Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Educational campaign / political campaign

Rate this topic


JMartins

Recommended Posts

This is regarding something that Ayn Rand said in the Q&A session from lecture 12 of “Philosophy of Objectivism” by Leonard Peikoff, given in 1976.

"Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A", by Robert Mayhew:

Q: Is it not time for an Objectivist politician?

AR: It certainly is not. The whom would he speak? One cannot run an educational campaign and a political campaign simultaneously. In fifty years, it might be time for an Objectivist politician; but by the time it’s possible, he practically wouldn’t be necessary. The country’s public opinion would continue in the direction of freedom and reason. Therefore, Objectivists should go to the classroom, and correct the situation there.

I cannot say that I agree with her on that particular statement (in bold). Consider Ron Paul's presidential campaign -- however flawed it may be, you cannot contest that he has been able to educate the masses in the so-called "philosophy of liberty" to a far greater extent that he would have been able to had he started an academic institution or served as a college professor instead. One might argue that the many millions of dollars that he raised would, from his perspective, have been more efficiently spent by influencing academia, such as the ARI is doing now, instead of further promoting his presidential campaign. The arguement falls on the fact that he would never have been able to raise the many millions in the first place, nor kept raising them, had he not launched his presidential campaign and kept promoting it for as long as he did. Another libertarian institute would simply not have generated as much hype. In doing what he did, he has established himself as the first and foremost spokesman for capitalism in media, he is being invited to numerous talk shows and news broadcasts, and recieves the credit for being "right" by many economists, as a result of the continually failing U.S. economy and the recent Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal. He's spreading his flawed message of libertarianism like wildfire.

Even Ayn Rand could not have predicted the political influence of the Internet -- I believe that this is the main factor that proves this particular statement of hers wrong.

For the record; I fully agree with ARI's current course of action. Unlike the rather widespread influence of libertarianism, Objectivism is not yet influential enough to generate the kind of hype that Ron Paul's campaign has through a presidential campaign. With the success of his campaign in mind though, the prospect of an Objectivist politician running on a GOP platform sometime in the future -- perhaps 30-40 years from now, sounds very potent to me, assuming that we've managed to bring about sufficient cultural change by then.

Edited by JMartins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider Ron Paul's presidential campaign -- however flawed it may be, you cannot contest that he has been able to educate the masses in the so-called "philosophy of liberty" to a far greater extent that he would have been able to had he started an academic institution or served as a college professor instead.

OK, I'll contest it. What's your evidence for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'll contest it. What's your evidence for this?

As the prospect of Ron Paul starting a libertarian organization instead of launching his presidential campaign is purely hypothetical I don't have any hard evidence. After having observed the tremendous effects of his presidential campaign however, I find it exceedingly hard to believe that it would have produced any better results. The idea of him raising well over thirty million dollars, participating in prime-time debates on a regular basis, generally getting his message out there as well as he has, and being on "everyones" lips, as a result of founding yet another libertarian organization, is highly unlikely -- especially since there's already numerous libertarian organizations out there that have been repeating the same message over and over for many years without yielding any significant results, other than laying the groundworks for Paul's presidential campaign (just as ARI may be laying the groundwork for an Objectivist's presidential campaign in the future). It was mainly the early presidential debates that he participated in which made people so enthusiatic about him, and it was the these people who actively spread his message across the internet at such an alarming rate, which in turn generated all the millions in donations that allowed him to broadcast political/ideological ads in all states. The driving force was always the hope that he would win the presidential nomination -- that's what fueled his supporters to such an extreme degree, and what brough libertarianism into the political spotlight. There's no reason why the same won't work for Objectivism in the future (albeit in a more dignified manner).

Edited by JMartins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider Ron Paul's presidential campaign -- however flawed it may be, you cannot contest that he has been able to educate the masses in the so-called "philosophy of liberty" to a far greater extent that he would have been able to had he started an academic institution or served as a college professor instead.
I also can contest this claim. First, the evidence does not indicate that he has "educated the masses" in any philosophical grasp of the nature of liberty or mankind. He has more name-recognition than Harry Browne, but name-recognition is not the same as education in philosophy. Indeed, I contend just based on listening to a number of Paul videos that he has personally done more harm to creating the kind of intellectual change necessary to spread Objectivism. Paul is a certifiable crackpot who is, to get technical, clueless. Hospers was credible although wrong; Paul is like the Dennis Kucinich of the freedom movement.

