Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Undercurrent

Reblogged:Is Donald Trump Really Selfish?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Trump-with-Supporters.jpg

Recently, several media outlets have made a connection between Ayn Rand and Donald Trump.  They have made this link based on an interview in which Trump stated, “It [The Fountainhead] relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to … everything.” Going further, several media sources have made the claim that Trump is stacking his cabinet with people who share Rand’s views because some of them have read her novel Atlas Shrugged.

In drawing such parallels, media pundits are likely not focusing too much on the particulars of Trump’s actions and policies, many of which fly in the face of Rand’s stated views—from his overt racism, to his proposal to criminalize flag burning, to his promises to protect welfare programs, to his proposed expropriation of money from Americans to fund infrastructure spending. Rather, they are making a broader claim about Trump’s overall approach to morality and values, which they believe is an embodiment of Rand’s ideal of selfishness.

In making this claim, the media appears to consider Trump and his cabinet members “selfish” in the sense that they are willing to say and do anything (including using the power of government) to achieve the ends they want to achieve, with no regard for others.

Yet this understanding of selfishness is fundamentally at odds with Rand’s own conception. Instead of using any means whatsoever to achieve his or her ends, Rand held that a rationally selfish person is one who uses his or her own mind to the best of its ability to survive, thrive, and achieve personally chosen goals through his or her own independent thought and effort, and by engaging in voluntary, win-win relationships with others.

In order for all individuals to survive and thrive, Rand held that their government must enact policies that unconditionally protect their individual rights, including the rights identified by the American founders: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Setting aside the question of whether Trump and his acolytes are rationally selfish in their own lives, it’s clear that many of Trump’s proposals ignore individual rights in favor of defending the so-called collective prosperity of the nation.  To use Rand’s terms, Trump rejects individualism and espouses collectivism in the form of nationalism.

In the economic realm, several of Trump’s policies, including his abandonment of the TPP and his proposed tariff on goods from Mexico, prevent individuals from participating in volitional economic interactions without paying a hefty fee. These policies and others that Trump has proposed, which are examples of economic nationalism, prioritize protecting the alleged interests of the nation over the legitimate rights of the individual to trade freely.  If Trump had really been influenced by Rand, he would know that free trade is the hallmark economic policy of a rights-protecting government.  But instead, since his policies protect the group or the nation over the individual, they are ultimately another form of collectivism, as Rand defined it.

When it comes to personal liberties, specifically abortion, Trump has stated that he thinks the government should punish women who choose to have an abortion and 100% outlaw it. According to Rand, abortion is a highly private medical decision. But Trump would rather this decision be made arbitrarily by the state or by the collective decision of voters. In either case, the policy undermines an individual woman’s right to make choices that affect her own body.  By contrast, Rand called abortion a “moral right” for women everywhere, writing: “who can conceivably have the right to dictate to [a woman] what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

But it’s not just Trump’s avowed policies that are collectivist; it’s also his racist, xenophobic attitudes. Rand called racism “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” Trump has revealed his racism on multiple occasions, such as when he called Mexican immigrants all manner of vile names throughout his presidential campaign, ignoring the fact that most Mexican immigrants are decent, hard-working, honest individuals who are not criminals. Likewise, when a Mexican judge ruled against Trump, in a lawsuit dealing with Trump University, his immediate response was to question the judge’s decision because of his race.

Trump’s damning of an entire ethnic group, such as Mexicans, on the basis of their country of origin, is plain and simple racism.  And Trump’s racism reveals the ugly nature of collectivism, in that it utterly disregards the individual’s beliefs, values, and actions, automatically attributing to an individual both the best and worst characteristics of the collective group or race of people with which that individual is associated.

In stark contrast to Trump and his positions, a truly rational and selfish person, in Rand’s sense of these terms, would understand the need for individual rights to be protected and would reject collectivism in all its manifestations.  Rand viewed humans as rational and independent entities capable of making decisions for themselves; Trump views humans as sheep needing to be shepherded, or (in the case of non-Americans) as wolves that need to be walled off to protect said helpless sheep.  Rand’s view is individualistic; Trump’s is collectivistic.

