Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivists for Obama?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

With respect to point 1, I've noted that no matter what it is, capitalism (or the Republicans) will somehow get blamed for it. Anything that comes out of this current crisis, for example, will be blamed on the "deregulated" market where lenders went hog wild, and it will be pointed out that the crash happened on Bush's watch.

The second argument is a bit stronger, but I think if there are 60 democrats in the Senate--a filibuster-proof majority--we can probably kiss our hindquarters goodbye, nothing will hold the Dems back and they are spoiling to make some changes--none of them good. They've felt cheated since 1994 and especially 2000. (BTW pointing them to the evidence that Bush won in 2000 fair and square doesn't work, they still feel cheated because they'd rather feel cheated than rejected by the voters.)

My personal plan is to abstain on all candidate races. I'll probably write myself in for US Senate--I ran for that seat as a Libertarian six years ago (did not get the nomination) and the irony would be too good to resist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have few comments.

1.) If the Democrats control all three branches of government (and it's looking like the next President will get at least one or two Supreme Court appointments), then no one can blame capitalism (or the mixed economy of the right.) They will only have socialism to blame.

It will be years (probably not within your life time) before you will be able to get rid of things like Universal Healthcare.

You and other Americans won't be arround generations from now. Looking from a prospective of a historian - the "much worse in a short run but unsutainable in the long run" is of value sure but that short term can mean the rest of YOUR life.

2.) Obama will probably end up like Clinton, and just about every other President in recent history...despite all their campaign promises, they won't be able to get too much done. Clinton had to move to the middle to get anything done, and Obama will likely not be nearly as leftist as he promises to be. He will want to get re-elected after all, so he can't piss off too many people.

6 out of 8 years during Clinton administration neo-cons controled both Houses of Congress.

Obama is also not Clinton. He is much much worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It will be years (probably not within your life time) before you will be able to get rid of things like Universal Healthcare.

Frankly, I think it will come to bloodshed before any of the stuff we hate it is done away with. Legislation is rarely undone, if ever. In addition, most Republicans are for some sort of regulated health care system. (Including McCain.) The debate over health care is rarely free market vs nationalization, but rather which form of nationalization should we go with.

I think the hope here is that Americans still have enough of their American/independent sense of life to know when to say when, and they start demanding change. Democrats love two things...power and the blame game. When they're in power and they have no one to blame but themselves for their mess, hopefully, the American people will realize that (finally) and say enough is enough. Hopefully, the cries for capitalism will be loud enough to wake up the dying Republican Party. (The real Republicans, that is.)

6 out of 8 years during Clinton administration neo-cons controled both Houses of Congress.

Right, so he had two years to push his (and his wife's) extremely liberal agenda, and they did essentially nothing.

Obama is also not Clinton. He is much much worse.

Everyone thought Clinton would be devastating, then he ended up being quite a moderate President. (Just like Bush wasn't nearly as conservative as he said he would be...he's ended up quite moderate.)

Don't get me wrong...they're all awful. And these Presidents ending up in the evil, gray middle aren't great, but at least they're not pushing along socialism and/or religion as fast as they'd like to. Like I said, I will probably just abstain since I can't really vote for anyone.

And finally, sorry for all the "hope"...I'm sure we're all sick of that word. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then it's not "across the board" spending cuts that McCain proposes, then is it?

I heard McCain state his proposed cuts were going to be across the board. That's how I interpret it. That no government agency is safe, no mater what its virtue.

I do agree that neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the government budget crisis.

My recollection is that McCain's promise was for an across the board freeze in spending, not cuts. Maybe you heard something different, but I wasn't aware that he was promising to cut all departments. If he were, I might actually be more inclined to vote for him. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, most Republicans are for some sort of regulated health care system. (Including McCain.) The debate over health care is rarely free market vs nationalization, but rather which form of nationalization should we go with.

There are differences of magnitude between the two plans and approaches. Fundamentally they both altruists but it is a mistake to make an equivocation in the amount of destruction they can create in your life.

As a Canadian voter I have been faced with this for years. There are no good alternatives but, in each election, I can at least vote for less damage to my life.

