Dr. Peikoff on which party to vote for: GOP or Democrat

[The Wrath]

I'll probably end up voting Republican. Yeah, Republicans suck. But I shudder to think of the things the Democrats would do to economic freedom, were they to get control of Congress.

If that means I don't understand the prinicples of philsophy and whatnot, so be it. I've finally secured a real-world job and will be in a financially precarious situation for the first few years. Those are years when I sure as hell don't want those Bush tax cuts "rolled back."

[mweiss]

I'll probably end up voting Republican. Yeah, Republicans suck. But I shudder to think of the things the Democrats would do to economic freedom, were they to get control of Congress.

If that means I don't understand the prinicples of philsophy and whatnot, so be it. I've finally secured a real-world job and will be in a financially precarious situation for the first few years. Those are years when I sure as hell don't want those Bush tax cuts "rolled back."

If I was to vote, I'd go with Libertarian, just to send a message to the other two parties. Anyone but the demoncrats and the republicans!

[The Wrath]

I'm actually considering that. Their foreign policy makes me not want to, b/c I don't want to send the message that my vote is an anti-war vote. Then again, the anti-war vote goes to the Democrats, so I figure a Libertarian vote might be perceived as a vote for smaller government.

[Toolboxnj]

And I bet Peikoff would call voting Libertarian worse than voting Republican! I kid, I kid.

I'm more with Trachinski and the "Cox and Forkum"-type of us. But again, all politics is local.

[Qwertz]

I can see where Peikoff and Tracinski are coming from as regards national Congressional elections, but what about the local elections? Ohio, for example, has a gubernatorial election this year where the Republican incumbent (who was convicted of major improprieties a few years ago) is at his term limit. Ohio was pivotal in the last Presidential election. The candidates for governor are Ken Blackwell (R, former Sec'y of State, was accused of rigging the Presidential election because, while sitting as sec'y of state, he was also chair of the "Committee to Re-Elect George W. Bush") and Ted Strickland (D, deep blue, whose running platform consists of promises to force through minimum wage increases and socialized medicine for Ohioans at a time when Ohio's economy is tumbling, and is favored to win). There's also a Libertarian writ large on the ballot who has some 1% of the polls and whose major campaign strategy consists of complaining publicly and loudly about being left out of the formal debates.

The Democrats are watching this election closely, because Ohio has had a Republican governor since 1991, and is considered a Presidential swing state. They'd be giddy with delight to pick up Ohio's gubernatorial. Strickland is already billing his potential win as a 'mandate' to push through his major socialist reforms here. Frankly, I'm frightened of him. But Blackwell's a real slimebag who totally botched his job as Sec'y of State (not just with the 2004 Presidential election thing, but a bunch of other minor scandals and major lawsuits).

I'm disinclined to vote for Strickland. He poses a more direct and immediate threat to me. On the other hand, not enough Ohio General Assembly seats are up for grabs to affect the Republican majoritiy there (both houses have or nearly have a 2/3 Republican majority). Strickland could be all puff and no stuff.

Luckily the national senate race is less troubling. Mike DeWine (R, Inc.) v. Sherrod Brown (D). Brown is favored in the polls. The campaign has been very muddy and very expensive. It makes me feel dirty to do it, but I'll probably vote for Brown. DeWine's a major power broker for the Republicans.

Whose argument do you think applies better to local elections: Peikoff's, or Tracinski's?

-Q

[The Wrath]

And I bet Peikoff would call voting Libertarian worse than voting Republican! I kid, I kid.

You may be kidding, but you're absolutely right. He would consider it worse. That's one Objectivist stance I can't understand. For all their flaws, the Libertarians are exponentially better than either of the major parties, and I would love to see them start winning some national elections.

[LaszloWalrus]

Exponentiallly better? Badnarik ran on a platform of paying reparations to Iraq. The LP also believes in dismantaling the CIA and FBI, and refusing ever to fight a war except to repel an enemy from our borders.

[miseleigh]

I would love to see some Libertarians in public offices as well, but that's not happening any time soon in my area.

If only I could justfy voting Libertarian for my state's gubernatorial this year... but I can't. Not in Massachusetts (historically blue) where the Democratic candidate is promising driver's licenses and public schooling for illegal immigrants... I will do everything I can to keep him out of that office. The Republican party is the only one with a chance of keeping him out, so that's the way I'm going on this one. Haven't decided yet for the national elections, though.

This is one of those rare times when I wish there was a divine being just so I could pray to someone for help. **Puts on eyepatch and pirate hat** O Flying Spaghetti Monster, please extend Your noodly appendages towards the state of Massachusetts on November 7th, and turn it as light pink as a thin coating of the sauce You live in.... rAmen.