It's also clear that he would be no good as a college professor in an attempt to spread a foundation of reason which leads to a free society. Perhaps he might have been an okay fund-raiser working behind the scenes to support real Objectivist education. The kinds of cultural changes required to elect an Objectivist president won't come by the mindless mass spreading of a handful of libertarian chants -- "Freedom, man! No taxes! Out of Iraq now! It's a revolution, brother!". The problem now is that there are thousands of his under-trained neophytes roaming the planet, waiting to be turned by the Dark Side. I think we would be better off if there weren't such a mess to clean up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also can contest this claim. First, the evidence does not indicate that he has "educated the masses" in any philosophical grasp of the nature of liberty or mankind. He has more name-recognition than Harry Browne, but name-recognition is not the same as education in philosophy. Indeed, I contend just based on listening to a number of Paul videos that he has personally done more harm to creating the kind of intellectual change necessary to spread Objectivism. Paul is a certifiable crackpot who is, to get technical, clueless. Hospers was credible although wrong; Paul is like the Dennis Kucinich of the freedom movement.

It's also clear that he would be no good as a college professor in an attempt to spread a foundation of reason which leads to a free society. Perhaps he might have been an okay fund-raiser working behind the scenes to support real Objectivist education. The kinds of cultural changes required to elect an Objectivist president won't come by the mindless mass spreading of a handful of libertarian chants -- "Freedom, man! No taxes! Out of Iraq now! It's a revolution, brother!". The problem now is that there are thousands of his under-trained neophytes roaming the planet, waiting to be turned by the Dark Side. I think we would be better off if there weren't such a mess to clean up.

I agree with your assessment of Ron Paul -- he has certainly done more harm than good to the Objectivist movement. He has in many ways served as a rallying-point for some of the most horrible kind of people out there. My point remains that no matter his virtue, or lack thereof, he has, from the libertarian perspective, been more successful in spreading their ideology through his presidential campaign, than he would have been able to through forming yet another libertarian think tank/organization. He's gotten the libertarian message out there, to people whom it would otherwise never have reached, and has to some degree made a cultural change in the favor of libertarianism. As a result of his presidential campaign, his book became a best seller for several weeks, and educated people in his brand of philosophy, economics and foreign policy. His political campaign educated thousands -- that's the point I'm making in this thread. Objectively its a negative form of education, but that doesn't change the fact that his presidential campaign has been tremendously successful in educating people in his brand of philosophy. I see no reason why a future Objectivist presidential campaign cannot achieve the same kind of massive cultural movement assuming the proper groundwork has been laid by Objectivist thinkers.

Edited by JMartins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point remains that no matter his virtue, or lack thereof, he has, from the libertarian perspective, been more successful in spreading their ideology through his presidential campaign, than he would have been able to through forming yet another libertarian think tank/organization.
Mm, yeah, that is probably true. I think that's due to the nature of libertarian ideology, which depends on millimeter-deep miles-wide intellectual seed-sewing.
His political campaign educated thousands -- that's the point I'm making in this thread.
Well, whether that is true depends of what "education" refers to. If you mean simply "made people aware that he said things which seemed to resonate with their emotions", then that would seem to be true. I can't say that I'm persuaded that he actually did anything that caused people to know anything new, something that they didn't already know. There's no question that he did have considerable success in rallying people, but that's not the same as educating. Are you arguing that he made some substantial contribution in the realm of actual education? Not just organising.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure how effective he was at spreading the libertarian message - several libertarians are a bit embarassed by his gold standard platform and conspiracy theories about bankers running the world. One effect that he had was to cause sensible libertarian positions (legalise drugs, lower taxes) to be associated with more extremist positions that are much harder to defend (abolish the Fed, go back to the gold standard). The banking stuff wasnt just one of many things Ron Paul advocated - it seemed to be one of his most passionate positions, and formed a pretty major part of his platform. It was also the least likely to ever be implemented.

Also his comments about Darfur and fleet-footed black youths didnt really help with the widespread perception that most libertarians are sheltered white, middle-class college students. This wasnt really Ron Paul's fault - the whole political system is set-up to ensure that non-mainstream ideas remain fringe positions, and when you have someone coming from a libertarian position, people are going to jump on any remotely controversial comments he makes and use them to discredit/ridicule him. Its a lot easier to attack the person than it is to debate the positions, so if you can just label Ron Paul as a racist kook who hates poor people/blacks, then that will generally suffice to make people embarassed to be associated with him. Anyone who campaigns for a non-mainstream position (whether thats libertarianism, Objectivism, Marxism, or whatever) needs to make sure that they dont make remarks which can be misinterpreted by the media and their opponents, and used to slander them in an attempt to shift the debate away from their positions (and this sort of personality-politics is totally established in the mainstream too, as all the absurdities about Obama being a muslim or whatever highlight).

Its the same reason why Ayn Rand is unlikely to ever be taken seriously on a large scale, because as soon as her name is mentioned, the discussion immediately becomes focused on whether she thought gays were immoral, women liked rape, and so on. Wiliam Buckley is another example - most of the things he argued for get ignored and all people remember is that he didnt support the civil rights movement, and as such he gets painted as just being another conservative racist. When the core of your platform is controversial, you need to keep everything else squeaky clean or your character will get discredited straight away. Its a horrible and anti-intellectual state of affairs, but thats what happens when you have an adversial political system centered around image and media soundbites, where most people only want to 'beat the other team' at any cost.

