Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Erik Christensen

Your Presidential hopefuls for 2012

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I voted, just not for President -- I left that slot blank, because no candidate on the ballot met even minimal standards of acceptability. From a purely practical standpoint my vote would not have made a difference anyhow: I live in California, and Obama would have received my state's electoral college votes even if I and everybody I have ever met had turned out and voted for McCain.

With regard to Quo Vadis' question, my position is a bit different. While I do think that McCain's concrete policies and intentions might have been less bad, his basic ideas were just as bad as Obama's -- with the additional drawback that McCain presented himself as a defender of America. Under a McCain administration we might have seen slightly less massive attacks on our freedom, but the deeper ideas driving us towards fascism -- particularly the rejection of individual rights in favor of altruistic service -- would have become even more cemented into place on both sides of the political spectrum. The result would have been twofold: the disasters caused by the government's actions would have been much easier to blame on freedom, and our choice of candidates in future elections would have been even worse.

While I respect McCain's personal character more than Obama's, in the end character is not the driver of history. Ideas are. If we are to regain our freedoms, the most likely way will be for the Republican party to turn to a better set of ideas than those which currently animate it. What motivation would they have to change course if their current hash of religion, altruism, statism and tradition had rewarded them with the White House? None whatsoever.

I regard Erik Christensen's charge of sanction as almost too ludicrous to deserve response, so I'll just make one point. I'm not saying that I approve of Obama, or that I think his policies are good. They aren't -- they're evil. I said so before the election and I've said so many times since then. But Obama's existence and success is not a causal primary. It's the product of ideas widespread in the culture, and those ideas result in increasingly bad candidate choices across the board. What really needs to be attacked and changed are those ideas, and having Obama in office makes that job significantly easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Erik Martinsen
He just posted a video blog about Ayn Rand on his official Facebook page, where he comments on what message he thinks Ayn Rand would have conveyed if she were alive today. It's called "Ayn Rand's relevance in 2009."

In case anyone are interested, Congressman Paul Ryan published yet another video blog where he talks about Ayn Rand.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1191939045695

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case anyone are interested, Congressman Paul Ryan published yet another video blog where he talks about Ayn Rand.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1191939045695

It's nice to hear someone in Congress utter the words "morality of Capitalism," but Mr. Ryan is still a mixed-economy politician (and seems to be under the impression that this is a democracy) and a conservative. I can't see anything profoundly different happening if this man were in charge of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though Paul Ryan is a mixed bag (voted for TARP), his was the first name I thought of. He'll be 42 in 2012, by the way.

I'm now skeptical of Paul Ryan, mainly on grounds of his strong connections to the neoconservatives. Brad Thompson's book on the neocons made it clear just how dangerous these people are. I strongly recommend reading it before deciding to support any candidate they back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is, uh, not all that great

From his Wikipedia.

" On May, 21st, 2008 Paul Ryan introduced H.R. 6510, "A Road Map for America's Future". This proposed legislation outlines a plan to deal with entitlement issues. Its objectives are to ensure universal access to health insurance; strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; lift the debt from future generations; and promote economic growth and job creation in America.[1]"

Personally, I agree with this strategy.

I've always felt it would be strategically intelligent for "libertarian minded", or conservative politicians, to lay off criticism of certain key welfare programs (in regards to social insurance, vouchers ect.). The sad thing is most of them are just too popular for citizens to give up at this moment in time. There are plenty of other interventions that can be attacked instead, while they're still popular to do so like deregulating businesses, privatizing inefficient services, cutting waste, fraud, and duplicative bureaucracies and the works. Campaigning on those core fiscal issues combined with a platform of common sense civil libertarianism, would by far sound attractive to the vast silent majority in this country. As far as a winning political agenda is concerned, you have to respond to the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now skeptical of Paul Ryan...

I share your concerns about Ryan. Republicans in general show no signs of a pro-liberty reformation. They are doing all they can to capture the momentum of the Tea Parties, so they are paying lip-service to small government. But I sense that the old-guard Republican establishment is still in control. If the Tea Parties are going to have any lasting effect, they must resist Republican attempts to capture their leadership and be willing to fight the Republican brand of statism that will creep back out from under the rocks 2-4 years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of now, my favorite P2012 ticket is Paul Ryan & Chris Christie.

I like what I've heard of Christie, simply because he's willing to take on the left in terms both uncompromising and moral. That's incredibly rare for a Republican politician. Even so, attacking the left as immoral is not the same as defending the good. 2012 is also too soon for Christie. He really needs to finish his work in New Jersey before moving on to national office. I'd say 2016 at the earliest.

What do people here think of Mitch Daniels? He seems to have a solid fiscal conservative record and I really liked his advocacy of a "truce" on the social conservative issues while we get our fiscal house back in order. That's about as much push-back against the religious right as one can hope for in the current Republican party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Tea Parties are going to have any lasting effect, they must resist Republican attempts to capture their leadership and be willing to fight the Republican brand of statism that will creep back out from under the rocks 2-4 years from now.

