Here Come The Christians!

[noumenalself]

Whether you want to call them nihlists or skeptics or subjectivists, I think Betsy's point still stands. And nihlism, not as a conscious action, but taken as consequences, would contain skepicism and subjectivism. These did destroy classical civilization. Christianity (and the rest of the cults and religions of that time) was a groping mass for a moral compass after the disaster of sophisty and skepticism. These latter had whittled away at the certainty and moral confidence of men and thinkers.

Look, in philosophy, concepts have definite meanings. We can't just throw "nihilism," "skepticism" and "subjectivism" in a bag and say they all mean the same thing. They don't. Nihilism is the hatred and rejection of all values and all existence. Skepticism is the epistemological position that there is no certainty or knowledge. Subjectivism is the epistemological position that consciousness is prior to existence. These are different positions. You're right that nihilism does imply skepticism and subjectivism, but the converse isn't true. It's not the case that skepticism implies nihilism.

I have no doubt that the skeptics of antiquity had a great deal to do with the erosion and eventual destruction of classical civilization. But I don't think skeptics or even nihilists have the power to destroy entire civilizations. They may destroy the intellectual foundations of a civilization, but to destroy the actual civilization requires a mass movement of people, something they are incapable of inspiring. You say that the Christians were simply groping for a moral compass. I think you're right, and it's only because they were--and because this compass pointed in the direction of destruction--that classical civilization came to an end.

It was skepticism and sophistry that Plato set out to fight (and in so doing set up the following religious epoch). The same thing happened after Hume with Kant (Plato was a much better philosopher).  Even by Aristotle's time the decline was already evident, and just look at the shrinking range of men's vision in philosophy afterwards.

Religion points to a need of man's mind, a need of certainty, and a need of morality, a moral compass. It was the first thing men came up with when they knew nothing, and it is what they go back to when the subjectivists, skeptics, and now the nihlists destroy all the acheivements of man.

This is all true. I can't deny that nihilism destroys. That's one of its defining characteristics. But I am saying that it primarily destroys intellectually. Remember however that evil is fundamentally impotent. To destroy on a cultural-historical level, however, requires power. Thus evil must enlist the power of the good to destroy on a massive scale. It is only when men's desire for a moral compass is used against them that massive cultural destruction is possible.

That is why the nihlists have to be fought. It is they that breed religion, not actually the religionists themselves.

I agree with much of this. No one here denies that the nihilists must be fought. What I maintain is that here and now, when religion is on the rise, it must be made our primary though not exclusive target.

PS. Rome was well on the path to destruction before Christianity became enough of a force to cause its fall. I'm not saying it didn't do its share of damage, but I don't think it was a primary cause.

I'm not a historian, so I can't comment on the specifics of this. But we're not just talking about Rome, but all of classical civilization. I don't think it was just the barbarian invasions that ended that.

[noumenalself]

An election is not how ideas are spread on a national scale.  Candidates are not teachers or philosophers.  They can only appeal to the ideas and values people already have.

P.S., on this point, my original response wasn't enough. I said that the problem isn't that elections spread ideas, but that they do influence policy. That's right, but what I should have emphasized was also that policy can contribute to the spread of ideas if it involves censorship. If religious theocrats institute censorship, then Objectivism will not be free to spread itself, and religion will be the only alternative to nihilism.

[msb]

I agree entirely with NS's essays and comments here. But I'll add that I think that religion needs to be attacked directly and explicitly.

The nihilistic nature of the new left is pointed out in today's culture from a variety of sources. Most conservatives and even some Democrats understand how antithetical nihilism is to values and life, and how e.g. the anti-globalization protests are instances of nihilism.

But to my knowledge no one ever publicly says out that God is a fairy tale, that a faith is antithetical to knowledge, that religion is opposed to morality, and that religion in government will bring us back to the dark ages. Religion is an uncritically accepted as, if not correct, then at least high-minded or well-intentioned. No one gives religion as such the criticism it needs.

This isn't to say that we should stop advocating for reason--this should always be primary. But I disagree that it is a waste of time for Objectivists to argue against religion. I try to do anything I can to discredit religion. Virtually no one else does.

[noumenalself]

But to my knowledge no one ever publicly says out that God is a fairy tale, that a faith is antithetical to knowledge, that religion is opposed to morality, and that religion in government will bring us back to the dark ages. Religion is an uncritically accepted as, if not correct, then at least high-minded or well-intentioned. No one gives religion as such the criticism it needs.

That's a very important point, Matt. I would add to it: it's not just that this criticism of religion is neglected by the intellectuals, it's that they're fundamentally incapable of making it. How can the left criticize religion, when they have embraced multicultural toleration? "Who are they to judge somebody's ideas?"

[WorthyLoverOfExistence]

That's a very important point, Matt. I would add to it: it's not just that this criticism of religion is neglected by the intellectuals, it's that they're fundamentally incapable of making it. How can the left criticize religion, when they have embraced multicultural toleration? "Who are they to judge somebody's ideas?"