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the prospect of Ron Paul starting a libertarian organization instead of launching his presidential campaign is purely hypothetical I don't have any hard evidence. After having observed the tremendous effects of his presidential campaign however, I find it exceedingly hard to believe that it would have produced any better results.

I'll stop you right there. Certainly, given your lack of hard evidence, you'd I'm sure be willing to back off on that "no one can contest..." part. Your inability to believe that his campaign would have produced better results (than what, I'm not exactly sure yet) does not in fact make such possiblities so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll stop you right there. Certainly, given your lack of hard evidence, you'd I'm sure be willing to back off on that "no one can contest..." part. Your inability to believe that his campaign would have produced better results (than what, I'm not exactly sure yet) does not in fact make such possiblities so.

Yes, point taken. While I maintain my conviction that a political campaign can be educational, it wasn't particularly wise to start the debate by saying that it could not be contested. As to the last part, I'm arguing that Paul's presidential campaign has yielded a far greater educational success from a libertarian standpoint, than what he would have accomplished by founding yet another libertarian non-profit organization. Already existing libertarian organizations laid the groundworks that made his presidential campaign so tremendously successful from a libertarian standpoint however.

Mm, yeah, that is probably true. I think that's due to the nature of libertarian ideology, which depends on millimeter-deep miles-wide intellectual seed-sewing.

Yes, that's an entirely valid point. It concerns me that Objectivism may only appeal to the new intellectuals, and that people with average or less than average faculties will always turn to libertarianism when exposed to the ideas of Ayn Rand.

I can't say that I'm persuaded that he actually did anything that caused people to know anything new, something that they didn't already know. There's no question that he did have considerable success in rallying people, but that's not the same as educating. Are you arguing that he made some substantial contribution in the realm of actual education? Not just organising.

The reason why so many people initially rallied to him was because they were inspired by his performance in the presidential debates -- YouTube videos of his performances circulated all over the Internet, and inspired thousands all around the world. I could go into depth about how people react when they are being exposed to new ideas by someone that they find inspiring, but I believe you're already aware. Consider how people react to Galt's speech -- they get inspired, and they want to learn more. This is the reason why Paul's new book remained the #1 bestseller for numerous weeks. His presidential campaign reached thousands of people which he would otherwise not have reached, and it inspired them to purchase his book in order to learn more about his ideas.

The idea of an Objectivist partaking in prime-time presidential debates all across the nation intrigues me to no end. In addition to the tens of thousands he would inspire, he would also be in a position to publicly broadcast the fact that Objectivism and Libertarianism are not the same, and not compatible. I do however agree that an Objectivist Party is not something to pursue, and would again like to clarify that an Objectivist presidential candidate would only be feasible in the future, assuming we succeed in laying the groundworks for it by making a cultural change.

Edited by JMartins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot say that I agree with her on that particular statement (in bold). Consider Ron Paul's presidential campaign -- however flawed it may be, you cannot contest that he has been able to educate the masses in the so-called "philosophy of liberty" to a far greater extent that he would have been able to had he started an academic institution or served as a college professor instead.

The purpose of a political campaign is to win an election or get a particular issue approved or rejected. The purpose of an educational campaign is to educate a number of people (or at leat try to). The former is too narrow and the latter is too broad. that's why you can't do both at once.

That said, a political campaign can gather massive amounts of publicity. Therefore someone could choose to launch a campaign for the purpose of cheap publicity and/or mass exposure, in order to draw large numbers of people into an educational campaign.

But not all "third party" presidential candidates get coverage. In fact most don't, and are generally regarded as a joke. Ron Paul drew attention this time by running within the Republican Party. Even then no exposure or publicity is ensured. Ross Perot managed a great deal of attention because he had money to spend on advertising, he is a colorful character, and he displayed a measure of media skills that served him well (then he blew it spectacularly). And Perot remained a flash in the pan.

So, you can launch a political campaign as a publicity stunt. If it works it may do you some good for an educational campaign. But you still can't do both at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before concluding that a political campaign can be educational (which I am sympathetic to) let's look at the way in which the quoted statement is valid. The ultimate goal of an educational campaign is to inform. The ultimate goal of a political campaign is to win an election. In a rational society, these goals may coincide. In an irrational society, they will conflict. One way to interpret the statement is that one cannot run a rational campaign and an irrational campaign simultaneously. With this we should agree.

This leads to more questions. What are the realistic chances of a rational political campaign winning in today's society? Would the goal of education be served best by running a campaign with those chances? What unintended consequences might there be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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