Mr. Flip Flop

[Yes]

Did I say I was speaking for Leonard Peikoff?  No.  "So many" does not even imply a majority.

"So many" does imply that there is a strong, burgeoning consensus among Objectivists to support Bush.

I used Peikoff as an example of why your statement was, in my opinion, grossly misleading.

[AshRyan]

Yet it isn't all that popular.  At current ticket prices, the box office amounts to 10-15 million tickets sold in a population of over 300 million -- and many of those were to curious right-wingers.

I have many Democrat friends and that does not describe them.  Many of them vote Democrat out of family tradition and force of habit, some are "bleeding heart" altruists, some are intellectual Old Left, and some are anti-intellectual New Left.  The latter are the real value-haters and the big Michael Moore fans.

While it may be possible that your roommate is a nice guy AND a die-hard Michael Moore fan, I'd say it is extremely unlikely based on my own experience.  I wish he were here now so I could ask him what he liked about MM and why.  If your roommate really is a nice guy, I suspect he may be reacting positively to an isolated aspect of MM such as his iconoclasm or his jolly teddybear facade and not to the underlying nihilism and value-hatred.

I guess we just have very different experience. Nearly every Democrat I know is to some extent a Michael Moore fan or sympathizer, but most of them are not anti-American value-haters like Moore himself, while practically all of the die-hard Republicans I know shun Moore (with good reason) and didn't even see his film out of curiosity, but loved the "great message" of The Passion of the Christ and took their young children to see it.

Now, if you're going to judge people based solely on the kind of movies they enjoy, well...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is evil. But The Passion of the Christ is...eviler.

[oldsalt]

I have too much respect for Dr. Peikoff to dismiss his assessment of what is happening in America. I do not, however, think that Bush is the danger here. It is the backlash of religion that has occurred since the 60's that is the danger.

If you listen to the public conversations going on right now, the (justified) complaint of the religious right is that those on the secular left no longer recognize evil when they see it. The complaint is against those who are multiculturalist, nanny-state, no-one-is-to-blame, America haters who are happy to throw all of the most basic principles which underly our culture in the trash. They are against those who do not recognize the danger and evil of the Islamofascists. While there are the rightwing wingnuts who would push for some kind of theocracy, most of what I hear is a deeply held belief that the country has gone so far into nihilism that something must be done to turn it back on path. The only morality that most people know is of a religious kind and that is what they have turned to to try to correct the absolute wrongs they see about them.

On the other side, we have the Old Left, the New Left, and the New New Left, the Transnational Progressives. The Euro elites, for example, are Transnational Progressives, and so is John Kerry. These are the people who believe in a one-world government, with them as the leaders (of course). They are the Post Modernists, the multicultual, politically correct, and environmentalist thought controllers who own our educational system. They are the humanists and the nihilists.

The great majority of religionists do not want to murder the constitution. The Left has been doing so ever so slowly since Johnson was in the White House. It is the Left which has worked through the courts to undermine the constitution. It is the Left which has done away with personal responsibility. It is the Left that has instituted speech laws -- i.e., thought control -- on our campuses and in our everyday speech by the ever shifting ideology of political correctness. It is the Left which has defined Americans in collectivist terms. (Did any of you notice that the Governor of New Jersey defined himself as a Gay-American? It is his "truth".)

It is the right, most of whom are religious, but not necessarily fundamentalist, who recognizes all of the above for the real danger that it is. They identify it with the Left's secularism. They are right, in that the philosophy of the Left IS secular. Hence, the backlash we are experiencing. It isn't the first time in American history that the religionists have reacted this way, nor is this the first time religion has boomed in reaction to particular political movements (mainly Marxist in character). Nor is it the first time that people have become more outspoken about God during a time of national crisis. During a crisis people go to what they know for comfort and what they know in this country is religion.

Let's face it, until Ayn Rand there was no answer other than the secular humanism in one variation or another. Why would we expect that people would do otherwise than what they have always done. Right now, people are trying to find a way to fight against that which they rightly perceive as very dangerous ideas which have been slowly but surely taking over all aspects of our political and cultural discourse and action, with disasterous results. Along with the political ideas of the left have come a rise in a culture that they see destroying their children, such as drug use, sexual promiscuity, etc. They do their best to raise their children responsibly only to see them go to hell as teenagers -- i.e., as soon as they come under the influence of the schools. They see nothing but smut on TV and in the movies. They watch their daughters become sluts and their sons become either wimps (metrosexuals) or gang members. If they've managed to save their own children from the culture around them, they must protect them from the ravages of the culture their children live in, while educating them at home, or working constantly to counteract that culture.

Right now, like DNA, the fabric of our country has split down the middle. As an Objectivist, I see the evil on both sides. Most of the religionists do not see the contradiction involved in what they are advocating, they are grasping at the straw they see. The Left is so bankrupt that they can only resort to force to get what they want. As Objectivists, we are out of the loop to both sides. It is their battle and we have very little power at the moment to do much about it. We are growing, but not fast enough to have a real impact. What we must do is try to keep enough of the country and the constitution alive so that we have a chance of winning in the future.

