Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff and supporting the Democrats

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

[Note also that Ayn Rand's position on Reagan, as quoted by someone above, was based on Reagan's individual principles, not on "the dominant trend" in his party (and there were some dominant trends even then). I think it's fair to judge a man individually like that. Of course Reagan turned out to be a rather great president even by Rand's standards (in spite of his faith), but that's still not the point; she judged him as an individual.]

Be careful BD, this is exactly the position that people take when looking at Rand's view of Reagan. Don't put words in Rand's mouth. Peikoff in 86 (at the end of Reagan's influence) thought differently in The Objectivist Forum. (again you've caught me at work so I'll pull up later).

The other way this could be positioned is that if Reagan was vile by Rand's standards (and ended up so) then clearly many of today's Republicans are worse, giving evidence for the opposing view. Reagan was an average President and subsequent Republican's have been worse.

Your thesis depends on the fact that you think Rand would have approved of Reagan at the end of his term. Remember it is today's Republican party that deifies Reagan. Do you think they are representative of Rand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apparently, I also further need to point out that 1) A.R. did not view principles as completely extricated from philosophy altogether, and 2) she never indicated in the quote that you referenced that a voter _couldn't_ consider more than political positions. In fact, one of the major points which she makes in the essay which you quoted is that anyone who treats politics in a disintegrated manner should be castigated for that approach.

I agree with tps_fan here. It is the context of Rands statements that must be considered. Otherwise we have a "voting commandment", and it sure sounds like me as though that is how we're beginning to talk about it. In fact alternate statements as tps points out would indicate that this principle was much more contextual that Betsy would like to admit. The question then is, given Rand's entire corpus of comments, are there senarios within the US system where voting by individual candidate is in fact treating politics in a disintegrated manner and would be unwarranted. It's unclear to me that Peikoff has not given us just such a senario.

I also find it interesting from tps' quote that in 1980, at the height of liberal domination in politics, Rand said, "The combination of religion and politics is the worst possible combination in our society." She could have said socialism and politics, and given the domination of the left in the 60's and 70's would have been more justified in doing so that we would have.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your thesis depends on the fact that you think Rand would have approved of Reagan at the end of his term.

My "thesis" does not depend on that idea at all. Read my very next words: "But that's still not the point". I can't base my thesis on a point that I think is not important, can I? My whole point is that Rand judged Reagan as an individual, not as a party member. Whether she would have in fact approved of him or not does not affect that "thesis".

And I gave that example because someone argued that Rand gave that quoted statement in the 60's. And yet in the 80's she was still judging people individually, which meas that she did not change at least that part of her statement.

[And since you've resurrected me, I might as well address tps-fan's point above]:

Tps,

To say that her quoted statements were specific to Goldwater ignores a very well-known habit of Ms Rand: she was very exact in her choice of words. If she meant to address only the Goldwater candidacy, she would have made it very clear that this is what she was doing, and she would not have used such general terms which seem to indicate a general position (about elections) rather than a specific position about a specific election. I don't see why she would explain that this is a delimited job, an executive job, and so on, if she was just talking about Goldwater (or "that kind of candidate").[And by the way, your argument would exclude all Democratic candidates as well, since none of them stand for free market, as far as i know].

Also, when talking about Reagan, it is clear she was still addressing his political philosophy only (which is the term she used in that "Goldwater" quote), and "only in terms of essentials" (I don't see her blaming his Christianity as such). She had reason to believe that he would want to mix church and state (a specific political principle or political philosophy), which she described as "the worst form of conservatism". Note that she did not say it is immoral for a president to be religious, she said it is immoral for him to IMPOSE his religion on other people by force. So I wouldn't be surprised if she would be opposed to Bush himself, for example.

But do you honestly believe that Giulliani and Romney (and Schwarzenegger) "represent the worst form of conservatism" (or even conservatism as such, if it is described as mixing religion and politics)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My "thesis" does not depend on that idea at all. Read my very next words: "But that's still not the point". I can't base my thesis on a point that I think is not important, can I? My whole point is that Rand judged Reagan as an individual, not as a party member. Whether she would have in fact approved of him or not does not affect that "thesis".

