Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
conan

Presidential Hopeful.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Of the politicians or persons who might consider the office of president, who would Objectivists most like to see run and possibly get elected?

Which Objectivists?

If you check some of the political threads you will see that it is a matter of great controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which Objectivists?

If you check some of the political threads you will see that it is a matter of great controversy.

Betsy,

I don't mean to suggest that Objectivist are in total agreement on political issues. I was just curious as to what individual reponses might be. If I were to take a wild guess, I think Colin Powell might be a possible choice.

I would have liked to see Alan Keyes in office. What do you think of him?

conan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Colin Powell?! Yuck."

To say the least. I dare say you would find near complete agreement among O'ists that Powell would be a horrible President. However, I might go so far as to say he would be "better" than Kerry (but not as "good" as Bush).

How sad is it that these are the people we have to consider for the office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were to take a wild guess, I think Colin Powell might be a possible choice.

As you've seen from other responses, Powell is not being considered at all. He is altruistic, pacifistic, and has no concept of individual rights or the proper function of government.

In addition to Bush (as the lesser of evils) and Kerry (as a protest vote), some Objectivists have mentioned Rudy Gulinani and Dick Cheney as possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just starting to read the Objectivist literature about four years and a few months ago, so I didn't see any of the Objectivist debates over the last 4-year election.

I was wondering about the response to Steve Forbes in the primaries? I wasn't old enough to vote (barely old enough to drive ;)), so I didn't do as much research as I would today--but I know I thought the (low) flat tax was an improvement, and I liked the impression that he was a businessman who wanted to streamline the government. I don't know if that's a correct depiction of his campaign essentials, but it's all I really learned (or got the impression of, if incorrect) about him.

I'm sure opinions were probably mixed, but did he receive a good reception from many?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld would be a good ticket and would anger communists even more than Bush/Cheney. I'm almost in George Costanza mode. I don't know how many of you watch Seinfeld, but in one episode George theorizes "If every instinct I've ever had is wrong, then the opposite must be right," he then goes on to ask a woman out by telling her the truth about himself (he's bald, unemployed, and living with his parents) and voila he gets a date! Relating this to politics today my theory is "If every theory and opinion communists have is wrong, then the opposite must be right." Of course, as in George's case, this theory only goes so far, but I think in my case there is some grain of truth to it, even if it is far from absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering about the response to Steve Forbes in the primaries?  I wasn't old enough to vote (barely old enough to drive :P), so I didn't do as much research as I would today--but I know I thought the (low) flat tax was an improvement, and I liked the impression that he was a businessman who wanted to streamline the government.  I don't know if that's a correct depiction of his campaign essentials, but it's all I really learned (or got the impression of, if incorrect) about him.

Steve Forbes in 1996 was a very different candidate from Steve Forbes in 2000. In 1996 he ran a campaign focused largely on fiscal conservatism. Key issues as I recall were the flat tax, social security privatization and a restoration of the gold standard. He definitely wasn't running as a social conservative. His late entrance to the race and his lack of connections inside the Republican party doomed his candidacy from the outset.

I was hopeful in the intervening years as Forbes built himself a political organization that was clearly intended to serve as a better springboard for another run in 2000. He spent time campaigning on behalf of other Republican candidates in the 1998 election cycle, and was building bridges inside the party apparatus -- working to correct some of the structural problems that damaged his 1996 campaign. I tried to help him along by donating money from time to time.

I (and a lot of other Objectivists) were dismayed when his 2000 campaign was built around defining himself as the 'true' representative of religious and social conservatism. He tried to broaden his appeal within the primaries by kowtowing to religion, and that turned off a lot of his 1996 supporters (including me).

These days, with the increased focus on foreign policy engendered by 9/11, I honestly don't know how well Forbes would stack up as a candidate. Not well is my guess. Which may explain why we haven't heard much about him in the last 4 years. (Every now and then some conservative floats the idea of him running for governor or senator from New Jersey, which I gather is his state of residence, but nothing ever comes of it.)

