Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism In The Republican Party

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Bearster,

You could be electable as long as you know how to ensure the people that life will not be hell after you do these things. If you don't know how, you shouldn't be running for office.

1) Abolish welfare and replace it with nothing. What about the truly needy? What about them?
Tell that that most welfare recipients are able-bodied, yet choose not to work when tax dollars are readily available. Tell them that the welfare system is degrading. Tell them that the overhead costs of charities amount to much less than public welfare. Tell them that the complex nature of our system makes it expensive to collect taxes anyway. Tell them that all these facts point to one thing: the poor would be much better off without welfare. This position is electable!

2) Abolish state funding for education

I don't think an Objectivist would advocate this one. Transitional steps require that we ease into a world of private schools, which means just a general plan for tax-credits to encourage the growth of such schools.

Tell them how biased or just plain sloppy many school textbooks are. Tell them how much more effective schools will be under the free market. This position is electable!

3) Avoid war, but if war is necessary fight to win--at whatever cost to the enemy
Tell them about the long line of appeasements and sacrificial humanitarian missions brought about by past presidents. Tell them how strongly principled and pro-American your foreign policy will be. This position is electable!

4) God is a bigger lie than cocaine

Well, this isn't a political issue, only a personal one.

The wannabe-politician has a choice. Either abandon principles to get elected, or else give up the goal of being elected.

I think the very idea of being principled is of primary concern for voters. Certainly this will be the focal point emphasized by any Objectivist politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make a suggestion. When trying to influence the Republicans, don’t attack – lure. For example, instead of bashing Bush for his policies of appeasement (and there are many), praise him for being tough (relatively speaking) but say he needs to do much more. For example, he needs to understand that the enemy is an ideologically driven movement: Islamism. We should not praise the enemy’s ideology but let them know the truth: we loathe their values. Let them appease us, if they want any continued relationship. That’s just the idea – you can think of examples yourself.

What the Republicans need is criticism from the “other” direction. Bush will compromise in the only direction that he is being criticized from - currently the Left. However, don’t “bash” the President or try to undermine him. Constructive criticism helps the Republicans to hold off from compromising or lessen the extent that they do. Yes, this is a stop-gap measure but it gets us in the game.

The aim is to gain respect and motivate an inquiry. It plants the seed for further growth in the party. Comments?

Jason

PS This is my 1st attempt at posting on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS This is my 1st attempt at posting on this site.

Welcome!

When trying to influence the Republicans, don’t attack – lure. For example, instead of bashing Bush for his policies of appeasement (and there are many), praise him for being tough (relatively speaking) but say he needs to do much more.

Good thinking; we must definintely do this whenever possible. However, it only works when the left is doing it worse than the right. On issues like abortion and the funding of churches with tax dollars, the right is on our bad side. There isn't much of a way to praise them in these areas.

It should point out to you why the republican party does not embrace capitalism as much as they do religion nowadays.....a good read.

The party is indeed becoming more radical just as the left has. My goal is to work to change that, as it is our only hope of succeeding at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could be electable as long as you know how to ensure the people that life will not be hell after you do these things. If you don't know how, you shouldn't be running for office.
Heh.

This is is naive, at best, and it sure looks pretentious.

Tell that that most welfare recipients are able-bodied

People--the majority of the people--believe that government-provided, tax-funded welfare is necessary. The reasons include to provide for the people who are *not* able-bodied, that charity does not guarantee that some people won't starve, etc. Even Gore could safely say that the current welfare system is not "efficient" and needs to be "reinvented". An Objectivist says that it needs to be *eliminated*, because stealing from productive citizens is evil.

I don't think an Objectivist would advocate this one.

Then you can either join the crew claiming that I am not an Objectivist, or face the fact of the matter. An Objectivist has said it.

Now that we've gotten the ad authoritatum and other logical fallacies out of the way, let's address the issue. My statement centered on the need to abolish public funding and public education, not the specific tactic of how to accomplish this, nor the timetable. Do you believe that everyone should be looted at gunpoint in order to pay to force nearly all children into indoctrination camps? If not, then I don't see the controversy of whether or not Objectivism holds that education ought to be private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is is naive, at best, and it sure looks pretentious.

I can't understand why as long as this remains a single-sentence statement.

People--the majority of the people--believe that government-provided, tax-funded welfare is necessary.

According to what poll?

An Objectivist says that it needs to be *eliminated*, because stealing from productive citizens is evil.

He doesn't have to stick to this argument. He can also explain why it doesn't work, and why private charity would.

Then you can either join the crew claiming that I am not an Objectivist, or face the fact of the matter . . . Do you believe that everyone should be looted at gunpoint in order to pay to force nearly all children into indoctrination camps?

Read what I said after that. Transitional steps require that we ease into a world of private schools. Of course I think the public school system should eventually end, but no sane man would suggest that we complete it in one fell swoop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Bearster)

This is is naive, at best, and it sure looks pretentious.

I can't understand why as long as this remains a single-sentence statement.
After I said that public education should be repealed, you said no Objectivist would say that. Were you unaware that you issued an insult? Do you feel you know me well enough to pronounce that judgement?

According to what poll?

This is my assessment of the current culture. It is also the rational view of political philosophy. The prevailing view today is that the government which happens to a country has little or nothing to do with the culture. This is why the basically rational, life-loving people of Iraq had a murderous dictator. All's we need to do is take out the dictator, and the folks in Baghdad will reimplement democracy.

Wrong.

Except for the case of an occupation army imposed from outside, countries have the governments they deserve. This is a corollary to the principle of the sanction of the victim.

The US does not have 299,000,000 rational, independent, proud, honest, just men who happened to have been taken over by Clinton and Bush. It has 299,000,000 petty pragmatists who have elected precisely what they believe is good leadership.

