Boethius Newman

I think two points from posts are best addressed to better illustrate what I am advocating. First: "There are two threads to this discussion. One: about schisms etc., the other about being involved in politics. I'm not sure how these two are related." They are related in that schisms are divisive. They result in less effectiveness in politics due to fewer relationships. Schism among Oists (side note: Harriman is off this list) should be avoided. You don't have to like the guy or agree or even pretend, but rubbing his nose in it is a bad choice. The "we" I am addressing are or ought to be working for political power; not defining a philosophy; that is for the pros. To that end, our primary if not only measure of success is winning a vote when we set out to do so. That takes building relationships. Those will be among Oists, and before the vote, with others who will be voting, regardless of their reason for voting with us. You find your allies for this vote; the next vote, your allies will be a different set; some the same ones, some different, some old allies will now be opponents. Through all that, it takes building relationships for the day when that one vote by one guy you don't really like will make the difference between your success or failure. That is why schisms are so damaging. Oists need each other to succeed politically. You don't have to like each other, or invite him to your parties, but maintaining a polite relationship beats snubbing him so he ends up voting against you just for spite (which happens all the time - human nature). Would another Oist really do that? Of course; not all your votes will be earth-shaking. He'll snub you on something unimportant. So why care? Because politicians judge you by the fact that you are consistently a winner (or not). Other politicians are more prone to agree beforehand to vote with you -or even whether to vote with you at all - if you are viewed as a winner. That is human nature. That is (some of) the nature of building relationships. You sacrifice the little value of the pleasure of telling a jerk that he is a jerk, for the greater value of winning a vote because he decided you were the right side to vote with. "if Objectivist do not get involved in politics, they'll never achieve political change." This is spot-on. Politics is the tool we must use to effect change. Change does not just happen. We have to make it so. Not every job is pleasant 100% of the time; but it is the mounting successes that make everything worth it. I really like the increasing number of evenings that I come home to my wife, and say, "I got everything I wanted today." Second: "what fighting are you referring to that is not philosophic disagreement? what is it in particular that’s happening that you’re criticizing? i haven’t been following more recent controversies closely, but haven’t all of them been about personal and political relationships?" If you have a PhD in philosophy, write books, articles, etc., as a philosopher and are making new contributions to Oist thought, then keeping Oism to its original definition is part of your job; dilution is something you must snuff out; it is black-and-white. The list of people in this group I could count on one hand, and possibly not even need all of the fingers (ps: have not tried actually counting; hope I am wrong). The rest of us fall under what I said above about schisms and relationships. It is not what I think about what happened to McCluskey, or the related actions of some of the people within ARI; it is that, regardless, we have to focus on political success. That means stressing our similarities by building our relationships on those. The bad guys will laugh at any divisiveness we display all the way to the bank (who do you think won the vicious 2012 debates between Gingrich and Romney?). We do have a lot of similarities: AR's Oism, for example, covers a lot of it. There are inevitably going to be Oists I like better than others because of mutual opinions, hobbies, attitudes - whatever - but there are not enough of us that we can afford to split our efforts (I am not sure there would ever be enough for that; the Republicans are being illustrative of that issue very well at the moment). We should be building relationships among Oists as the bedrock for bringing about an Oist culture. The generation that does that, and simultaneously builds appropriate relationships beyond Oists, will be the one that succeeds. There is no reason that cannot be done by our generation(s), right here, right now. Third point (a thought of my own): How do politics and education (re ARI) tie together? An educated populace is needed for the freedom / rights-based end of the political spectrum to win. Ignorant people tend to fall under the spell of would-be dictators. ARI grows the people we need to address and to win the support of if we are to win politically. We win support by building relationships. Philosophy is for humans. It gets implemented to ascend to cultural dominance via relationships. The adherents who do that best win.

Re "by the orthodox position, “infighting” can’t occur because any disagreement with the official orthodox position", with all due respect to the writer, infighting does occur, and it is not true philosophical disagreement, but Oists who take that as their model of behavior, which is the wrong thing to do. As the next writer said, "Objectivism is so prone to schisms". "Orthodox" to me, means AR's philosophy, plus LP's Fact and Value, Induction, and DIM. Beyond that, it is our job to build. Building is the real, physical implementation, not the abstract philosophical discussion. Re "watch out because Objectivists might have to stop talking to you", I don't care about those people. Forget them and leave them in their holes; that is their choice. Move on. They are by definition not builders (not of relationships and therefore not of a culture). They will have no impact on the future. They are the losers. Culture - and politics - is built on relationships. The key to implementing Oism into the culture is building relationships, not destroying them. There are degrees of relationships, from close ties (friends, spouses) to casual and momentary for the sake of the next vote. Political relationships are always guarded; they have to be. You have to use all of the various kinds of relationships, deliberately, constructively, and endlessly. Like any profession, politics is a challenge, but one I really found I enjoy.