Obama is a Marxist and a passionate one. He means it when he says that he will bring change. To expect moderation is a big stretch at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is a Marxist and a passionate one. He means it when he says that he will bring change. To expect moderation is a big stretch at this point.

FDR and LBJ had huge democratic majorities and we are still living with programs created under the New Deal and The Great Society. If Obama has equally large majorities in congress, a financial crisis, a fawning press and an adoring Hollywood to spread his propaganda, there is no telling what he might do. Expecting moderation is about as likely as an organized republican resistance. The best way to fight this man is to vote against him. Unfortunately, that means voting for McCain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton came into office during a recession and the press and Hollywood loved him. (Still do.)

McCain will not be the savior of our rights. Just look as his awful attempt at campaign finance reform. Now I can't even put a home made campaign sign in my front yard! Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a dumb argument. It's like asking if you'd rather be stabbed or beaten to death. I've already said they're both evil. If you think one is better than the other, more power to ya. I was just sharing two points I had not heard made yet which I heard at a John Lewis lecture on Saturday night. I'm abstaining and frankly, none of you can convince me that one will be any better or worse for the country in the long run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is not Clinton.

I'm actually grateful for that.

And McCain can only be a savior in so far as he saves us from Obama.

How is McCain going to save us from Obama? By regulating abortion? By further infringing upon our freedom of speech?

My vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain it is a vote against Obama.

Well, at least you're voting. Unlike some of the members who refuse to exercise this right, in this utterly important election.

My opinion is that those who think that Obama and McCain are more alike than different in their various issues have not been paying attention.

Or they are just playing the nihilist game.

Obama is a Marxist and a passionate one. He means it when he says that he will bring change. To expect moderation is a big stretch at this point.

Utter nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How is McCain going to save us from Obama? By regulating abortion? By further infringing upon our freedom of speech?

By continuing the War Of Infinity? By dictating how can marry who? By forcefully stopping scientific progess?

I'd like to know as well.

My opinion is that those who think that Obama and McCain are more alike than different in their various issues have not been paying attention.

Or they are just playing the nihilist game.

I am off a similiar opinion. I also think that by equating the two and their respective parties, you only evade and dismiss their own individual issues that need to be judged.

Abstaining is refusing to judge.

Utter nonsense.

If you want a passionate Marxist, go to Venzuela. Unlike Hugo Chavez, I don't think Obama will be killing off my family members, like Chavez already has. Calling a tom cat a lion is foolish when you have wolves in sheep's wool to deal with.

Edited by Mammon
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want a passionate Marxist, go to Venzuela. Unlike Hugo Chavez, I don't think Obama will be killing off my family members, like Chavez already has. Calling a tom cat a lion is foolish when you have wolves in sheep's wool to deal with.

Obama isn't any less passionate then Chavez, he's just running for office in a different country. There's no way he could get elected if he was as honest as Chavez was about his intentions. Whatever your hearing him say now is his attempt at being "moderate" to get in power. He's waiting until he's voted in and granted a neo-Rooseveltian dictatorship by his Democratic super-majority, to reshape the face of this country.

Also, I wasn't aware that your family members were killed by Chavez.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama isn't any less passionate then Chavez, he's just running for office in a different country. There's no way he could get elected if he was as honest as Chavez was about his intentions. Whatever your hearing him say now is his attempt at being "moderate" to get in power. He's waiting until he's voted in and granted a neo-Rooseveltian dictatorship by his Democratic super-majority, to reshape the face of this country.

Also, I wasn't aware that your family members were killed by Chavez.

I agree with the part about him acting a certain way(I would use the terms "vague" or "empty" tather than moderate) to get elected, I just don't see why you think he's such a passionate marxist: I've listened to that interview from 2001 on Drudge too, and what I heard was just a smug moron trying to be poignant (it suited him to be that way in academic circles), and liberal and militant (trying to move up in Chicago politics).

Real militants don't talk about the Supreme Cout and "technical interpretations of the constitution", the talk about revolution and race wars.