With reference to the broader question of which contemporary politician would I like to see as President -- it's a sad commentary on the state of American politics that I can't really come up with a candidate I'd find exciting. There are ones who would be better or worse on individual issues, but nobody who really ties everything together into an exciting integrated package.

For pure entertainment I'd kind of like to see Condi Rice run against Hillary Clinton in 2008, just because it would be fun watching the Democrats try to figure out how to run against an intelligent, articulate conservative black woman. But that's a purely emotional reaction, not a reasoned one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Forbes in 1996 was a very different candidate from Steve Forbes in 2000.

Wow, I didn't even realize he ran twice. I always watched primaries and stuff, as I lived in Iowa and they were all over the tv/news to start the campaigns off strong... I think I just blended the two together, because the flat tax and such is what I remember most. Thanks a lot for that clarification and explanation, I've been wondering about it for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin Powell?!  Yuck.

Colin Powell? He's my last choice!

Personally, I like Arnold Schwarzenegger. But the Constitution doesn't allow him to become president.

I also like Christine Whitman and Rudolph Giuliani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For pure entertainment I'd kind of like to see Condi Rice run against Hillary Clinton in 2008, just because it would be fun watching the Democrats try to figure out how to run against an intelligent, articulate conservative black woman.  But that's a purely emotional reaction, not a reasoned one.

I'd rather the Republicans choose Christine Whitman to run against Hillary. Condi Rice is too much like Colin Powell, for my tastes.

AFAIC, Hillary Clinton, not Martha Stewart, belongs in Danbury prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rudy G, definatly

I like Steve Forbes very much, enjoy his commentary on fiscal issues

In the media I think Larry Elder or John Stossel would be great. Elder was thinking about running for Cali governor IIRC.

TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudolph Giuliani

I would never vote for the man you built his career on the backs of people like Milken. Never.

More recently, RG is remembered for his role in handling the aftermath of 9/11. Sure, he is a tough executor...someone in the Ross Perot mode.

I always liked many aspects of Ross Perot's fiscal approach. However, I would never vote for him because I see him as someone who would ruthlessly implement the things I disagreed with too. On the other hand, Bush and Kerry will always compromise a little. Given the state of the law in this country, I do not want an executive who would enforce the bulk of it strictly.

We are at a stage where an executive with will and persuasive abilities can do much damage. It has the wherewithal, in terms of laws, to restrict what is said on the radio waves, to pry into private affairs as never before, to hold people without any intention of due process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Condi Rice would be good because she is really hot. Have you seen her in those dresses? Mmm mmm mama.

Hey if we're going down with a tank full of losers, I want some eye candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Condi Rice would be good because she is really hot. Have you seen her in those dresses? Mmm mmm mama.

Hey if we're going down with a tank full of losers, I want some eye candy.

Eye Condi! :dough:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of the politicians or persons who might consider the office of president, who would Objectivists most like to see run and possibly get elected?

My first post here. Came here from a Google search of "Piekoff Bush Kerry".

But, this indeed got my attention. Best politician of the 20th century: Phil Gramm. Smart as hell, tough as a bulldog.

"Hillarycare will pass over my cold, dead political body!"

Hillarycare threw a rod right then and there. Thank you Mr. Gramm! Too bad he got bated by that rat Buchannen in LA in 96. He was the best candidate by far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John McCain seems to possess a great deal more integrity than most other American politicians.  I could deal with him in office (speaking as a Canadian).

Unfortunately, from his sponsorship of "campaign finance reform" I can only conclude he has no concept of what individual rights are -- especially freedom of speech.

I'll cross him off my list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, from his sponsorship of "campaign finance reform" I can only conclude he has no concept of what individual rights are -- especially freedom of speech.

I'll cross him off my list.

Hmm, I was unaware.

Ah well, I don't live there. I'll stick to my wonderful socialist Canadian politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, from his sponsorship of "campaign finance reform" I can only conclude he has no concept of what individual rights are -- especially freedom of speech.

I'll cross him off my list.

(Just to play the Devil's advocate...)

Is that really any worse than some of the awful rights-abridging things that every other politician (including president Bush) also sponsors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...