To "Moderators": FYI: No satire; and I have been around awhile: my first Con was in 1985. I first read AR in 1976-77. AR (and LP vs. Kelley, et al) were and are keeping the Oist philosophy as it was defined. Their approach was necessary at the philosophical level. But Oists in general are not fighting that fight. The infighting I was referring to and see and hear about is among (what I call) "orthodox" Oists (vs. IOS, Atlas Society, etc., or whatever they are calling themselves now) - i.e., the "good guys". Destructive relationships among common "orthodox" adherents are a bad thing. We want to build a better world, right? We can do that now. We don't need to wait (for what mysterious reason?) a thousand years, into some undefined future. I don't know who first said something like that, but it is wrong. All it takes is for the current generation to understand the means. But it cannot be done by one person, nor even just by ARI. We must do it together, mutually supportive. That is not to say all thinking alike, always agreeing, but mutually supportive in our efforts, exchanging ideas, "lending a hand" so to speak, on occasion. That is, building relationships among ourselves - Oists. For example, what is the secondary thing after supporting ARI and education generally, to bring about the Oist culture? That is politics. As a politician I have already had a positive impact: I have begun rolling back zoning laws, etc.; I have kept the govt. here limited and more properly aligned for the model future Oist culture than it would have been otherwise (if only because I took the seat of a liberal). I am changing the culture now. Politics is the mechanism. Oh, yes, I wish all Oists would give greater support to ARI and education; my job is made more difficult by the lack of penetration of Oist ideas, so please contribute more to ARI! But still, I am being successful. You can be too. It would be so much better if other Oists would become politicians. You don't have to be on the national scene (although, hurrah for David Brat in Richmond, if he is as close to Oism as I have heard claimed). Start on the municipal level. You can have much more impact now. If there were 300 Oists like me, we could change the direction of this country now. We could have conferences where we could exchange ideas on how we have each innovated, to our mutual benefit. I sure could use a few. We could be building a better world now. And as that experience level rises, Oists could then use the acquired skills to ultimately move to national-level offices. That would be in less than a decade for the best and the brightest. Politics takes learning and skills development, just like being an accountant, an engineer, a programmer-analyst, etc. You don't just hop right in any more than you do in those or any other professions, whatever you may think. Oists need that experience and knowledge to succeed as much as any politician. Outside of identifying the need for education and spreading of Oist ideas, Oists' identification of how to bring about an Oist culture has been completely absent. The means - the mechanism - is politics, which starts with relationships. That includes all kinds of relationships, and being good at cultivating relationships, to the full range of degrees, among Oists, and with non-Oists. You must build them all to succeed as a politician, for many, many reasons. But being politicians remains the avenue for building that Oist culture. Do that now, and you build an Oist culture now. I am doing it in one isolated little place. Obviously if more Oists were doing the same, the impact would be compounded. You have the same tools as anyone living in any distant future - relationships. Change comes to those who can use them.

Excuse me if I did not make myself clear. I am in no way criticizing ARI, and I will include LP in that as well. ARI is an essential part of building the future. I have been a contributor almost from its beginning. LP has had one of the toughest jobs of all: keeping Objectivism to its definition in the face of those who would have changed it. "Fact and Value" is one of his greatest contributions. I view "Productiveness" as not just as in the classic, immediate explanation but more: building the world that we want to live in and want to see, for ourselves, our families, and our friends. Infighting, etc., will never be a part of making that happen. I urge Objectivists to focus more on building the relationships that will bring about an Objectivist culture. This takes a lot of people working together. Those Oists who bemoan that they will not see it happen in their lifetime are failing to realize that building relationships - stressing common ground - is where it starts.

After watching the further disintegration of Objectivism as adherents reacted to the Harriman fiasco, I wrote the "Question" below, to a friend. His "Answer" is very astute. Please note: this is not addressed to the case of the Brandens, Kelley, or Harriman. They have left Objectivism. This applies to those of us who fall generally under the "orthodoxy" of ARI, OCONs, etc. ___________________________ Mr. B: Re the propensity of Objectivists to form schisms and splits, denounce and revile at the least provocation, and be easily provoked into hostility, name calling, and childish petulance: This proves the total lack of understanding of relationships by Objectivists, and therefore Politics. Did you ever change anyone's mind by calling them names or mercilessly criticizing their opinion or otherwise abusing them? Do you ever see anyone who is effective at getting people to agree or work with them or come to their point of view say anything that gets remotely similar to the abusive style shown throughout by both sides of any typical Objectivist disagreement? Did you ever even see anyone agree with you, even if they are of the same opinion, if you mistreat them the way these people are doing? Do you think John Galt ever used such language like that in his efforts to persuade the other would-be strikers? Do you think Galt's Gulch would survive for twenty minutes if these attitudes existed there? QED: 1. None of these people would be invited nor welcome in Galt's Gulch. 2. There is no future nor progress based on these attitudes and treatment of other people. 3. This behavior is therefore the alternative: destructive. 4. This behavior and therefore these people will not and cannot produce an Objectivist culture. Mr. X: Re #4, this IS Objectivist culture. _________________________________