[khaight]

I would love to see some Libertarians in public offices as well, but that's not happening any time soon in my area.

I don't think it would make a damn bit of difference. The 1998 Libertarian candidate for President, Ron Paul, has been elected to Congress from a district in Texas several times now. His net impact on national politics has been exactly zero.

[dianahsieh]

With all due respect, I think Dr Peikoff is losing his grip on reality.

In other words, without the slightest shred of respect at all.

I'm in strong agreement with Dr. Peikoff for reasons that I'll articulate on NoodleFood in the next few days. In the meantime, is it really necessary to point out the huge difference between strongly disagreeing with Dr. Peikoff and publicly suggesting that he's going senile or nuts?!?

Dr. Peikoff has longstanding reasons for his views going back twenty years. If you listen to his "DIM Hypothesis" course, as well as his lecture on "America Versus Americans," you might glean some slight understanding of them. That's what changed my mind on the matter, as well as reading and listening to Yaron Brook, Craig Biddle, John Lewis, and Bradley Thompson. (Or maybe they're all "losing their grip on reality" too?)

In utter disgust,

Diana Hsieh

[The Wrath]

Exponentiallly better? Badnarik ran on a platform of paying reparations to Iraq. The LP also believes in dismantaling the CIA and FBI, and refusing ever to fight a war except to repel an enemy from our borders.

There is a very wide spectrum of beliefs amongst people who call themselves Libertarians, much like there is amongst Republicans and Democrats. Michael Badnarik was one man, not the whole party. And I've never heard a Libertarian argue for dismantling the CIA and FBI.

[Antonio]

With all due respect, I think Dr Peikoff is losing his grip on reality.

Not only that, but as a free-thinking person I find it offensive and hypocritical that a person who claims to be the sole authority on a system of thought that has evolved and refined in the nearly quarter century since its founder died, and is no longer solely dependent on the founder for direction, is telling me that I am immoral if I don't do as he does, whether it's voting or anything else. This arrogance smacks of the "What Would Jesus Do?" concept and that's why I said that Peikoff is acting like a pope.

If he wants to share his views, OK. That's what we're doing here. But we're grown-ups and don't have to be patronized by anyone. Though I would disagree because of the reasons highlighed by my post referring to Donald Luskin's economics blog - his priorities differ from mine - I agree he made an objective evaluation of the major national partisan issues in this election.

This judgment on my part is neither attacking nor name-calling. This is my conclusion after more than a decade of evaluating the actions and words of someone who I had respected by default because of his association with Ayn Rand. First it was disappointment, years later it has turned into annoyance that I am being talked down to. Rand did advise to always judge. It is part of thinking freely. Inferred in there is to judge objectively. I have.

But to stick to the topic of this thread, as to the difference in priorities in the choices people make when they vote, I submit that telling me to vote Democrat out of some sense of greater good or some perceived overall threat would be tantamount to telling me to vote not on the basis of my needs and priorities, but on the perceived needs of the collective. I just can't do that.

I'd say it's much like some of the wisdom on the thread here about the Atlas scene where Francisco helps Rearden save his furnace that led me out of some of my confusion about my line of work. I very much love my work, but my craft overall is dominated by leftists, most of whom are misinformed or irrational. So I felt like I was advancing someone else's ideas by doing what I do for a living.

Similarly to the issue I raise here, Febod convinced me on that other thread that if I am working to fulfill my selfish needs, I am not working to advance the leftist cause. And I am convinced that I would betray my own values if I allowed the dominance of another point of view to drive me away from work that satisfies my selfish needs.

If I chose to vote a certain way because of some so-called greater good rather than my own selfish priorities - prosperity and security for my family - then I would be betraying my own values.

And finally I'll add this. Nearly five years ago I moved my family from a major urban area to a mostly rural area that is pretty fragmented politically - the urbanized concentration in our local college town (the county seat) is heavily liberal and anti-growth. From among the dozen or so communities I could choose here, I picked one that is rural, but growing, with damn-near perfect 70-degree weather year-round, and obscene housing prices as the cost of that. This town must have more churches per capita than anywhere else I've lived. And most of the people I interact with in town and my kids' schools are quite conservative and religious.

My observation about conservatives versus liberals has proven true. I have found that these conservative, religious people mind their own business about my personal life, how to raise my kids, how to vote, etc. than liberals. I suspect this is because of a libertarian streak and the desire of the conservatives to be left to choose how to raise their kids, vote, live their lives, etc. On the other hand, liberals practically make their living telling everyone else how to think and what to do with their money, what TV kids should watch (like only PBS because corporations like Disney or Viacom are evil).

