TheEgoist Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Like it or not, it is inevitable. The fact is that, while liberals have absolutely nothing in common with Objectivism, conservatives range from nothing (such as Huckabee) to quite a whole lot (e.g. Thomas Sowell). And, importantly, the Huckabees are seen by most of them as "not conservative enough," while people like Sowell are considered to be the best and most outspoken representatives of the movement. To a liberal, a "conservative" is anyone who "does not hate life as much as I do." Anyone who believes in anything other than nihilism; anyone who ever expresses certainty about anything other than Global Warming; anyone who doesn't see the American way of life as the greatest evil on Earth. By this standard, Ayn Rand is the absolute uber-"conservative"--the epitome and the fountainhead of everything the liberals think is "wrong" with America. In light of this, I do not find it any surprise at all to see all the overwhelmingly negative mentions Atlas Shrugged gets from them. Conservatives, on the other hand, while they may disagree with Objectivism on some points, do recognize Ayn Rand as the most eloquent defender of some of their core values. It is not surprising, therefore, that now that these values are under such a heavy attack by the Obama administration, they cite Atlas Shrugged in their attempt to defend them. Sowell not a conservative, unless you consider libertarians and conservatives one in the same. The point of this all is that conservatives are more dangerous than liberals are. They are doing a swell job of discrediting Rand's writing by simply talking about it. The people who usually aren't conservative enough are those that don't believe that a man's life and morals should be regulated by theocrats. Thomas Sowell would fit this mold with his anti-drug war, pro-abortion talking points. Not to mention that Sowell, as far as I can tell, is a consistent defender of capitalism. He doesn't try and justify it by saying it is the best for all people, or that God commanded that he believe in capitalism. Sowell is hardly a member of the conservative movement. People like Rush Limbaugh are what most people consider the quintessential conservative. I know from previous posts you seem to support this annoying wind-bag so I won't try and lay out myself why I think he is dangerous. I think Mister Swig put it aptly years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 The point of this all is that conservatives are more dangerous than liberals are. They are doing a swell job of discrediting Rand's writing by simply talking about it. You're talking past him because you're conflating conservative *politicians* with those who are self-declared conservative *supporters*. The conservative politicians are a horrendous bunch, but a large portion of conservative *voters* are good, reasonable, pro-capitalist people. Which is sad, because by endorsing the conservative *politicians* they are contributing in the destruction of everything they love. If we want to defeat the left, the first thing we must do is get the decent conservative voters to throw over the conservative politicians--then the left will tumble like the shrill, hysterical dominoes they are. A lot of their power base depends on opposition to fundie religious rightists--I know quite a few people who only support the leftists because they're worried about theocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 And people who vote Democrat are not good people? I think this is non-sense. You're right that we have to convince those more reasonable conservatives that what they are supporting is destroying some of their ideals. However, we also have to inform them that their own ideals are in conflict. We have to do this, likewise, with those who vote for the Liberals/Democrats. I don't think that these people are some unsalvageable bunch of fools. They are good people just like your everyday American conservative who listens to Limbaugh and votes Republican. Their ideals, too, are in conflict to some extent. Both groups have their benefits and drawbacks. And of course just like it would be near impossible to convince someone who is a hardcore Obama supporter that believes in socialized health care and all the worst aspects of this administration, it would be near impossible to convince a lot these "God and Guns" conservatives who are just absolutely insane in their religious and political ideology. Choose your battles and allies wisely. I don't think you want your ideas associated with the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Michael Savages of the world. It makes your ideas seem as archaic and rooted in the dark ages as their beliefs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 And people who vote Democrat are not good people? I don't recall anyone making this assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 It seems sometimes Objectivists view conservatives as closer to being allies than they do liberals, and I don't know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) It seems sometimes Objectivists view conservatives as closer to being allies than they do liberals, and I don't know why. Because superficially they cheer for freedom and rights and "capitalism". Delving a bit deeper down, they say that our rights come from god and that our freedom is there because no man is fit to rule another, simply because we are all so inherently evil. EDIT: Wording. Edited March 13, 2009 by NickS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Most Objectivists came from a conservative background, so they probably still have some emotional ties to it. Coming from a liberal background, I have no problem despising them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 It seems sometimes Objectivists view conservatives as closer to being allies than they do liberals, and I don't know why. I feel similarly. I don't particularly view Oism as being "on the right" (although I certainly don't view it on the left either). Honestly, on a day-to-day basis, I get along with your average liberal more than your average conservative, BUT I get along with your average independent/politically apathetic person better than either of them. So it's