OK. I'll conceed this point, if you'll conceed that speculating on how Rand standards would have scored Reagan's performance is wholly inappropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the insight, DW, BD and KJ. I think your comments have gone a long way in helping me see the situation with more clarity. I plan to change from Republican to Independent, but now what? All of this being said, who do you think will be the least harmful, least religious candidate? I heard a good comment about Giuliani possibly fracturing the Republicans from the religious right and that sure would be nice, and I know Hillary is not the Christian she claims to be, but is there anyone else out there that you're eyeballing and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, an individualist should not make a choice (for a candidate) based on what most of the candidate's other party members believe.

But an Objectivist should recognize how individual candidates are heavily influenced by their party members especially when running for President of the United States. For example, consider how Governor Mitt Romney is now against abortion rights and civil unions. Furthermore, consider how now Rudy Giuliani is emphasizing his Catholic faith and is no longer fighting for gay rights. These shifts towards religious conservatives are obvious panderings to the Republican base.

Even if elected to President, these individuals may not revert back to their actual views. Typically, a first-term President spends one to two years heavily focused on getting re-elected. This means that the 2008 President almost surely will continue to pander to his party's base while in office.

Presidential candidates should be evaluated on their individual principles, including their willingness to compromise many of their principles to rally different voting blocks.

I believe that any individual candidate who goes to great lengths to placate the religious right is not worth voting for. This eliminates most of the Republican candidates. But at present, I personally am not advocating removing all Republicans from consideration. If I had to vote tomorrow and was able to choose any of the major candidates, I would vote for Rudy Giuliani primarily because I think his nomination would cripple the religious right, he tends to support free markets, he is pro-immigration and I perceive he will take an aggressive stance against Islamic terrorism. My current reservations are:

  • How much he will deviate from his current rhetoric to secure more religious Republican votes. (For the primaries, I do not expect him to deviate much more; most of the religious right considers him their least favorite Republican. However, this may change drastically if he becomes President and needs to get himself re-elected.)
  • How he will govern the war in Iraq? (he is currently insistent on staying.)
  • Will he fight Islamic Fundamentalism in the right places?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an objection to the way the terms "socialism" and "Communism" are being used in this debate and in other Objectivism-related forums. There has been a tendency to equate socialism/Communism with Statism generally. For instance, if a politician advocates state control of an industry, his policy is called "socialist" or "Communist" without reference to his reasoning for the proposed legislation. I hypothesize that this inaccurate use of terminology has led to widespread misunderstanding about the strength of socialist ideology in American politics and culture.

The terms "socialism" and "Communism" are not interchangeable with the term "Statism". Objectivists know that any political ideology which does not recognize individual rights will - in practice - inevitably result in Statism. Facists advocate state control over the economy. Theocrats advocate state control over the economy. So do socialists, communists, monarchists, and any other advocate of an ideology that places faith above reason, altruism above egoism, and the state above the individual.

One of the main points I've taken away from this debate is that irrationalism, altruism, and statism need an ideological vehicle in order to disseminate through the culture. From the late-19th century to the mid-20th century, Marxist socialism was the primary vehicle for statism in America. But is it still a driving philosophical force? To answer this question, one must consider another question: What are the distinguishing characteristics of Marxist socialism, as opposed to other statist ideologies? I don't have the time to offer a complete answer, but a few distinguishing characteristics are: dialectical materialism, the belief that worldwide political change via violent revolution of the Proletariat is historically inevitable, the belief that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will generate unprecedented economic growth, and the belief that, once the Proletariat is in control, the state will wither away.

