right; I misread him and thought he was saying "D2;" then I copied his typo into my post.

That should read "D2," and not "M2."