Besides having to hold onto my wallet when Democrats are around, being told what to do in the paternalistic fashion of American liberals turns me off from voting Democrat.

[Inspector]

In other words, without the slightest shred of respect at all.

Yes, exactly.

David,

Saying "with all due respect" doesn't change the fact that you didn't give all due respect.

Comments like that are completely out of line. Both because Dr. Peikoff is a great man, and because they are baseless ad-hominems.

[Inspector]

...is telling me that I am immoral if I don't do as he does...

Neither this, nor anything else you said about Dr. Peikoff or his statement in your post, bears any resemblance to reality. I don't know who or what you have a problem with, but it isn't Dr. Peikoff and you are falsely representing his statements and thus slandering him. If this is what you're going to do, then do it somewhere other than this board. (i.e. get lost)

[The Wrath]

Saying that a 73 year-old man is losing his grip on reality is not an ad hominem attack and is not disrespectful. It is a recognition that Mr. Peikoff is a human being, not an infallible demigod. He is susceptible to the same loss of mental faculties that affect so many older men.

I remember thinking that he was starting to suffer from dementia when he recommended that we vote for Kerry. I don't see how a proponent of a philosophy that champions individual thinking can possibly use a blanket statement such as "if you don't vote Democrats this year, you do not have a clear understanding of philosophical principles." He might want to discuss the topic with a few other high-profile Objectivists who voted for Bush and urged others to do the same.

When people accuse Objectivists of being in a cult, this is the reason why. Not only because some of the leaders of the movement make statements like that, but because so many people rush to defend them when they are criticized for it. I don't think anyone can accuse David of not understanding the principles behind Objectivism and how they are applied to politics.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Moose

[softwareNerd]

Saying that a 73 year-old man is losing his grip on reality is not an ad hominem attack and is not disrespectful. ...

I remember thinking that he was starting to suffer from dementia when he recommended that we vote for Kerry.

Moose, Your youth and youthful desperation for action and fast solutions probably lead you to grasp at the Republicans. (You're what I'd call young and younger folk are often impatient for action, so that's not an ad hominem, right?) And, perhaps I don't want a border fence because I was born in India (and perhaps that's not an ad hominem because I was and because asians generally think the US should not build a border fence, right?).

The essence of the ad hominem is that it attacks the man rather than the argument he makes. It is often the case that in so attacking one paints the man as evil; but, this is not necessary to the ad hominem. If a lady makes an argument and I respond by saying that she probably has PMS, I am not implying any vice on her part, but I am attacking her rather than the argument. (My argument would be wrong, even if I were right.)

When making an ad hominem, one may even be right in the facts one states; but, one is not making an argument.

In essence what Dr. Peikoff has posted on his site is similar to what he said in the last election, with this single difference: he adds that anyone voting for Republicans does not understand Objectivism and is being rationalistic. As far as I remember, he did not go that far in his previous essay.

So, it's fair game to attack his thesis about Republicans, the growth of religion, and so on. Secondly, even if one agrees with his thesis, it would be fair game to attack his judgement about those who disagree with him. The only context in which one might attack him is in a sort of tit-for-tat because one finds oneself at the end of what one judges to be an unfair accusation of rationalism etc. That too, however, would not be an argument, just mutual abuse.

For the record, I don't agree with Dr. Peikoff's main thesis. I think that there are many observations about the speed at which religion has grown or not grown, about the way such movements often correct themselves, about the elements of religion in the Democratic party, that Dr. Peikoff does not seem to be taking into consideration. One might summarize this by saying, he appears "out of touch with reality", but that's definitely a rude way to summarize it, and might imply an ad hominem as well. As for senility and now dementia! That's way over the line of rudeness. [Aside: I don't imply that you should not wonder or suspect anything to yourself; however, to make it as a public argument, and to claim that it is not ad hominem, or not rude, is ridiculous.]

Now, if one thinks that Dr. Peikoff deserves rudeness, for his accusation of rationalism, then one should be upfront and say it in so many words. One can even do that without being rude.

So, let's keep this thread from becoming any more disgusting, by focussing on one of the following:

• why is Dr. Peikoff's thesis wrong; and/or,
  
• why is his accusation of rationalism wrong
  

To those who think he isn't just wrong, but perhaps immoral in one or the other, I suggest you explain why without letting emotions take over. Surely, Dr. Peikoff has earned that much from you.

[Inspector]

When people accuse Objectivists of being in a cult, this is the reason why.