It could be argued that dialectical materialism is still somewhat of a force in American universities, particularly in History classes, but it is not a theory explicitly advocated by any leading intellectuals or politicians I am aware of. As for some of the other distinguishing socialist theories, I believe that they have been completely discredited by the history of the Soviet Union. Since the rise of the Evil Empire in the 50's and 60's, there has been no significant, explicitly pro-socialist movement in the United States. Note, I do not mean to imply that there have been no further moves towards Statism, only that this move has not been spurred on by the dissemination of socialist ideology. Leading politicians in America keep the Bible on their nightstands, not the Communist Manifesto.

Every time I come back to this issue, I end up siding with Peikoff's view more and more, though I am still unsure about his voting recommendations. I will continue to consider the issue, and as I do so, I will make every effort to clearly identify the relevant ideological movements. I recommend that others do the same.

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Dan. So, one question to ask be: in the U.S., what are the major vehicles for statism today? But, "major" is kinda vaguish! So, maybe we should define it as ideologies that are making arguments that people are increasingly buying into.

Years ago, we'd have said that religion was not such an ideology. Today, nihilistic doubt has helped religion reassert itself in politics. The other strong vehicle for statism is environmentalism. Finally, while Marxism is knocked out (for now), regular welfare-statist socialism is very real.

To put that another way, today, sizable chunks of the population will agree with:

  • religious reasons for certain statist policies (e.g., stem-cell research, abortion);
  • environmental reasons for certain other statist policies (e.g., all sorts of restrictions); and
  • welfare-statist reasons for still others (biggie: health-care)

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. I'll conceed this point, if you'll conceed that speculating on how Rand standards would have scored Reagan's performance is wholly inappropriate.

I don't think that's a very fair trade, Kendall. "Wholly inappropriate" is too much to ask. I'll say it's "arguable" that she would have approved (of Reagan's performance). That's as far as I can go in the concession exchange (that's my "ultimatum", in short :thumbsup: )

[by the way, the reason I thought she would have liked him, besides his pro-business supply-side economics, is from the way he dealt with the Soviet Union; given her passionate opposition to communist Russia, I thought she might have considered it a rather pleasant surprise that he was quite bold in his foreign policy with the Russians, which partly led to end of Cold War. But anyway, I'll grant you "arguable".]

Link to post
Share on other sites
But an Objectivist should recognize how individual candidates are heavily influenced by their party members especially when running for President of the United States.

They are influenced by whatever will get them elected; but I'm not convinced that they never revert to their real ideas once elected (see my argument below).

For example, consider how Governor Mitt Romney is now against abortion rights and civil unions. Furthermore, consider how now Rudy Giuliani is emphasizing his Catholic faith and is no longer fighting for gay rights. These shifts towards religious conservatives are obvious panderings to the Republican base.

Even if elected to President, these individuals may not revert back to their actual views...

Presidential candidates should be evaluated on their individual principles, including their willingness to compromise many of their principles to rally different voting blocks.

I don't know if there's any candidate in the current race who is not doing just that. Sometimes a candidate feels it's more important to get elected and then do your thing, than to remain with your superior principles outside White House, thus allowing a person who is truly wrong to take over and to destroy the country (at least in their view). I don't know whether this is right, but I'm sure they believe it's right: for the greater good. I believe Napoleon used some of the worst publicly deceptive tactics to get himself into power, not to mention the coup d'etat. But he believed France needed him, so the route to power wasn't so important to him, compared to his ultimate purpose. There's something to be said for that.

Now, you assert that these candidates may not revert to their actual views after being elected. I think that's rather cynical. Bush himself (or his campaign strategists) read the mood of the electorate in his first term and presented himself as a middle-of-the-road guy to America. Did he stand with this campaign strategy once elected? No. He pushed in his own agenda quite aggressively. So, if Bush could do it, why would you think these other candidates wouldn't? They can very well revert to their original ideals, as Bush did.

If I had to vote tomorrow and was able to choose any of the major candidates, I would vote for Rudy Giuliani ...

And I'm still not convinced that your choice is that bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that any individual candidate who goes to great lengths to placate the religious right is not worth voting for. This eliminates most of the Republican candidates. But at present, I personally am not advocating removing all Republicans from consideration. If I had to vote tomorrow and was able to choose any of the major candidates, I would vote for Rudy Giuliani primarily because I think his nomination would cripple the religious right, he tends to support free markets, he is pro-immigration and I perceive he will take an aggressive stance against Islamic terrorism.