He doesn't have to stick to this argument. He can also explain why it doesn't work, and why private charity would.
At what, exactly, does charity work? Accomplishing the altruist's goal of guaranteeing that unproductive men are paid for their non-production?

This statement grants moral sanction to those who do not deserve it. The altruist's first (if not only) concern in designing a social system is to ensure that the unproductive are given as much as the productive. Our concern should be to ensure that no one is looted in order that others can be "given".

Tell that that most welfare recipients are able-bodied

The altruist wants welfare to exist to support those who aren't able-bodied. They tolerate the fraud because to them, it is immoral to deny welfare to those who "truly" need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After I said that public education should be repealed, you said no Objectivist would say that. Were you unaware that you issued an insult? Do you feel you know me well enough to pronounce that judgement?

I didn't mean to offend you, if that's what I did. My statement wasn't a sure fact to be applied to all Objectivists -- your own beliefs would have already contradicted that. I just think it wouldn't be wise to immediately stop all funding to education, rather than gradually phase them out. You couldn't even be elected on such a platform.

Actually, this is the same basic arguement I use to support the FairTax: I just think it wouldn't be wise to immediately stop all taxation, rather than gradually phase it out. You couldn't even be elected on such a platform.

This is my assessment of the current culture. It is also the rational view of political philosophy . . . The US does not have 299,000,000 rational, independent, proud, honest, just men who happened to have been taken over by Clinton and Bush. It has 299,000,000 petty pragmatists who have elected precisely what they believe is good leadership.

I agree that Iraqis wouldn't naturally implement a free society after the fall of a dictator; it would need to be forced on them. However, I think this example is far different than the Clinton/Bush one. Freedom is a hard concept to accept in a culture devoid of it, but in a country based on it, people should be more open to ideas that foster it -- like the removal of welfare.

At what, exactly, does charity work? Accomplishing the altruist's goal of guaranteeing that unproductive men are paid for their non-production?

Charities would naturally not waste their funds on able-bodied people who are just too lazy. The amount of recipients would fall to those who the charity deems in need of it. That's the great thing about the free market: Who would contribute to a charitiy filled with fraud?

Whether or not it is altruistic to contribute depends on the motivations of the individual contributer. You and I might find it to be worthless, but if so many voters are truly in support of welfare, it's worth mentioning to them that if even a fraction of them contribute to charity, it will already speed past the inefficient and wasteful welfare system.

The altruist wants welfare to exist to support those who aren't able-bodied. They tolerate the fraud because to them, it is immoral to deny welfare to those who "truly" need it.

So, convince them that those who "truly" need it will still get their unearned share of the wealth, thru charity. Like I said earlier, the difficulty of doing this is nowhere near the difficulty of teaching most Iraqis the meaning of freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US does not have 299,000,000 rational, independent, proud, honest, just men who happened to have been taken over by Clinton and Bush.  It has 299,000,000 petty pragmatists who have elected precisely what they believe is good leadership.

I cannot agree with this extremely low opinion of the majority of Americans. I think most Americans have been doing the best they know how, but they don't know how. The intellectuals who should have been teaching them how, have been teaching them all the wrong things. Most Americans have been struggling and failing because of it.

At what, exactly, does charity work?  Accomplishing the altruist's goal of guaranteeing that unproductive men are paid for their non-production?
Sometimes, but the context was replacing state-funded education with charities. Educational charities usually accomplish noble and proper goals. Examples would be charities which run private schools, and organizations like ARI or the United Negro College Fund.

This statement grants moral sanction to those who do not deserve it.

Some derserve it and some don't. A blanket condemnation of all charities is factually unwarranted and morally unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most Americans have been doing the best they know how, but they don't know how

Are not half the democrat senators is this position?

I don't think so. In general, I think most Americans are morally superior to most Democrat politicians The reason is that politics -- especially Leftist politics -- tends to attract people who are motivated by power lust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make a suggestion. When trying to influence the Republicans, don’t attack – lure. For example, instead of bashing Bush for his policies of appeasement (and there are many), praise him for being tough (relatively speaking) but say he needs to do much more. ......

What the Republicans need is criticism from the “other” direction. Bush will compromise in the only direction that he is being criticized from....

The aim is to gain respect and motivate an inquiry. It plants the seed for further growth in the party. Comments?

Jason

PS This is my 1st attempt at posting on this site.

Welcome Jason, and hope to see you here more often.

I agree 100% with this, and I am definitely guilty of bashing the president for his weaknesses :dough:

This also applies to the upcoming election. Bush supporters should be positive about Bush's achievements, not negative about Kerry's faults. Bush has done some things correctly. For example, he recently approved a multi-billion dollar technology acquisition package with the aim to improve military technology. Among the budgeted items is a total communication system to ensure that soldiers know where all their fellows are on the battle field at all times. This should greatly lessen the friendly fire incidents. A laudable achievement.

Be careful about the tendency to call Kerry traitor or bash his war record. There are plenty of things to praise Bush about, and weaknesses in Kerry that are noticeable. It's easy to see the big hole in the Kerry Campaign is that none of his supporters really know what he will do in office, and how his decisions will effect them. Its the psychology of projection taken to extremes when it comes to Kerry. The Michael Moore fans who plan to vote for him don't want to know, because they are stuck on blaming Bush for the fact that they are miserable human beings.

All you have to do is point out that Kerry would replace all the current cabinet leadership. And that it will have a genuine negative impact on their safety and finances. You really need to get to well illustrated examples of how Kerry policies will cause them harm, and how Bush policies will hold us even. There is a big media wave causing distraction and every bit of clarity counts.

It's also easy to provide the evidence of Bush being a better president just by looking at Kerry's voting record. Be careful about falling into democratic tactics of name calling, even if the name fits. You still need to prove it to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...