He's not gonna do anything extreme, in fact he'll probably do less than McCain would, because he doesn't have the experience and connections McCain has made over the years in DC. And even if he was a militant( I guess we don't know enough about him to decide either way, thanks to the media deciding to sit this one out), we do know for a fact that Pelosi and the democratic majority have only one mission: to stay in power--and you're not gonna stay in power if you drive up taxes (and unemployment with it), go after talk radio with the fairness doctrine, or any of these other scary laws people keep talking about. In fact the only thing keeping them in power right now is the fact that Bush and the Republican leadership are awful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I one listens carefully, taking the context of the civil rights struggle, what Obama is referring to by his remarks concerning wealth redistribution are reparations. This is logical considering the fact of his involvement with a "church" preaching the "gospel" of Black Liberation Theology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am off a similiar opinion. I also think that by equating the two and their respective parties, you only evade and dismiss their own individual issues that need to be judged.

Abstaining is refusing to judge.

Barring for a moment that this an incorrect usage of the idea of judgment, do you really expect to replace argumentation with name calling? Maybe you think you're more persuasive by calling us evaders and cowards?

I'm abstaining, and I certainly don't equate the two, but if you have some special knowledge of my mental processes, maybe you'd like to bring it to bear?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I one listens carefully, taking the context of the civil rights struggle, what Obama is referring to by his remarks concerning wealth redistribution are reparations.
His remarks are worse than that. He says regrets the basic framework of the constitution put in place by the founders. Essentially, he is saying that he would have liked the courts to further erode the notion of property rights. I am guessing he would have liked to see race-reservations applied outside government-financed institutions; i.e., extended to the private sector.
Link to post
Share on other sites
His remarks are worse than that. He says regrets the basic framework of the constitution put in place by the founders. Essentially, he is saying that he would have liked the courts to further erode the notion of property rights. I am guessing he would have liked to see race-reservations applied outside government-financed institutions; i.e., extended to the private sector.

No disagreemnt there. This guy is a Marxist and a closet racist. The only choice being offered to us this election is degrees of evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2001 radio interview with Obama in which he advocates clearly for "redistributive change".

Can anyone now say that this man is not evil?

Apparently, the official stance of Objectivism is now abstention. But if abstention results in an Obama victory, is that not the de facto equivalent of a sanction? We are all familiar with Burke's dictum "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Is abstention not an example of "good men doing nothing"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You assume that by abstaining your vote you are doing nothing? So you can't fight both candidates ideas? Informing people you come in contact with everyday of why you are abstaining and explaining why ideologically both candidates are the same

is doing nothing?

While I agree with your view in the longer term, I am not sure I am willing to concede the present and near-term future to a demagogue with obvious evil intentions. Oh, and a Democrat-controlled Congress and a possible "mandate". That sounds like a recipe for disaster, and I can't afford such at my age and financial situation.

Also, as one who has been involved in the politics game in a former life, those who don't vote rate little in the formulation of policy. Not voting is effectively tantamount to saying "yes" to whoever wins. One is generally only concerned with those that will vote against you in the next election. And by against, I mean within the context of the two major parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that if you want to make a 'change' then election day is four years too late. Political change is done by spreading philosophical ideas, not by casting a vote.

Once again, a correct long-term view. But what about short-term self-defense? Is there no place for that? Should we stoically stand by and take it like "fresh fish" in the hope that things will be better sometime in the future?

We would do well to remember that entitlement programs tend to take on a life of their own, and very rarely get repealed once a constituency is established. Unless Obama proves to be as inept as Carter on that front (highly unlikely), I'm afraid the legacy costs of even 4 years of his Presidency will constitute a yoke on the necks of our youth for generations. I'm not sure I'm down with that. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the system does not allow you to vote for an 'empty seat' (or limited executive power, whoever gets elected as president) you are forced to vote for one of the two canditates. So you should vote for the lesser of two evils.

Making a political point by not voting is futile in my opinion. It's not that you can signal a concrete message to the rest of the country because there can be various reasons why one does not vote (lazyness, lacking political knowledge etc.). And even if we assume that you can deliever a message like "the two candidates do not offer real alternatives" then it is still difficult to see how this would actually help in an argument in order to promote a positive philosophy because ANYONE (party or philosophy) can use this to support their position, not just Objectivism.

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...