Oakes Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 The difference between a democracy and a republic is analagous to the difference between democrats and objectivist republicans. I specify "objectivist" because current republicans are not holding up to the republic ideal. Our founding fathers knew that a (constitutional) republic is supposed to restrict democracy with the reigns of inalienable rights, realizing, as can be read in The Federalist Papers, that a pure democracy can be dangerous in that it subsumes the minority to the will of the majority. As many of you already know, today's republicans don't recognize these inalienable rights on social issues, nor do they take the principled laissez-faire stance that the defense of these rights is the only proper function of the government. While I have drifted in and out of the pessimistic belief that these setbacks are too great to change, I'm now ready to start some real discussion on how to get it done. Betsy and a few others had a good discussion a while back on the prospects of "infiltrating" the republican party. Here's a few specific ideas I have so far: (1) Show that we are the true republicans, that we represent the rational and principled ideas held by the Enlightenment intellectuals that founded this nation. That means we should spare no effort to quote them. (2) Advocate the FairTax as a much-needed replacement of the income tax (and all the other taxes that clutter up our complex system). Repeal the 16th Ammendment and abolish the IRS in the process. (3) Emphasize our strong stance on foreign policy by criticizing attempts from democrats and those of our own party to appease terrorists. Advocate military action against Iran. (4) Join CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste) in criticizing the wasteful use of tax dollars in Congress. What about general ways of associating objectivist ideas with republicanism? What current republican publications/clubs/websites have objectivist sympathies? Does everyone even agree that this is the best way for further Objectivism into politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 The Republican Party taxes, yet conceeds tax cuts to the rich (top 1%). If (hypothetically) we are moving towards less taxation and cutting government spending, is cutting the tax the rich pay, yet not the working/middle classes pay advisable? should not they both be reduced at an equal rate? or perhaps the cuts should hit the lower/middle classes first - freeing them from the restriction of heavy taxations - allowing more competition, a market with greater freedom? It seems to me that the tax cuts the rich get (+ the huge amount they dont pay by hiring tax lawyers to evade tax) encourage unfair monopolies when everyone else is paying heavily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewSternberg Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 Does everyone even agree that this is the best way for further Objectivism into politics? I think that once Objectivism has enough cultural support and influence, then what you have identified would be a very viable way of inserting Objectivism into Politics. However, I think that any political insertion of Objectivism will necessarily fail with out that cultural backing. Culture is first, politics comes after. Where does Objectivism stand in its cultural status? Ask Betsy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewSternberg Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 Also, I think it would be good to broaden this thread to a discusson about how far along Objectivism is in the culture, and at what point should there be a push for more political involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Here are three organizations that can hold some weight: The Republican Liberty Caucus: http://www.rlc.org/ What is the RLC's platform? Free Enterprise Personal Freedom Protecting Individual Rights The RLC Supports The good thing is that this club supports military action in American defence, unlike the LP. There is also another Republican club, called the Republican Majority for Choice, which is in support of abortion. http://www.rpcc.org/home.shtml Lastly, there's the PNAC, which has many ® members on it, for foreign strategy: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted August 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 I think that once Objectivism has enough cultural support and influence, then what you have identified would be a very viable way of inserting Objectivism into Politics. I don't think we need to spread Objectivism per se, in order for an Objectivist-sympathizer to get elected. Certainly we need to spread capitalism, but many of those ideas are already part of republican rhetoric: personal responsibility, private medical care, down with welfare, 'why don't we just bomb the bastards', etc. There is also another Republican club, called the Republican Majority for Choice, which is in support of abortion. http://www.rpcc.org/home.shtml From the website, my bold: "The Republican Pro-Choice Coalition has changed its name to the Republican Majority for Choice to reaffirm the reality that 73% of Republicans believe that the right to choose should be a woman's decision, not the government's." 73%??? Is this for real? How could I have been blinded for so long into thinking that the religious right held the majority. Also, that group refers to themselves as 'Moderate Republicans'. Is this how an Objectivist politician should go by? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIJamesHughes Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 The term moderate implies that you are still playing by their rules. Moderate is the middle of the left (communists) and the right (fascists). I am not an advocate of either of those views so could not be discribed as moderately communist or moderately fascist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 The Republican Party taxes, yet conceeds tax cuts to the rich (top 1%). If (hypothetically) we are moving towards less taxation and cutting government spending, is cutting the tax the rich pay, yet not the working/middle classes pay advisable? should not they both be reduced at an equal rate? or perhaps the cuts should hit the lower/middle classes first - freeing them from the restriction of heavy taxations - allowing more competition, a market with greater freedom? It seems to me that the tax cuts the rich get (+ the huge amount they dont pay by hiring tax lawyers to evade tax) encourage unfair monopolies when everyone else is paying heavily. Charles, Under our current tax system the "rich" pay the majority of taxes. I believe the figure goes something like the top 5% pay 53% of all income taxes and earn 31% of all income. Of course Republicans aren't going to cut taxes "equally" since our current system doesn't equally tax people. If you pay more taxes, you should get a bigger across the board tax cut. The problem with Republicans on economic issues is they seem to me like borderline Keynesians. Cutting taxes only for political purposes and economic stimulation, not because taxes are a violation of governmental power. Then again Democrats take on Keynes' entire method of government spending and running deficits and surpluses. I can't ever imagine myself voting Democrat. I'm happy to see Oakes bring up this issue for I've wrestled with it many times myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 73%??? Is this for real? In the next paragraph, it even says: In addition to the 73% of Republicans who say that the choice should remain with the woman, 61% of GOP respondents said that while they themselves might not choose abortion, they would not take that right away from other women. That makes 134% in total. It's MORE than a majority! Also, that group refers to themselves as 'Moderate Republicans'. Is this how an Objectivist politician should go by? Certainly not. An Objectivist politician should be a radical for capitalism. "Moderate Republican" means "I support a republican form of government, as long as I don't have to do anything that makes anyone angry." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted August 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Certainly not. An Objectivist politician should be a radical for capitalism. "Moderate Republican" means "I support a republican form of government, as long as I don't have to do anything that makes anyone angry." But where can they be placed on party lines other than in some vague area between the far left and far right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Here are three organizations that can hold some weight: The Republican Liberty Caucus: http://www.rlc.org/ Bull! What is    the RLC's position on abortion?        We oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. Our position is Neutral. This is the one issue where we are split. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and     in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.ca.rlc.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members. I, too, oppose government funding of abortion, but that is consistent with my position regarding federal funding for the sake of others. If one is to truly defend individual rights, then one must include the right of female individuals to their bodies. There is no compromise here. I reject the RLC as a representative of objectivism or capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Also, that group refers to themselves as 'Moderate Republicans'. Is this how an Objectivist politician should go by? Good point, Oakes! Remember that the moderates refer to us capitalists as "absolutists." I do think that politicians such as Schwarzenegger are in the right direction, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted August 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Remember that the moderates refer to us capitalists as "absolutists." Then it is true that moderates tend to be compromisers. This isn't something an Objectivist politician wants to be seen as, but nevertheless he will be accused of being a moderate republican, so I think he should constantly stress that he is a Capitalist first, Republican second. He has to come across as very principled, not compromising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 But where can they be placed on party lines other than in some vague area between the far left and far right? Most "Moderate Republicans" are RINOs (= Republican In Name Only). They have far more in common with Democrats than with Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Then it is true that moderates tend to be compromisers. This isn't something an Objectivist politician wants to be seen as, but nevertheless he will be accused of being a moderate republican Hardly! A true Objectivist would be accused of being a "dangerous radical." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pericles(MBA) Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Ex-Banana Eater wrote: The Republican Liberty Caucus: Yep. The RLC has some pretty good candidates. As someone pointed out the candidates are not Objectivists, but have done some pretty good stuff. One person in particular, Congressman Jeff Flake, has impressed me since back when I first read his articles on the Goldwater Institute website back in the early 90's. Here is a little more information about him: Jeff Flake Bio Overall his biggest positive is his ability to explain to voters why he takes stands on free trade and limited govt. He has also been a big supporter of military funding. I am not aware of his voting record on abortion, but he is a Mormon so that part might not be stellar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_Connery Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 I'm also a big fan of Ron Paul who is a member of the RLC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 I'm also a big fan of Ron Paul who is a member of the RLC. Unfortunately, he's a rabid peacenik. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPW Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Unfortunately, he's a rabid peacenik. And anti-abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted August 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Hardly! A true Objectivist would be accused of being a "dangerous radical." But what if they just look at a list of his beliefs, keeping in mind that he calls himself a republican. They will see that he differs than the religious right on key issues like abortion, after which they will brand him a moderate. Certainly, if he presents himself as a non-compromising capitalist, the opposite response will occur. But which image do you think has a greater chance of becoming prevalent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 But what if they just look at a list of his beliefs, keeping in mind that he calls himself a republican. They will see that he differs than the religious right on key issues like abortion, after which they will brand him a moderate. Oh, but when they look at what he wants to do with the mullahs in Iran, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve, they will know that he's anything BUT a moderate! And he won't be taking lukewarm positions on issues like abortion either. There will be things on which he disagrees with the religious wing of his party, but he'll be disagreeing with them vehemently, not in a "maybe we should seek a compromise here" manner. Margaret Thatcher was a supportion of abortion rights too, but it didn't occur to anyone to call her a moderate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted August 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Oh, but when they look at what he wants to do with the mullahs in Iran, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve, they will know that he's anything BUT a moderate! And he won't be taking lukewarm positions on issues like abortion either. There will be things on which he disagrees with the religious wing of his party, but he'll be disagreeing with them vehemently, not in a "maybe we should seek a compromise here" manner. Good point! Margaret Thatcher was a supportion of abortion rights too, but it didn't occur to anyone to call her a moderate. I didn't know this. I assume she's looked up to pretty highly among Objectivists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 I didn't know this. She was known as the Iron Lady. That's not a moniker one would give to a moderate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted August 4, 2004 Report Share Posted August 4, 2004 Once or twice, someone with whom I've discussed political ideas has said "you ought to run for office." My answer is always the same. "I wouldn't be electable as *dog catcher* if I opened my mouth." Platform: 1) Abolish welfare and replace it with nothing. What about the truly needy? What about them? 2) Abolish state funding for education 3) Avoid war, but if war is necessary fight to win--at whatever cost to the enemy 4) God is a bigger lie than cocaine etc The wannabe-politician has a choice. Either abandon principles to get elected, or else give up the goal of being elected. Steve Forbes is the most vocal supporter of liberty of any recent candidate who had national stature. And he turned out to barely have the stature to capture one primary (here in Arizona). And he turned out not to be especially strong for freedom, either. One interviewer asked him "I know you want to outlaw abortion and repeal the capital gains tax. If you could accomplish only one, which would it be?" "Without question or hesitation, outlawing abortion." Not only is the anti-abortion view wrong on the face of it, but his statement is even worse. Abortion is a marginal issue that affects a small group of people, whereas the capital gains tax is not only a vicious attack on the investor, but it saps inestimable wealth from the economy every year--a drain which compounds into ever larger numbers over time. Everyone who earns, spends, saves, invests, insures, or desires money is hurt by the capital gains tax. Forbes had the twin advantages of a well-funded campaign and control over a major magazine. Charles: the answer to your demand of "why not cut taxes on the non-rich first?" is simple. Every time taxes have been raised, the rich have been the primary targets. What do you suppose a man earning $50,000 a year pays in taxes, compared to a man earning $5,000,000 a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted August 4, 2004 Report Share Posted August 4, 2004 Bearster quoting Charles: "the answer to your demand of "why not cut taxes on the non-rich first?" is simple. Every time taxes have been raised, the rich have been the primary targets. What do you suppose a man earning $50,000 a year pays in taxes, compared to a man earning $5,000,000 a year?" It was a question: not a demand. As indicated by the '?'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.