Just out of curiosity, do you see the crippling of the religious right as the number one issue in who you choose to vote for? Or did you just list it first? I ask this because I, too, would choose Giuliani, but for different reasons. I wonder also if the democrats' pandering to the religious left -- Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson--causes you equal concern. The dems always seem to get a pass on this one. Rev. Bill Clinton seemed to make regular pilgrimages to inner city churches to rile up the faithful during his adminstration, yet it is the Christian right that catches all the heat. I am not sure why this is. I have always assumed that it is because everyone knows or thinks that he was just being insincere and pandering. Apparently, sincerity is not a quality one looks for when selecting from a field of democrats.

Note: The following emoticon has nothing to do with you or this topic and everything to do with the 5 year old sitting on my lap that insists that I use it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of curiosity, do you see the crippling of the religious right as the number one issue in who you choose to vote for?

Yes, it is one of my primary reasons.

I wonder also if the democrats' pandering to the religious left -- Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson--causes you equal concern. The dems always seem to get a pass on this one.

The Democrats do not get any free passes. Look at this list of some examples of deeply religious Republicans who had prominent positions in 2006:

  • President George W. Bush
  • House Majority Leader Tom Delay (now out of office)
  • Senator Rick Santorum (now out of office)
  • Senator Sam Brownback
  • Governor Mike Huckabee (now out of office)
  • Senator Tom Coburn
  • Senator Jim DeMint
  • Senator John Thune
  • Representative Tom Tancredo

What is the highest office that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton held in recent years? Sure, the Democrats have some reverends in their party, but how influential are these individuals compared to their counterparts in the GOP?

Granted, the religious right endured some serious setbacks in 2006, but they are still a potent enemy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I shouldn't be surprised that you have selectively quoted my posts as to avoid dealing with some of my points as you have similarly selectively quoted Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff. You have dropped context without properly reintegrating context.

Please don't psychologize. The reason I selectively quoted was to focus on the essential principles from "How to Judge a Political Candidate" that are applicable to voting today.

As I already stated, the essay which you quoted from was written in reference to Barry Goldwater. She also makes cursory references to Richard Nixon and Gov. Rockefeller, but (to be more specific) the article is _overwhelmingly_ in regard to Goldwater's campaign. As I already indicated, this in turn means that Ayn Rand was speaking of a _specific type_ of Republican i.e. one who is pro-freedom on philosophical principle. She clearly did not consider him to be a Christian conservative.

That essay was not a commentary simply on Goldwater. Ayn Rand always spoke in principles even when discussing concretes. Observe that her essay is titled "How to Judge a Political Candidate" and NOT "How to Judge Barry Goldwater."

In post #60 of this thread you said:

Do you have any citations to substantiate her support for multiple religious candidates,

Certainly. Goldwater was a Christian, not an Objectivist, and an example of what Ayn Rand meant by someone who "advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons."

Ayn Rand also supported Gerald Ford.

Up to the present (and, I hope, in the future), I support the candidacy of President Ford. I disagree with his policies in very many respects, but he deserves great credit for his fight against government spending and for his attempt to cut down on government controls.

Ford was quite religious (here) and opposed abortion rights (here).

_and_ how do you reconcile your statements with the quote I gave in post #84 of this thread:

She opposed Reagan because she saw him bringing religion into politics.

Observe, however, that a few paragraphs later she wrote

If, which is very doubtful, Mr. Reagan gets the Republican nomination, there is only one group of people that could make it necessary to vote for him: the Democrats—by nominating some equivalent of Senator McGovern, such as Senator Kennedy.

Her final statement was that if a religious conservative she despised were running against a leftist like McGovern or Kennedy (or, perhaps, someone farther to the left than Kennedy like Kerry), she would find it necessary to vote for the religious conservative!

