Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Political Party

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

First, why not an "intellectual activist" organization whose primary purpose is to try to influence politicans' votes on critical issues?

Check out the Defenders of Property Rights.

[Edited to add that influencing votes is not their primary purpose, but it is a major one.]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At this point, I must confess my ignorance of something about politics. Must a candidate, to run as a ___, endorse the ___ platform, or is he only required to be registered as a ___? If he is required to endorse a platform, then I think that running would be wrong. However, if he is not required to expressly endorse a platform, the last remaining question that I see is whether his endorsement of a position is implied by his being registered as a ___.
I don't think you have to endorse every part of the party's platform. In fact, as you said above, there are plenty of Republican officeholders who are pro-choice while the platform regularly calls for the elimination of abortion. I suppose if you were running for Pres. and you took a position opposite of the one in the party's platform, that might cause a stir.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose if you were running for Pres. and you took a position opposite of the one in the party's platform, that might cause a stir.

Good point. While that wouldn't reflect on one's honesty, which is what I was discussing primarily (totally lame pun intended), it certainly would affect one's assessment of the likelihood of being elected for any office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must a candidate, to run as a ___, endorse the ___ platform, or is he only required to be registered as a ___?
In Washington I know empirically that there's no legal requirement of endorsing an official party platform. OTOH there can be a de facto requirement in that direction, depending on the local mechanics, if candidates are "put up" by the party (via convention or local caucus). In that case, you should be up front about your rejection of the party line. I also know that in some instances, candidates of X have strayed so far from their party's mainstream that they have been asked to leave, though I don't remember a name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also know that in some instances, candidates of X have strayed so far from their party's mainstream that they have been asked to leave, though I don't remember a name.

David Duke (all though he switched back and forth between the parties) was pretty much told to NOT run as a Republican, but I don't think the party was able to do anything legally to stop him if he had the signatures and primary votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, why not an "intellectual activist" organization whose primary purpose is to try to influence politicans' votes on critical issues?
There are so few Objectivists today, that even the Objectivist organisations that have very narrow agendas (e.g. AFCM, CAC, TAFOL) really do not have the resources to do much within their own chosen areas. I'm guessing that the Institute of Justice is not an Objectivist organization; if they are, I'm curious how they are funded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A follow-up thought: since there are so few Objectivists, we must use resources of non-Objectivists. We need to use "leverage", while not making compromises.

The Ayn Rand essay contest is an example of very limited use of leverage. The books-to-schools project, on the other hand, is using the assistance of non-Objectivists (teachers who lack funds and are looking for books). Many of these teachers are not seeking to teach their kids Objectivism; they'd probably be just as receptive to other offers.

As a tactical matter, Objectivist activists must ask themselves: how can my project push my agenda while also pushing someone else's agenda (while the latter does not conflict with mine)?

Take an example: the AFCM. One of the issues they talk about a lot is MSAs/HSAs. One is beginning to see some companies who are interested in offering HSAs. So, an Objectivist might think: how can I leverage my limited resources by getting these companies to fund me? Suppose one were to find that the new companies are not having an easy time marketing their new products. Suppose one were to find that the biggest task in selling is not convincing people that one HSA is better than another, it is simply the whole idea of HSAs.

If these were the facts, an Objectivist activist might be able to play salesman and be funded by the firms thus: 3 of the firms could pool some of their HSA-marketing dollars. The AFCM could use this money to do initial mailings, contacts, seminars, etc. The AFCM would play "conceptual marketer". At each instance, if people are more interested, their contact info would be passed to the 3 sponsor firms. The firms can then take over and try to sell their own variant of the plan. [similar to "Got Milk!"]

The example above is hypothetical. It's not meant to be a specific suggestion for action, but a suggestion of the type of action/funding we must look to do.

(Aside: The spell-checker wanted me to change "Objectivists" to "Subjectivists". LOL)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not appropriate to join ANY political party, association, or group any more; due to the degree of political corruption that exists, you would be giving explicit sanction to some form of evil no matter what you did. If you become a Republican, you are not supporting capitalism: you are offering support to the religious right. If you become a Democrat, you are not supporting personal freedoms, you are offering support to communists and viros. If you become a Libertarian, you are not supporting liberty, you are offering support to anarchists, statists, and NAMBLA.

Would it be inappropriate to join a political party based solely on the philosophy of Objectivism, if such a party existed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, but my first thought would be that political "parties" and Objectivism should be mutually exclusive. If a proper government is based upon the concept of the primacy of individual rights and is properly delimited in power and scope accordingly, then political parties wouldn't exist (or need to). Those seeking elected office would merely be caretakers.

Political parties exist because they seek power, meaning by fiat that they think their members (politicians) have something to dispense that the individual doesn't...favours, "extra" rights, etc.

I realise that the current US government is very very far from "proper" at this point in time, but is using their (corrupt and failed) modus operandi the way to go? I'm not so sure. But I'll check out your site....