Hence it is clear that Trump is far removed from Rand and from her distinctive conception of rational self-interest; instead, Trump falls squarely in the collectivistic and irrational realm.  Therefore, we must fully disaffiliate Ayn Rand and her philosophy from the statements, actions, and policies of President Trump, regardless of Trump’s alleged infatuation with Rand and her characters.

*  *  *

For more on this subject, we recommend Ari Armstrong’s post at Freedom Outlook. Creative commons-licensed image courtesy of Flick user Gage Skidmore.

The post Is Donald Trump Really Selfish? appeared first on The Undercurrent.

the-undercurrent?d=qj6IDK7rITs the-undercurrent?d=JUhcmGiK9AQ the-undercurrent?d=yIl2AUoC8zA the-undercurrent?i=ucs_t8rRa8o:XqQ1y1nx0Sg:WkrIHMmXu7Y the-undercurrent?i=ucs_t8rRa8o:XqQ1y1nx0Sg:V_sGLiPBpWU the-undercurrent?i=ucs_t8rRa8o:XqQ1y1nx0Sg:gIN9vFwOqvQ the-undercurrent?d=l6gmwiTKsz0
ucs_t8rRa8o

Link to Original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the realm of American politics, winning is the only thing. At least, that is how it appears today. If President Trump believes he can win over more constituents by name dropping, then he will drop whatever names are necessary to win. Most Republican voters prefer to hear their candidates drop in the name of Jesus Christ. Given the fact that Ayn Rand is much less known, especially by the Hallelujah chorus, what harm would it do for Trump to try to endear himself to those whose understanding of Ayn Rand is limited to her pro-business/pro-individualism. Trump knows what he is doing. It's the people who support him that don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Repairman said:

Trump knows what he is doing. It's the people who support him that don't.

He may know what he is doing to sway folk, and put the pressure on congress, but when it comes to the correct course to set the ship of state on, I suspect that neither he, nor those supporting him, are in the know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Repairman said:

In the realm of American politics, winning is the only thing.

True or not, that's an odd remark two days after Trump suffered a major defeat the first time he tried to move a piece of legislation.

32 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

He may know what he is doing to sway folk, and put the pressure on congress

That may be even odder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken. He did make a bit of noise pushing for it. The result, at this time, has boiled down to the media asking if the republicans are capable of running a government if they cannot keep as simple a promise as the promise to repeal.

Their error is the media painting it as and republicans claiming to not having something to replace "Obama'sCare" with. If anything, his pressuring congress gave the media a talking point.

Yet, all along, he has thumbed his nose at the media. It has culminated in garnishing support from those who are adversarial to the media. In this case, a backfire.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Reidy said:

True or not, that's an odd remark two days after Trump suffered a major defeat the first time he tried to move a piece of legislation.

He has four years to pass his own version of socialized healthcare. I suspect he's going to be able to. The current version is pretty unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put my odd comments into more focused perspective, I consider Trump to be the worst choice for the post of the United States president in my lifetime, and I hope there is a legitimate means of removing him from office. But as far as I can tell, he's not going anywhere for the moment, and he's made his mark in history merely for the accomplishment of being elected. As for "winning" as a primary and nearly only goal in politics, I wish it weren't so. I still hold out hope that there are a few elected officials that administer the duties of their office with integrity, but I am unaware of any that advocate the dismantling (or reasonable reform) of the welfare state, and champion the natural rights of individuals.

Regarding the original post, I don't agree with many of the assertions and accusations, but he is absolutely right for drawing the distinctions between the ideas of Ayn Rand, and those of Donald Trump. Trump is a statist, and by no means is he an Objectivist.

Is there some possibility that Trump could redeem himself? I can only wait and see. Before campaigns were waged by a democratic or parliamentary vote, they were waged with armies. As it was then, losing a battle does not necessarily result in losing the war. My only concern is that the cause for which the campaign is waged is a just cause. At the present, I have no cause for optimism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×