Yes. Angelo Codevilla has written an essay that is generating a lot of buzz in a certain segment of the online right intelligentsia. He identifies a split between what he calls the 'ruling class' and the bulk of the American people. The Democrats are wholly the party of the ruling class, and the bulk of the establishment Republicans are what one might call 'ruling class junior'. The Tea Parties are an expression of popular discontent against the ruling class, which is why they are highly critical of both Democrats and Republicans. The main political battle right now is the attempt by the Tea Parties to wrest control of the Republican party away from its ruling class leadership. The ruling class elements in the Republican party want Tea Party candidates to fail, and if they succeed they will attempt to co-opt them. They've said so explicitly.

I haven't had time yet to read the entirety of Codevilla's essay, and given that he is a religious conservative (albeit of an unusual bent) I'm sure it has a number of flaws. Still, what I've seen and heard of it sounds like an interesting analysis. It's worth looking up, if only because it is influencing the terms of discussion elsewhere on the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had time yet to read the entirety of Codevilla's essay, and given that he is a religious conservative (albeit of an unusual bent) I'm sure it has a number of flaws.

You are correct - there are flaws. It's an interesting read, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just listened to an interview of Trump talking about running for office. Any opinions on this? I don't have much respect for how he's gained his wealth but I've never known anything about his political views. He says he'd run as a republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just listened to an interview of Trump talking about running for office. Any opinions on this? I don't have much respect for how he's gained his wealth but I've never known anything about his political views. He says he'd run as a republican.

I would not support him. He is the king of abusing the eminent domain laws, and from what I can tell he is likely to hold a lot of the standard, detestable, conservative views on certain social issues etc. We need to just stop electing people that are basically owned by a bunch of corporations and lobbyists. Good luck with that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not support him. He is the king of abusing the eminent domain laws, and from what I can tell he is likely to hold a lot of the standard, detestable, conservative views on certain social issues etc. We need to just stop electing people that are basically owned by a bunch of corporations and lobbyists. Good luck with that though.

If you do know what his views are more specifically I'd be interested, google gives me nothing. If not no worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine Trump is a bit of a Metro Conservative. Fiscally, he's pro-whatever is good for his bottom line. Less socially conservative than generations past but still probably restrictive. Will try to come off as being "progressive".

Hereis an incomplete "On The Issues" page for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that no one has mentioned Tim Pawlenty yet- the fact that he isn't opting to run again for governor of Minnesota this year and his constant media appearances in which he really is setting himself up as the anti-Obamacare candidate hints at him running in 2012.

The Cato institute just rated all American governors for their fiscal polices here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/PA668/PA668index.html

Pawlenty was one of the four governors to get an A, and they say that he has vetoed many tax increases, has lowered the amount that state spending increases each year, and is a supporter of amendments to stop bloated budgets (Page 21).

Also, for anyone interested in Mitch Daniels (who many think will run in 2012), he scored a B due to his commitment to decreasing spending (at the expense of increasing the state bureaucracy) (page 18).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guy for 2012 is Gary Johnson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSao9_JiIXc

http://www.johnsonforamerica.com/index.php

He also started the Our America project which has videos that cover some of his positions:

http://ouramericainitiative.com/ in addition to the issues list on the first website.

He has been extremely successful as a Governor. He is basically Ron Paul without all of the bad parts.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has been extremely successful as a Governor. He is basically Ron Paul without all of the bad parts.

He appears to me to have most of Ron Paul's worst parts... appointing judges to overturn Roe v Wade, endorsed by Right To Life. Anti-gay marriage (because if the feds don't recognise it most of the protections aren't there).

May not seem huge... unless one is gay or a woman...

That said, I'd vote for him lacking a better alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He appears to me to have most of Ron Paul's worst parts... appointing judges to overturn Roe v Wade, endorsed by Right To Life. Anti-gay marriage (because if the feds don't recognise it most of the protections aren't there).

I honestly don't think Roe vs. Wade i s going anywhere, so I am not really worried about that. In fact I doubt the idea would even get much air time with the economy and the wars and all of that. Obama hasn't really made a move on either of those issues, politicians don't usually risk it these days , too much controversy. They talk the talk on it but never walk the walk. As far as Gay Marriage he is essentially for it (he wants to get the government out of it, which, while not ideal, is certainly an improvement).

That said, I'd vote for him lacking a better alternative.

Exactly. We are not going to get anyone ideal with even the slightest chance in hell ever winning an election in our lifetimes, that is just a fact. I honestly think this is a guy I could legitimately stand behind in the election, considering that I doubt anyone with more than a pinch of electibility (i.e. less popular than Ron Paul was, the main out of status-quo candidate, ever was in the last election) will be an alternative, that does not have some stance that is a great issue for us objectivists, regarding foreign policy, or the economy, or what have you.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At any rate, for anyone curious, here is another good short and then a 9 min vid with him by Reason.tv.

I have spoken to him in person for about 6 minutes 1 on 1. I liked him, so unless I can find a better one with a snowballs chance in hell then he's my guy.

Thats all I will post on him though. I don't mean to spam but I cannot edit my original post any longer:

2:30 mins: (This one is pretty good for 2 mins!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Js0xdZFdrU

9 mins with Reason.tv:

Edited by CapitalistSwine

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...