Also, _you_ are the one asserting that Dr. Peikoff has contradicted Ayn Rand. You need to support that claim.

See what I just wrote.

Edited by Betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy,

There's yet another reason why invoking that quote is a misrepresentation of both Ayn Rand's and Dr. Peikoff's ideas. The essay you quoted from focuses on the evaluation of a political candidate. Dr. Peikoff's D.I.M. hypothesis _and_ his election-related warnings respectively involve cultural evaluation and political trend assessment (among other application options). As far as this issue is concerned, there's a point that transcends all others: Those professional Objectivists' goals involve different scopes and different requirements. (Someone could likely write an entire essay on just those differences alone. Suffice it to say, I haven't seen any one care to notice those differences even though they exist.)

In fact, in your interest to focus on principles, you have seemed to missed something else that is explicitly mentioned at the very end of that quote:

"But we have to judge (a political candidate) as we judge any work, theory, or product of mixed premises: by his DOMINANT TREND." (emphasis mine)

This Summer, during the very last lecture of Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis series, he gave a laundry list of values. It was readily apparent that he was speaking of the current President. Dr. Peikoff was making the point that the President holds onto unrelated (even conceptually contradictory) values. Yet, if anyone actually bothers to evaluate the President's track record, there is indeed a dominant trend running throughout the Bush presidency. That trend (which Dr. Peikoff continues to be criticized for recognizing!!!) is comprised by the drive to further inject federal law with religion.

...and there is even yet another flaw in interpreting that quote from March 1964 as you have. Admittedly, the flaw is better revealed when the 1964 quote is held up against what A.R. said over 15 years later in the interview which I quoted from. When she spoke of religion mixed with politics, it is abundantly clear that she meant what she said _without exception_. In other words, her view of religion interspersed with politics flat-out trumps all other considerations (including everything that was said in the March 1964 essay.) Now it just so happens, that A.R. did not contradict herself. As I just stated, a Presidential candidate must be evaluated by his dominant trend, so the two written pieces jibe perfectly with each other.

Look at it this way, if Bush, Jr. did not operate by religious premises, he would likely be more like President Clinton. As the case was with Clinton, you will note that there wasn't a move towards faith-based initiatives, antipathy for research science e.g. stem cell research, a toleration for greater limits on abortion, a self-sacrificial backdoor draft, etc.

(I'm just starting to read your most recent post.) You should note that the interview I quoted from was in 1980 (which is later than 1975.) By the way, she had something to say about Gerald Ford in that same interview of 1980 (and it doesn't help your case).....

Link to post
Share on other sites
When she spoke of religion mixed with politics, it is abundantly clear that she meant what she said _without exception_. In other words, her view of religion interspersed with politics flat-out trumps all other considerations (including everything that was said in the March 1964 essay.)

Hm. Would you care to reconcile this "abundantly clear" observation with this:

If, which is very doubtful, Mr. Reagan gets the Republican nomination, there is only one group of people that could make it necessary to vote for him: the Democrats—by nominating some equivalent of Senator McGovern, such as Senator Kennedy.

Evidently, you are wrong. Can you at least admit that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop switching contexts (..both mine and Ayn Rand's).

When she spoke of religion mixed with politics, it is abundantly clear that she meant what she said _without exception_. In other words, her view of religion interspersed with politics flat-out trumps all other considerations (including everything that was said in the March 1964 essay.)

Hm. Would you care to reconcile this "abundantly clear" observation with this:

If, which is very doubtful, Mr. Reagan gets the Republican nomination, there is only one group of people that could make it necessary to vote for him: the Democrats—by nominating some equivalent of Senator McGovern, such as Senator Kennedy.

The "without exception" comment I made was in reference to the 1980 interview in specific, and she WAS abundantly clear about candidates who are anti-abortion! (I still haven't posted the other 2/3 of her answer which is further damning of conservatives.) Likewise, I haven't seen the article you just referenced in hard copy or in total. Also, it doesn't appear to be in The Objectivist Forum compilation so it _does not_ follow the interview I cited from 1980. (Betsy incorrectly quoted my quote of Ayn Rand.)

