[Peikoff For Kerry?]

You are completely misusing the word "faith" here.  Bush is not throwing reason out the window in trusting American intellegence services on the existence of WMD in Iraq.  He is using the best available information.  Or were you expecting him to travel to Iraq personally while Saddam was dictator and look around for WMD?  And the same goes for his advisors: they are there to give him advice.  Should he fire them all and do everything himself?

Faith, in this context, means "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith)

Did Bush have enough evidence of WMD (a faulty premise to begin with) to risk American lives in Iraq? [And I feel very strongly about this, by the way. I am from the "bomb it all" school of thought. What's the point of living in - and/or risking one's life immigrating to - an advanced society if countries culturally stuck in the 12th-15th centuries can take American lives?]

You also say that he was using the best available information. This is not true. This is the best available information.

Does this all mean that I hate Bush? Not personally - I might even be able to get along with him much more than some atheists I know. But I can't take that chance in this context. If one of the most (if not the most) demonstrably-important thinkers alive has a radical opinion on the survival of man, I owe it to myself to gather as much data as possible regarding this opinion before making a decision. I cannot allow my hatred of liberals (which is considerable) or pre-conceptual approval of Bush the man, cloud my judgment.

Now, please, does anyone have some more information about the supporting arguments for Dr. Peikoff's position?

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

Or they, more likely, would be among the murdered 100 million.

Not necessarily. A nihilistic dictatorship, especially one that pretends to be scientific, requires some brilliant minds. The Russian "oligarchs" survived. Some German scientists survived. A religious dictatorship, however, requires only death and taxes.

So why was the Inquisition necessary?

I said *less* force is needed not *no* force.

ALL totalitarian dictatorships are evil.

With all due respect, Mrs. Speicher, this is almost a red herring. I have nowhere maintained that they aren't. I lived many years under several of these, so I know just how bad life at the point of a gun is. And I've even been arrested before for my views.

That was Orwell's point in Animal Farm, yet Soviet Russia survived for decades after that and similar criticisms.

I did not imply any kind of determinism by my point here. I am not saying that people wil automatically revolt against their oppressors. I am saying that the eventual few-many conflict that is common to all polities under naked, brute gang rule can be further fuelled by such a call. Remember also that Soviet Russia did not have Objectivism to contend with.

We defeated the Taliban rather quickly when we set our minds and our military to it.

Have you been to a college classroom or seen a Michael Moore movie lately?

Have you been to a Linda Rondstadt concert lately? Have you seen a Mel Gibson movie lately?

But, to answer you directly on this point. I have not seen a single Michael Moore movie and never will. I think one reason why so many have gone to see his latest trash is that Bush's faith-based thinking caught up with him.

He trusted the intelligence on Iraq (on faith); he expected that Americans would overlook his muddled case on Iraq (on faith); he took the word of his advisers (on faith).

So, some exasperated non-liberals gave Moore's tripe a viewing. They didn't like what they saw but unfortunately made Moore rich anyway.

If Bush were truly the dynamic leader some have tried to make him out to be here, a Moore wouldn't even be small potatoes - he'd be badly-burnt french fries.

And finally, the Taliban have NOT been defeated.

P.S. All of the points I have made so far on this thread should be viewed as a presentation of the strongest points of both sides of this debate and not as a final position. I have not achieved certainty on this issue yet. The biggest case for Bush, in my opinion, is that no Democrat president since FDR has taken up arms in defence of America for any reason. (I will happily be corrected on this.) And even then, Roosevelt involved the butcher Stalin in crucial war plans, thereby strengthening Stalin's political grip at home and on Eastern Europe.

It is this point, above all, that makes me think that Dr. Peikoff may have his timing wrong. Like I said in an earlier post, an elected Kerry is likely to appease the enemy, thus leading to another strike. Kerry will very probably respond lackadaisically (as Clinton did to the terrorist attacks during his administration), ensuring that an even more religious, pro-war Republican is elected in 2008. This chain of events, in my view will strengthen the roots of a theocracy.

What I suspect Dr. Peikoff is considering is that should Bush wage and win the War on Terrorism, he may become so popular that he will be able to use that "political capital" to pass several anti-individual measures.