If by "this," you mean the series of fallacies that you're committing, then yes I agree.

Consider that if he is right, and the proper applications of the principles of Objectivism do indeed say what Dr. Peikoff is saying, then it is true on its face that "he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism." Don't read into that statement; take it completely literally.

And whether it is meant in a non-respectful way or not, an ad-hominem is an ad-hominem.

[FeatherFall]

I didn't like Peikoff's argument in '04, and I don't like his argument now. Even assuming that a Democratic sweep in national elections will discredit religious ideology (something I would dispute), I have to consider pressing local matters. For instance, in Wisconsin, I need to elect a governor that will not veto concealed carry laws.

I am warming to the idea of voting Democratic for national positions, mainly because I think that when the legislative and executive branches are split along partisan lines, spending slows down.

What I need to know is: what does he mean when he declares the left's ideologies to be dead? How does he know this? He says Socialism is dead, but what about all the other ideologies of the left? And if they are also dead, how does this make them less threatening when the evidence I see is that they are perfectly capable of making European nations into miserable hell-holes?

This is the other point that has been addressed a few times, but I think it is important enough to touch on again. If socialism is dead, how come large numbers of people my age revere Noam Chomsky? The guy refers to himself as a libertarian socialist. If socialism is dead, how come George Bush and the legislature (Reps and Dems) seem to embrace it when the heat is on? Both parties seem to think that economic protectionism is good for America.

The root of all of these bad ideologies is altruism, which is thriving. If Peikoff points to a ticket that will discredit altruism, I will join rank behind him with all the enthusiasm I can muster. Right now, I'd rather he spend his time putting his DIM hypothesis to print than telling me I don't know what I'm doing with my ballot.

[DavidV]

To clarify my earlier post, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dr Peikoff. From reading OPAR and his other works, as well as meeting him, I’m certain that he’s a philosophical genius, and I’m very grateful for the enlightenment he’s provided me.

That is why I’m shocked by his comments on the elections. If a leftist said this, I would just dismiss as “well, he’s just clueless.” But I can’t fathom why he would take a position that is so obviously wrong so as to say the things he did about those who disagree with him. It’s not just that I disagree with him – I don’t have a strong preference for either party. I just can’t understand how such an intelligent person could come to that conclusion. Furthermore, he implicitly insults many other people I admire, such as Robert Tracinski and Harry Binswanger – in fact, the vast majority of Objectivists if HBL is any indication.

Anyway, my comment was an emotional outburst that should have been phrased better. What I meant to say was: “I don’t understand how Dr Peikoff could have failed so grossly to consider the evidence and been so disrespectful of his peers.”

[Strangelove]

The Ayn Rand Institute is incorporated as a 501©3 non-profit educational foundation. As such, it is prohibited by law from engaging in direct political advocacy, which would include the endorsement of one slate of candidates over another in an election.

Thanks, I didn't realise that.

[Antonio]

Neither this, nor anything else you said about Dr. Peikoff or his statement in your post, bears any resemblance to reality. I don't know who or what you have a problem with, but it isn't Dr. Peikoff and you are falsely representing his statements and thus slandering him. If this is what you're going to do, then do it somewhere other than this board. (i.e. get lost)

Well, this says it all. This statement proves my point absolutely. We disagree, so the solution, like in a church, is a call for excommuniation. Then justify the banishment by denying that a critic said anything at all so as to make it appear that the critic doesn't know anything. This kind of blind reasoning reminds me of the trial scene in the original Planet of the Apes when the ape jurists try to prove the human Taylor is not intelligent because he doesn't know what the sacred scrolls say, and therefore doesn't know the truth because the sacred scrolls are the only truth.

Slander? Peikoff is a public figure. This is basic communications law. He is a human like the rest of us, and because deities do not exist, he is not a god and neither is anyone else, and he's not a dictator or a pope. We can all be wrong, and all of us are at some point. When sokmeone puts his opinions out in public, in particular when evangelizing a philosophy or a political view, he is fair game for criticism like the rest of us.

Falsely representing statements? No. I'm not representing them at all. I stated my opinion of them. The latter part of Peikoff's Democrat endorsement smacks of religious overtones. That is my opinion and you can't take that away from me. I would be tempted to suggest finding a church where it is rule by the majority and the dissidents be damned, but I would never descend to a point where I would tell people who disagree with me to simply get lost. How disappointing.

I made it clear that I respected Peikoff and still respect his right to think as he chooses, as I do of everyone else. I found Objectivism because I grew in disgust at the way religion is practiced and I did not believe in its false gods. I reserve the right that everyone has to get to know a person over the course of a decade or more and make the judgement that I am disappointed in the manner in which he promotes Objectivism.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Antonio

[Inspector]

We disagree, so the solution, like in a church, is a call for excommuniation.