really all on an individual basis anyway. But yeah, I don't think conservatives are any more ready allies than liberals taken as a group. It's all about individual people. Spending a little bit of time over at secularright.org illustrated that rather quickly. Like leftist atheists, rightist atheists are just as prone to fall back on biological determinism and moral intuitionism rather than figure out a rational, egoistic morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Personally, I meet a lot more Democrats who are reasonable and grounded in reality. Not the extremists who protest on the streets of course, but regular voters who are voting against banning abortion, religion in government, fake patriotism, the war in Iraq etc. I found they have a far better grasp on reality than the religious conservatives, who base their believes on the Bible. In fact I have liberal friends who will apply the same exact ethics I do in their personal lives, or to their judgement of actual, concrete people they know, but of course fail to apply it to politics, and to the abstract poor people they can't see the faults in(the reason why they are poor). I have not noticed the same understanding in religious people I know. They are usually far removed from reality, and seem to consistently fail to connect the dots between cause and effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Keep in mind that Cobert is not a consevative or O'ist. Did anyone suggest that he was? You're talking past him because you're conflating conservative *politicians* with those who are self-declared conservative *supporters*. That's exactly right; I should have made clear that I was talking about the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sowell not a conservative, unless you consider libertarians and conservatives one in the same. Does he describe himself as a libertarian? I always thought he was a conservative, or maybe something like a cross between a conservative and an Objectivist. The point of this all is that conservatives are more dangerous than liberals are. They are doing a swell job of discrediting Rand's writing by simply talking about it. Umm ... how can you discredit something by simply talking about it? The people who usually aren't conservative enough are those that don't believe that a man's life and morals should be regulated by theocrats. Well, Huckabee is precisely the kind of guy who does believe life should be regulated by theocrats. I remember seeing an interview not long ago with Ann Coulter where she said she hadn't supported Huckabee because he "wasn't conservative enough"--using those exact words. But she has, on the other hand, been a very vocal supporter of Mitt Romney, who not only did some very "un-theocratic" things in Massachusetts, but even belongs to the "wrong" religion. Now, of course, there are conservatives who think that it's Romney who isn't conservative enough, and Huckabee is all fine and dandy--but they are also the ones least likely to mention Atlas Shrugged positively. Sowell is hardly a member of the conservative movement. Most conservatives certainly think of him as one of them, though. People like Rush Limbaugh are what most people consider the quintessential conservative. No disagreement on that. I know from previous posts you seem to support this annoying wind-bag so I won't try and lay out myself why I think he is dangerous. Deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Most Objectivists came from a conservative background I certainly do, but I would guess that most people on this board don't. Nor do most of the ARI intellectuals seem to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Did anyone suggest that he was? No, just pointing out the obvious for the less enlightened who may be fooled. After all, millions a of young people take The Daily Show as serious news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMartins Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Here's the scene where Colbert does The Fountainhead/Objectivist Children Sleepover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 I certainly do, but I would guess that most people on this board don't. Nor do most of the ARI intellectuals seem to. I made that statement based on a poll on this forum, which showed almost all were previously conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Like it or not, it is inevitable. The fact is that, while liberals have absolutely nothing in common with Objectivism, conservatives range from nothing (such as Huckabee) to quite a whole lot (e.g. Thomas Sowell). And, importantly, the Huckabees are seen by most of them as "not conservative enough," while people like Sowell are considered to be the best and most outspoken representatives of the movement. To a liberal, a "conservative" is anyone who "does not hate life as much as I do." Anyone who believes in anything other than nihilism; anyone who ever expresses certainty about anything other than Global Warming; anyone who doesn't see the American way of life as the greatest evil on Earth. And it's these views that are going to stagnate any progress made in our efforts. Unlike Colbert's previous two goofs on Rand, this wasn't funny. I don't think those ones were funny either. I stopped watching Colbert after he did it the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 I made that statement based on a poll on this forum, which showed almost all were previously conservative. Have you got a link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 (edited) Have you got a link? This may have been it, not sure. Edited March 16, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 This may have been it, not sure. "Left" and "right" are not the same as "liberal" and "conservative," though. And even if we suppose a "conservative" to mean someone who is on the "right" with regard to both questions, if the poll ever showed "almost all were previously conservative," it has changed a lot since then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMartins Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Here's another video from the Colbert Report, where he plugs Atlas Shrugged and mentions Dagny Taggart. Watch it here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.