Edited by Jazzbeaux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, but my first thought would be that political "parties" and Objectivism should be mutually exclusive.

Here is a quote that has been attributed to Ayn Rand:

"I am interested in politics so that someday I will not have to be interested in politics."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 9 months later...

The top Objectivist thinkers have correctly analyzed what is wrong with the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties (I'll limit the discussion to just those just to get through this). At the moment, there is no Objectivist Party (Am I wrong?)

People ask how to vote, give that there is no Objectivist Party. Now, if Objectivist principles are applied, there is conflict with each choice given what we have today. Since their are no conflicts in reality, it is not correct for an Objectivist to vote for anyone in any of these parties. And yet Objectivism goes against groupism, which means Objectivists can't get together over anything! This does not bode well for Objectivism's ability to spread!

One of my managers in my company once said, "A good manager pushes an organization in all directions simultaneously. Then, when one area gives a little, there is pressure there to make a change".

Objectivism would gain a lot more credibility if it started an official political party for itself. That legitimizes it in the public's mind and would generate interest. And it would give Objectivists a focal point, politically, where they are not trying to resolve rediculous conflicts in position all the time.

Another idea I have had, is why don't the Objectivists rank all the countries of the world annually concerning how close they are to Objectivist values. This would apply political pressure for countries to adopt Objectivist Principles into their part.

It didn't take Communism super long to take route. Can Objectivism do it in as much time? If the philosophy is good, it should not take long!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if Objectivist principles are applied, there is conflict with each choice given what we have today. Since their are no conflicts in reality, it is not correct for an Objectivist to vote for anyone in any of these parties.

Whoa, that's a massive leap in logic. Yes, there are no contradictions. The Republican and Democratic Partys' official platforms are in conflict with reality. Yet how does this imply that one ought not to vote for any particular candidate, who may or may not propose policies which protect the rights of American citizens?

[Edit: As a note, I have never voted for anybody, largely because I've never believed that a political candidate was worthy of my vote. All the same, in principle, I am not opposed to the idea of voting for a candidate of a given political party.]

And yet Objectivism goes against groupism, which means Objectivists can't get together over anything!
Though "groupism" isn't a rigorously specified term, I doubt it simply means "getting together". I get together (in purely "Platonic" ways) with Objectivists all the time!

Objectivism would gain a lot more credibility if it started an official political party for itself. That legitimizes it in the public's mind and would generate interest. And it would give Objectivists a focal point, politically, where they are not trying to resolve rediculous conflicts in position all the time.

Now this I agree with.

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if Objectivist principles are applied, there is conflict with each choice given what we have today.
In the sense that the either the Democrat or the Republican candidate will win, and both candidates will act contrary to rational principles regarding the function of government (as recognized by Objectivism), then yes. But there is no conflict with respect to reality: one of those candidates will win, and that fact of reality does not contradict anything in Objectivism.
Since their are no conflicts in reality, it is not correct for an Objectivist to vote for anyone in any of these parties.
This is where you lose me. If I need fruit and would prefer an orange but the grocer only has apples and bananas, buying an apple isn't incorrect from the Objectivist POV. It would be wrong only if I hate apples and love bananas, and have a choice between apples and bananas. We can lust for oranges all we want, but the fact is that all we have is a bunch of rotten apples and bruised bananas, so the question is, since that's what you're gonna get, do want apples or bananas?
And yet Objectivism goes against groupism, which means Objectivists can't get together over anything!
This argument is predicated on the premise that man is fundamentally a hive animal, and that action is possible only undertaken by The Group.
One of my managers in my company once said, "A good manager pushes an organization in all directions simultaneously. Then, when one area gives a little, there is pressure there to make a change".
Perhaps he does, but that's ultimately ineffective and dishonest, and contrary to Objectivism. Your manager (does he have pointy hair?) is approaching the question from the short-term perspective -- how to manipulate people for short-term goals. He probably doesn't care whether people stay with the company for the long term, just long enough to pass his own annual review. The kinds of changes that Objectivism seeks are not implementable by dictatorial fiat or seizing a majority in Congress. What we seek is a major change in people's philosophy, from which follows numerous socio-political changes.
Objectivism would gain a lot more credibility if it started an official political party for itself. That legitimizes it in the public's mind and would generate interest.
There's an example of the kind of philosophical change that we seek -- snuffing out such beliefs. "Legitimizing" a philosophy by forming a political party is basically a repudiation of Objectivism: being a political party does not confer philosophical validity to a set of idea.
Another idea I have had, is why don't the Objectivists rank all the countries of the world annually concerning how close they are to Objectivist values.
Reason 1 is that there's no central committee who "speaks for Objectivism". Reason 2 is that the concept of a ranking (a ranking) presupposes that there is a single dimension of measurement. So for example, it's my judgment that the US scores highest on freedom of speech. The US does not score highest on religious freedom (I'm not sure who would, so I'll nominate Norway just to be irritating). For economic freedom, perhaps Ireland gets the prize. What trumps what in constructing the ranking? That's outside the scope of Objectivism. As long as you're living in one of the relatively free nations, there's no one size fits all rule about which restrictions on your rights are most egregious.