Here is where I part ways with Dr. Peikoff. If we were only dealing with the elitest Left and the religious right, I might agree with him, but we are at war. Kerry will not fight this war. He has already indicated that he will apply the Viet Nam solution to Iraq -- cut and run. He has already indicated that he will return to the Clintonian policy of sending law enforcement and lawyers after those who would destroy us. In his campaign, he has surrounded himself with every rotten apple from the democratic storehouse and I see no reason to believe that he will do otherwise in his administration. The man who advised him on National Security was caught with national secrets stuffed down his pants. The man advising him on foreign policy was dropped after an Senate committee found that he was a liar who slandered the president (and whose lies are still gospel truth among the left) On military matters, he has Wesley Clark, who was fired from NATO and has been discribed as a loose cannon by his peers. In one interview, he admitted that he took advice as a Senator from that great statesman, Marlon Brando. He considers Carter to be an Elder Statesman. Go to the Kerry/Edwards website and read the Washington Post article of July 2003. It is a puff peace written by a giddy, obviously star-struck woman who was on the campaign trail with him. It gives a perfect picture, however, of the world in which Kerry exists in his own mind, written in breathless prose.

Bush is bad. I don't like much anything he has done, with the exception of a couple of stunning and excellent speeches he gave after we were attacked. He's made a mess of Iraq. The only thing I can say for him is that he, at least, recognizes that we are at war with some very evil people. History has taught me, though, that wars are very messy things that seldom go right, especially in the beginning.

What would make this country actually turn to some form of theocracy? I don't think it would, or could, because Bush is president for four more years. But what if Kerry put this country in greater danger because of his policies? What if he and his secular Transnational Progressives allowed us to be attacked again and again, with the death, destruction, and economic meltdown that would involve? Where do you think the country would turn then? I think they would turn to a virulent form of the religious right.

For these reasons, and because I'm a vet with a long memory who will never ever vote for the treasonous SOB who slandered and defamed an entire generation of fighting men and women, I'm voting for Bush.

[Betsy]

Right on, Janet!

Recently I summed up my opposition to the pro-Kerry arguments in a posting to HBL. I got a ton of e-mails -- every one agreeing with me. This is what I wrote --

HBL The Election Context

In the upcoming election, it is more important than ever to keep the

context clearly in mind.

We are choosing a PRESIDENT. A President is not a Philosopher

King. His ideas, for good or evil, are a cultural effect, and not a

cultural cause. His job is to be an implementer of political policy,

not a formulator or promoter of epistemology or ethics. That is the

role and the power of the philosopher.

We are choosing an AMERICAN President. An American President

must function within the American constitutional framework and his

powers are limited and subject to checks and balances. Although

constitutional safeguards have been severely eroded over the years,

they are still supported by a strong, individualistic American sense

of life. This guarantees that no President, even with large popular

support, will institute a theocracy or even significantly impair

freedom of speech in the next four years or even in the next 100

years.

We are choosing a WARTIME American President. In peacetime,

selecting a President and Congress of opposing parties can lead to

gridlock and inaction. This is a highly desirable state if the goal is

preventing passage of bad new laws and regulations. In time of war,

however, we need to ACT. If we have a President who allows

Americans to be attacked and does nothing, Congress can't make

him do anything. ONLY the President can wage war.

That is why, in the context of the upcoming Presidential election, I

am a dedicated, active Anti-Bushite For Bush.

[oldsalt]

Excellent, Betsy. I've just become a Betsy dittohead. <That's a joke, son.>

This discussion is difficult to keep up with because it is on two different threads. I reiterated some of what I said here, and added more concrete examples, etc., on the "Peikoff for Kerry, Huh?" thread. I think that's the title anyway.

(Dogmatic Objectivism/ists anyone? Aren't we afraid of being "excommunicated" for our "heresy" of disagreeing with Pope Peikoff? (Forgive me, Dr.) HA! Next time some ignorant silly throws that clap-trap at us, we can refer him to these threads.)

[gnargtharst]

AshRyan wrote:

I guess we just have very different experience. Nearly every Democrat I know is to some extent a Michael Moore fan or sympathizer, but most of them are not anti-American value-haters like Moore himself,

I think a qualifier should be noted here: your roommate, and presumably the other Democrats you mentioned, are probably young, like yourself.

I don't mean that to sound condescending, I simply mean that young people, in their formative years, will frequently embrace a mixture of ideas, until they have integrated these ideas, keeping some and throwing out others.

I can see how a late-teens/early-20s student could be a Michael Moore fan, and still not be immoral. But as the years go on, the realities of day-to-day life require even the most mentally lazy person to develop coherent opinions, in order to answer the contradictions that confront them (if they have chosen incorrectly).

Can you imagine a 30-year old MM fan? 40? 50? What sort of evasion is necessary to conclude that MM is a good guy, after 20 or more years of consideration? Short of some contrived example wherein a person never had to give the issue much thought, there's simply very little way a person could arrive at that conclusion without serious evasion and rationalization.

[AshRyan]

AshRyan wrote:

I think a qualifier should be noted here: your roommate, and presumably the other Democrats you mentioned, are probably young, like yourself....

Good point. Off the top of my head, you're right, most of them are under 30.

[Betsy]

Good point.  Off the top of my head, you're right, most of them are under 30.

Then there's hope.