Unfortunately, I did not listen to the DIM lectures and have not seen an extended presentation by anyone of Dr. Peikoff's position, so I cannot cross-check his calculations. I need to know what context(s) he is operating in, what attributes he is essentializing from, etc.

Can anyone here provide this information please? I would be most grateful.

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

In my inaugural post, I had written:

1) In the history of human civilization, when thisworldly statism (Communism, Socialism, Irreligious monarchy, etc.) has been effected, it has yielded terrible polities.  Yet, these polities have still been (marginally) worth writing home about.  The Greek city-states; Rome under the Stoics; present-day European socialism; Soviet Communism; the Arab Golden Age.  All these were born of thiswordly mysticism and, because of their limited recognition of reason, still had some respect for science and technology.  That is to say, man's mind still had some breathing room under these regimes.

I think this paragraph is too dense and requires further exposition.

On the list of states I mentioned, I included the Greek city-states and the Arab Golden Age, which are regarded as Ages of Reason. Why did I lump these days of glorious good with Communism, an epoch of evil? Why did I mention present-day European socialism, which seems indicative of the heights of Western prosperity, in the same breath as the noxious red threat?

We know that Western civilization derives its name from the fact that Aristotle, its prime mover, was a Westerner. Just as Arab-Moslem civilization derives the fact that its prime mover, Mohammed, was from Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

In other words, the Arab Golden Age is actually an example of Western civilization (in the same way that Japan and South Korea are examples of Western civilization) and not Arab-Moslem civilization.

The Greek city-states, even at their best, were not explicit bastions of individual rights - some men were relatively free but still there were serious violations. Even distinguished citizens like Aristotle and Socrates were subject to some of the arbitrariness that did exist. And we have examples of this kind of arbitrariness in the Golden Age too. Individual rights did not become an explicit phenomenon till Locke and the US Founding Fathers. So, really, although Reason was given freer reign during these times, one can still see that there were problems. Slavery was an insitution everywhere until the 19th century when England and America put a stop to it.

All the states on my list are united by one thing: the idea that whatever solution there is for man's "condition" can be implemented here on earth. The dominant metaphysics of the best (and some of the worst) heights of Western history is secular. And this is what I was driving at in my first post. We can risk a nihilist era because it still has man focused on earthly concerns. While nihilism has man in epistemological denial (a la the Sophists, Hume, al Ghazali, and Kant), religious eras have man in metaphysical denial (Christianity, Islam, idol-worship, etc.).

Perhaps I should have highlighted these differences and similarities for clarity before presenting that integration. That was my mistake.

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

I think I haven't been clear.

I am aware of the fact that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Kim between them murdered almost a hundred miilion people. But, in doing so, they had to apply deadly force with an intensity that would eventually have guaranteed that a few of their own citizens would have tired of this state of affairs. Once these few clear-eyed men came to see the truth, the game would be up.

But, with religion, less force is required to subjugate men: they give up on reality willingly. Under nihilism, some people are still pursuing some earthly pleasure. Think of the despicable characters in "We the Living" that Leo got invovled with when he'd given up spiritually; consider also the dachas used by the Soviet rulership. Under religious rule, however, St. Francis of Assisi becomes the standard.

In fighting nihilism, one can move the people against dictators by pointing out how their evil rulers are "enjoying life" way beyond the generality of the masses. To fight religion, you have a longer climb, for subhuman life becomes its own end. Just ask Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Furthermore, the ideas that Mao, Stalin et al, sought to actualize have been discredited: no-one today regards Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia as an ideal. But there are many people out there who think that the medieval era was a time of chivalry, brotherhood, honor, and courage. Observe the widespread longing for the life portrayed in "The Lord of the Rings."

Why do I claim that these regimes were "worth writing home about"? Because they still attempted to appear "scientific." Observe that, typically, the Russian oligarchs who came out of the ashes of perestroika and glasnost have degrees in Applied Mathematics, Physics, etc. In other words, there was some focus on the mind. True, whatever was accomplished by the Soviets (space flight, etc.) owed to Western altruism (East Minus West Equals Zero), but that doesn't negate the fact that they did want to be seen as an advanced society. In such a millieu, those men of the mind that remain can be turned against the rulership by Objectivism. In which case, everything collapses and reason may be resurrected. Under the religionists, all such men would be killed, i.e., no reason. No reason, because no reality ever existed to begin with.