And now you do it to me.

Let's make this clear: I don't want you to leave because "we disagree." I want you to leave because you claim "Peikoff is doing 'x,'" where "x" is so far removed from what Peikoff actually said that I find it incredible that you think you can get away with such blatantly false accusations.

I am not asking you to leave based on a difference of opinion. I am asking you to leave because you are making dishonest accusations. And as a response to this, you make the very same dishonest accusations against me.

Isn't it interesting that people like this claim they are being persecuted when in fact it is anyone who disagrees with them who is accused of acting like a cult/church.

[The Wrath]

Inspector and softwarenerd, I meant no disrespect to Dr. Peikoff. I was defending David's statement of what I thought was a reasonable observation. An ad hominem attack is one in which you claim that your opponent is wrong because of some personal flaw, i.e. "you're wrong because you're ugly." That wasn't what either one of us said.

We gave our reasons for disagreeing with his statements and argued that such statements are completely unreasonable in light of Objectivism, the philosophy the champions individual thought. His old age and possible loss of mental faculties were merely offered as an explanation for why a highly intelligent man with a track record such as his own might make statements like that. I, for one, think them to be contradictory to what I know of Objectivist principles and cannot think of any other explanation without venturing into the realm of morality. And I choose not to venture that way, because I don't believe that Dr. Peikoff is an immoral man or would have made such statements out of a moral flaw.

I stand by my opinions on this matter, but if I offended anyone, I apologize, because that was not my intent.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Moose

[Inspector]

...such statements are completely unreasonable in light of Objectivism, the philosophy the champions individual thought.

By implication you are stating that somehow Dr. Peikoff's statements are in opposition to individual thought. This is my major problem with what is being said here. There isn't anything in what he said that says "don't think for yourself." He may be saying, in no uncertain terms, that he has the answer and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Yes, that is a strong statement. But it is an entirely different animal than what you and Antonio have accused him of (i.e. dogmatic, cultish type "in opposition to free thought" type statements).

And it is irresponsible of you both for failing to distinguish the nature of his statement and accuse him of things he is not doing. Moose, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since I have seen your posts here, but you need to cut that kind of accusation out right now. If you disagree with the man, fine. State your reasons. Nobody here will think badly of you for simply disagreeing.

I, personally, don't understand where he's coming from either. The sooner he publishes his book, the better.

[The Wrath]

By implication you are stating that somehow Dr. Peikoff's statements are in opposition to individual thought. This is my major problem with what is being said here. There isn't anything in what he said that says "don't think for yourself." He may be saying, in no uncertain terms, that he has the answer and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Yes, that is a strong statement. But it is an entirely different animal than what you and Antonio have accused him of (i.e. dogmatic, cultish type "in opposition to free thought" type statements).

And it is irresponsible of you both for failing to distinguish the nature of his statement and accuse him of things he is not doing. Moose, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, since I have seen your posts here, but you need to cut that kind of accusation out right now. If you disagree with the man, fine. State your reasons. Nobody here will think badly of you for simply disagreeing.

I do believe that the statements are in opposition to individual thought. It's one thing for him to say that he has the answer and is the only one who is right. If you don't think you're right and people who disagree with you are wrong, then there's really no point in voicing your opinion in the first place. It is quite another for him to say that anyone who disagrees has "no understanding" of philosophical principles and how they are applied to politics.

A more likely explanation is that people have different priorities or think he is mistaken in his view of political trends. I, personally, would rather live in a society where I can't say "goddammit" in public and have to cover my legs above my knees, than live in a society where the government takes half of my income to give to welfare monkeys.

One's view of political trends is basically a prediction...there are no philosophical principles in political predictions. If I predict that Hillary will not have the popular support necessary to become president, but you do, that is not a difference in philosophical principles. Likewise, if I believe that religious conservatism is not as much of a threat as socialism, but you do, that is not a difference in philosophical principles. We both agree that religion and socialism suck and need to be dealt with. Where we disagree is which one has the greater popular trend, at the moment. I have no disagreement with Peikoff in his opinion that religious conservatism sucks. I strongly disagree with him when he says that it is more of a threat than socialism.

I really don't see how philosophical principles can be applied to observations of current political trends. It would be like claiming that someone has no understanding of philosophy because they believe that the Texas Longhorns are superior to the Texas A&M Aggies. I mean, someone who would believe such things is crazy anyway, but philosophy doesn't factor into it.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Moose