What I think would be most useful would be to have escape information -- if you're trapped in a hellhole like North Korea, Burma, Cuba or Zimbabwe, or a heckhole like Turkey, India or Tanzania, it might be useful to know what are good places to escape to, so that you can be free. Although, as I understand it, most people in these hellholes don't lack the information about where to go, they lack the means to escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the electorate rejects altruism, any attempts at widespread political change will meet with great resistance and little success. The battle isn't political-- it resides in ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics.

Having said that, isolated politcal battles can be effective. In the early 1990's Houston Objectivists help defeat a movement to bring zoning to our city.

As Ayn Rand said, we have to pick our battles.

Brian Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think that we would have a better shot at starting an Objectivist country, than changing this one. :)

One drawback of the way Objectivists promote the philosophy is that its proponents frequently seem to approach world problems in a negative perspective, such as, "if America doesn't do Y, then Z will happen and it will be disastrous". We need to find a more constructive approach and not come across like a warning all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the electorate rejects altruism, any attempts at widespread political change will meet with great resistance and little success. The battle isn't political-- it resides in ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics.

Having said that, isolated politcal battles can be effective. In the early 1990's Houston Objectivists help defeat a movement to bring zoning to our city.

As Ayn Rand said, we have to pick our battles.

Brian Phillips

Do you not think, though, that the intellectual battle would be furthered by increased popularity, and that an Objectivist Party would do just that? I think this is a battle we should pick.

Edit: For grammar.

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not think, though, that the intellectual battle would be furthered by increased popularity, and that an Objectivist Party would do just that? I think this is a battle we should pick.

I recommend trying to attend a "State of ARI" talk sometime. Dr. Yaron Brook emphasizes how the best approach to spreading Objectivism right now is to take a multilayered approach to reaching out to young individuals. This consists of three main steps:

  1. Expose more high school students to Ayn Rand's novels.
  2. Interest more collegiates in Objectivism, hopefully inspiring some to pursue a doctorate in the humanities.
  3. Help place Objectivist Ph.D. students in faculty positions at notable universities.

With regards to the effectiveness of an Objectivist political party, I admire your enthusiasm but I ultimately think such a venture would presently be frustrating and unfulfilling. Perhaps it is better to think of what reforms one could campaign for today in hopes to gradually move towards a more capitalistic society. What specific issues would be on your agenda?

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize like anybody else that a political party right now would not win a majority. I would simply be interested in drumming up attention, splitting the Libertarian Party, and the like. The Republican Party did not win its first campaign and I doubt any new political organization will ever win its first election. While I agree with Yaaron's three, I think it would be worth the resources to dedicate some personel and money to an Objectivist Party. That's just due to the amount of attention that presidential campaigns get in America. Although, with the production of the new Atlas Shrugged movie, it may be all the publicity needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't we have to change the prevailing philosophy before we attempt to form a political party? This seems like a backward approach to me. If we change the way people think, the correct politics will come naturally.

Also, the Libertarian Party is essentially a joke, so I don't see how following their failed strategy would help our cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the Libertarian Party is essentially a joke, so I don't see how following their failed strategy would help our cause.
Although I don't think an Objectivist Party would be a clever move, one important difference is that whereas Libertarianism isn't a philosophy (but it tries to pretend that it is), Objectivism actually is a philosophy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't we have to change the prevailing philosophy before we attempt to form a political party? This seems like a backward approach to me. If we change the way people think, the correct politics will come naturally.

Also, the Libertarian Party is essentially a joke, so I don't see how following their failed strategy would help our cause.

What of changing the prevailing philosophy by forming a political party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone any thoughts on these political parties in and of themselves? I mean, aside from questions around introducing new parties as useful against the entrenched and established 2, or premature for the culture, does anyone else find these Parties' policies in and of themselves to align with Objectivism?

http://www.freedomparty.org/fppoliticalparties.htm

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tthe best approach to spreading Objectivism right now is to take a multilayered approach to reaching out to young individuals. This consists of three main steps:
  1. Expose more high school students to Ayn Rand's novels.
  2. Interest more collegiates in Objectivism, hopefully inspiring some to pursue a doctorate in the humanities.
  3. Help place Objectivist Ph.D. students in faculty positions at notable universities.

How would we know when we are ready for step 4: Form the Objectivist Party?

And why focus on young individuals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would we know when we are ready for step 4: Form the Objectivist Party?

I'd say when there is a significant part of the population that is receptive to the ideas. At the very least a few % of the population would need to support your ideas before you can start a serious political party.

And why focus on young individuals?

I think this is because they are more likely to change their philosophy than older people are. Most people who have held the same beliefs for 20+ years are not very given to change them, even when presented with the evidence that their ideas are wrong. Some do, of course, but I'd say your efforts are generally better spent elsewhere.

Link to comment
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...