Obviously, I'm not omniscient; nor am I obligated to be. You don't give a reason why she would vote for Reagan over McGovern or Kennedy. It wouldn't have anything to do with gaining _new_ information about Reagan, would it?!

Again, to be absolutely clear, she was against Reagan (apparently more than anyone else) in 1980. ...and _that_ is the most recent reference to Ayn Rand which I've seen so far.

How do _you_ reconcile the 1980 interview with everything else?

edited for clarification.

Edited by tps_fan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy,

I wish that you were a little more careful in your post numbered #113 because I now have a bunch of things to correct you on. I may have to do it in separate parts as it is.

Also, as far as essentials go, I haven't seen you expressly deal with the idea of "dominant trends" as the idea appears in your original quote of Ayn Rand; nor have you expressly dealt with the idea of avoiding disintegrated evaluations of political candidates (which as far as I can tell involves the crux of the entire essay from 1964.)

(tps_fan @ Jul 26 2007, 03:40 AM) *

As I already stated, the essay which you quoted from was written in reference to Barry Goldwater. She also makes cursory references to Richard Nixon and Gov. Rockefeller, but (to be more specific) the article is _overwhelmingly_ in regard to Goldwater's campaign. As I already indicated, this in turn means that Ayn Rand was speaking of a _specific type_ of Republican i.e. one who is pro-freedom on philosophical principle. She clearly did not consider him to be a Christian conservative.

(Betsy)

That essay was not a commentary simply on Goldwater. Ayn Rand always spoke in principles even when discussing concretes. Observe that her essay is titled "How to Judge a Political Candidate" and NOT "How to Judge Barry Goldwater."

I explicitly acknowledged this in what you responded to! Let me restate part of my assessment of that essay: She only _concretely_ mentioned several candidates; she _abstractly_ focused on Barry Goldwater as an example of a pro-freedom candidate.

...and while I'm at it, if she considered him a staunch Christian, then why did she say what she did in 1980 (of which I only quoted a fraction of her anti-conservative antipathy.) Also, why did she say in the same essay which you quoted from(!) that:

"No, he is not an advocate of laissez-faire.... But the difference between him and the others is this: they believe that some [undefined] element of freedom is compatible with government controls; he believes that some [undefined] government controls are compatible with freedom. Freedom is his _major_ premise."

Where does _Ayn Rand_ refer to him as a Christian?! She advocated for him (and not the others) for his pro-freedom stance, period.

(tps_fan @ Jul 26 2007, 03:40 AM) *

In post #60 of this thread you said:

Do you have any citations to substantiate her support for multiple religious candidates,

(Betsy)

Certainly. Goldwater was a Christian, not an Objectivist, and an example of what Ayn Rand meant by someone who "advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons."

Read what I just stated.

(Betsy)

Ayn Rand also supported Gerald Ford.

Then why did she respond to this question in 1980 (from the same interview I quoted) as follows?:

Q. Of the current candidates, then, are there any whom you favor?

A. No. I would have voted for Gerald Ford, as I did in 1976. He is not ideal, but he is the nearest to a civilized, conservative candidate. But I will not vote for any in this year's election.

...and this is after she excoriated Reagan. You should have told her about Ford's religiousity because she _never_ mentions it anywhere in this interview and she _still_ wouldn't vote for him again. Immediately before the aforementioned question, she _very_ explicitly has harsh words for any candidates who are anti-abortion. In other words, if she knew Ford or any one else was anti-abortion, then she would _not_ have wittingly voted for them. Again, note what I said in an earlier post about Forbes.... _and_ Dr. Peikoff's reaction in turn. That hardly seems like a contradiction on either of their parts at all.

...so by my count you have cited 0 promotions of Christian conservatives by Ayn Rand. That is hardly the "multiple candidates" of which you mentioned.

Hopefully, I'll get to more of this later...