I hope I'm a bit clearer; please feel free to ask questions.

Thanks.

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

I have listened to Dr. Peikoff's statement twice, as well as spoken to a few Objectivists about the situation. I have also been following the very valuable postings here.

While I don't yet have a conclusive view on the matter, my leaning is towards Dr. Peikoff's position, for the following reasons.

1) In the history of human civilization, when thisworldly statism (Communism, Socialism, Irreligious monarchy, etc.) has been effected, it has yielded terrible polities. Yet, these polities have still been (marginally) worth writing home about. The Greek city-states; Rome under the Stoics; present-day European socialism; Soviet Communism; the Arab Golden Age. All these were born of thiswordly mysticism and, because of their limited recognition of reason, still had some respect for science and technology. That is to say, man's mind still had some breathing room under these regimes.

However, when the civilized West has turned to God (the Dark and Early Middle Ages), there has been nothing. Observe also today's world. It is no coincidence that much of Africa and the Middle East is home to the most godly cultures on earth. Superstition reigns supreme in the most barbaric societies.

To sum, secular statism will slow us down if it wins. But otherwordly statism will destroy us. Secular statism leaves some room for an Aristotle, Averroes, or Sakharov. The fight against theocracy requires the meteoric talents of an Aquinas. To expect one to rise out of the ashes is wishful thinking indeed.

2) In examining a much narrower context, one finds the conservatives more guilty of betraying America than one might like to think.

Yes, conservative US governments have taken up arms more readily in the last 50 years than liberal governments have (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Cambodia, and sundry South American nations). However, these conservatives have also strengthened the hands of the religious enemies of America. Reagan provided training and weaponry to Iran and Afghanistan. (In fact, I have heard that the helicopter crashes we heard about constantly during the recent wars owed to Stinger missiles that Reagan had bequeathed to the Taliban and their ilk.) And, they seem much closer, in terms of personal relationships, to the "oil regimes" of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and so on.

Have the liberals been better? No. They even come off as more ineffectual. But, Clinton did not - at least not to my knowledge - give arms to Iran. He and his type won't try to root out terrorism, but they won't actively aid it.

Which is why one is scared about Bush's actions in the Middle East. By attacking a secular nation, has he opened the door for another attack somehow - somewhere???? Has he pulled a Reagan ?

3) Peikoff's been right before: About Clinton, he was right: Clinton cut welfare rolls and at least, America - and the world - got a good glimpse of what "full employment" would be like. A precedent was set: whoever wants to govern this country must remember that 'It's the economy, stupid." Okay, I grant that some of that owed to the Republican gridlock in Congress. Still, it did happen. A is A.

More crucially, he was also right about 9-11. He had warned (since 1989 or thereabouts I gather) about some kind of Arab-Moslem onslaught which was coming as a result of the West's philosophic capitulation. Although I wasn't in Objectivism then, I was intrigued when I found out.

4) Living on three continents has served to provide me with a wider range of facts from which to make inferences. I know first-hand that what is happening in the non-Western parts of the world could easily happen here. All evil need do is cripple whatever cultural confidence remains in the use of man's reason. I see evidence of that confidence waning all the time.

Having said that, I realize that the case against Dr. Peikoff's argument is also strong: What about Bush's decision to go against the UN and attack Iraq? I can't forget Bush's "decapitation strike" address. What about the fact that a liberal adminstration might actually let a nuclear strike or two destroy Washington DC and/or New York?

Before I make a firm decision, the questions needing answers, in my view, are as follows:

a) Dr. Peikoff believes that Bush is strengthening the theocracy to come (which is true) and has to be removed. However, by electing Kerry or another up-and-coming nihilist in future elections, won't a lackadaisical response from that nihilist's government to a terrorist strike on America risk the eventual election of an even more religious GOP candidate, thereby increasing the chances of a theocracy?

Following from (a), could there be the possibility of a timing miscalculation in Dr. Peikoff's inductions? By this I mean, could it be that Bush is not that "FDR of the religious state" and that that monster is further down the road?

I only today decided to take this issue up seriously. When/if I achieve certainty, I'll publish my opinion in full.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying reading everyone else's views.