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all who have been advocating against the Peikoff stance on voting on Republicans, primarily on the basis that Rand did not advocate blanket party voting, but rather judging candidates individually:

I don't think that the Peikoff stance is necessarily incompatible with the Rand evidence presented so far.

a. Rand has shown that her "individual" analysis does not necessarily need to lead to a decision to vote for anyone at all. (Reagan)

b. Rand has demonstrated the willingness to vote for a candidate even given a negative opinion of his political stance, if only to keep a worse candidate from getting elected. (Reagan vs. Kennedy)

c. We know that on principle she said "religion and politics" as a mix are the most dangerous combination.

d. We know this was all said in an era when the Republican party was not pervaded by the political religious right the way it is today.

e. We know that she was about analyzing trends and politics in fundamentals.

Why is everyone so sure that today, Rand's individual analysis would not lead to her concluding that withdrawing her vote from Republican candidates (a) was warranted because every individual analysis would come up against the mitigating context that religious ideas (e) had so pervaded the Republican party (d) as to make any "good" candidate ineffective to stop this onslaught of a dire threat c)? And maybe even necessitated voting for a democrat (b ) to counter that threat? How do we know this isn't the result of Peikoff's analysis as well. Everyone points at his statment "even if the Republican is a 'good' one." to mean that he is now making blanket pronouncements that Rand wouldn't have, but what if his generalization is the result of a series of individual analysis, all with the new (d) mitigating context of a party dominated by religion?

That is, if I stipulate Rand's individual analysis methodology, I haven't seen the case made to vote for a Repbulican yet.

Betsy wants to parse out single Rand references to make the case that Rand and Peikoff are at odds, but tps fan is trying to keep her integrated.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
Betsy,

I wish that you were a little more careful in your post numbered #113 because I now have a bunch of things to correct you on.

I stand by what I wrote there. I have presented my facts and my reasoning. If anyone takes issue with what I wrote, let them present their facts and reasoning, but I have no desire to repeat myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Betsy wants to parse out single Rand references to make the case that Rand and Peikoff are at odds, but tps fan is trying to keep her integrated.

I know what Betsy wants to do better than you do -- and you're wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what Betsy wants to do better than you do -- and you're wrong.

Excuse me Betsy, I mispoke.

"Betsy is parsing out single Rand refereces, making the case that Rand and Peikoff are at odds." I have no idea what you want to do exactly, nor do I care.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
To use your own argument (from the moral judgment thread) - which I thought was brilliant, by the way - you can not predict what an immoral (or anti-moral) person will do. So, what makes you so sure that the Democrats will necessarily be a road block to the religious rights' goals?

I'm not, and I don't know for certain whether I agree with Peikoff's position: I'm not representing my own in this thread. Sorry if there was confusion. I sort of agree that what he said makes sense, but I'm not sure I agree with his tactical recommendations. There are just too many things to sort through and I'm not well-enough informed to have my own opinion here. I also don't like being in a state where I have to accept other people's opinions, which is why I don't vote right now.

I'm not sure you can form a general principle about a bunch of unprincipled people and that is a fact. I agree that people with bad principles are probably a bigger threat in the long run than people with no principles, is all, but that always raises the question of: how long a run are we talking about here? Are we basing our voting strategy on what may pay off in a hundred years, or on holding back the tide until a grassroots movement is viable?

P.S. thanks for the compliment

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me Betsy, I mispoke.

"Betsy is parsing out single Rand refereces, making the case that Rand and Peikoff are at odds." I have no idea what you want to do exactly, nor do I care.

I absolutely agree with this Kendall. This thread's replies are case in point for you in regards to that.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites
I plan to change from Republican to Independent, but now what?

Great! Another to leave - and hopefully a growing trend that becomes a mass exodus from the Republican Party!

but is there anyone else out there that you're eyeballing and why?

Well, if people want to look at individual candidates, look at the party they belong to first. If they are not Republican candidates, then keep eyeballing them. If you continue to look at those that are Republicans, blood might shoot from those eyes of yours, Kelly! :)

Edited by intellectualammo
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...