It'll be interesting to see how PBS covers the topic Wednesday on their Special: The Question of God

[argive99]

PS. Rome was well on the path to destruction before Christianity became enough of a force to cause its fall. I'm not saying it didn't do its share of damage, but I don't think it was a primary cause.

I agree with this. Rome was in the process of disintigration prior to the ascendency of Christianity. Christianity did not so much destroy Rome as it was the end result or symptom of Rome's internal collapse; a collapse which, as Thoyd Loki said, was due to centuries of Sophist, skeptic, and subjectivist thinkers. As a matter of fact, I think that one of the greatest parallels in history is between 2nd Century AD Rome and 21st Century America; both civilizations at the height of their power and prosperity, with economic abundance, new technologies, near world wide trade routes, military superiority, barbarian enemies looming, and an intellectual cancer eating away at its core killing a little piece of it every day. Then as now subjectivists battled religionists for Rome's soul. The only difference is that 21st Century America has a third alternative which did not exist then: Ayn Rand. Which gets us back to the race against time...

[Thoyd Loki]

Argive99

Excellent parallel!

noumenalself,

Words have definite meaning no matter what the subject. I specifically delimited my use of nihlism in my post, as a destription of consequence. Now, that may have little meaning strictly applied to ancient times. But, the tools back then are largely the tools of today, with, now, a nihlistic intent.

You say the nihlism destroys primarily intellectually. What else is needed to destroy civilization? It's nothing to bring down buildings, ruin courts, and trade, and there are always hordes of people that will gladly rip it down with no thought to tomorrow.

They instill uncertainty. Then another people come around who are certain, and there we have the triumph of religion.

What I think is the correct position is this. People are running from the torrent of nihlism, subjectivism and skepticism. They are running into the arms of Christianity, and kindered folk. It is in more of a nature of a competition for souls, and you try to discredit the enemy as much as possible. But, I think the deeper evil is still the camp that starts this in the first place.

Maybe this kind of discussion is superfluous? We both agree that nihlism and religion are to be stopped. I find nihlism to be the worst threat. You see religion as the bigger threat. See you on the battlefield.

[noumenalself]

Words have definite meaning no matter what the subject. I specifically delimited my use of nihlism in my post, as a destription of consequence. Now, that may have little meaning strictly applied to ancient times. But, the tools back then are largely the tools of today, with, now, a nihlistic intent.

I don't understand that paragraph.

You say the nihlism destroys primarily intellectually. What else is needed to destroy civilization? It's nothing to bring down buildings, ruin courts, and trade, and there are always hordes of people that will gladly rip it down with no thought to tomorrow.

Why will they gladly rip them down? The 9/11 hijackers did it because they thought they'd get virgins in the afterlife. It wasn't a purely nihilistic motive. Granted that at the ultimate extremes, nihilism and religion can fuse, as in that case. One can hate this world in favor of another. But I think that kind of religiously inspired nihilism is the most potent kind, because of the motivation about the other world.

The wider point is that destruction is a form of action, and action requires motivation. And motivation requires values, in some form. I would argue that even to the extent that nihilists on the left achieve cultural destruction, it is usually by virtue of the appeal of altruism. E.g., anti-globalization marchers who smash storefront windows because they hate capitalism. Why do they hate capitalism? Because they embrace altruism. Where do they get their altruism? Not from nihilism. Nihilism is nothing-ism. They get it from religion, even if they don't admit it.

[Thoyd Loki]

The wider point is that destruction is a form of action, and action requires motivation. And motivation requires values, in some form. I would argue that even to the extent that nihilists on the left achieve cultural destruction, it is usually by virtue of the appeal of altruism.

Not every action requires values. Purposeful action requires values. Long-range action requires values. Whims and nihlistic motivation do not. Not unless we are going to be so vague with value that we use it to mean anything that is the end result of any action.

Altruism doesn't offer any values, that is the whole point of it.

What is the value pursued by Howard Stern when he asks every woman whether they do anal? What is the value pursued by Rosanne Barr when she screws up the national anthem, grabs her crotch, and spits at the crowd? What is the value pursued by Madonna when she appears on Letterman and says f*** two dozen times? What is the value pursued by the artist that uses feces on canvas, or a cross in a jar of urine, or a bag of garbage on a pedestal? What is the value pursued in farting at a wedding or at a formal dining table?

I think you may be having a problem grasping the concept of nihlism.

[Pericles(MBA)]

I'm not too sure about that. It was my understanding that Christianity came after the collapse already was in-progress.

I don't understand why any Objectivists think Bush is laying the legal foundation for theocracy. Bush is a lightweight when it comes to his religious views. It is people like Alan Keyes that are the real religious politicians.

[Betsy]

P.S., on this point, my original response wasn't enough. I said that the problem isn't that elections spread ideas, but that they do influence policy. That's right, but what I should have emphasized was also that policy can contribute to the spread of ideas if it involves censorship. If religious theocrats institute censorship, then Objectivism will not be free to spread itself, and religion will be the only alternative to nihilism.

If Leftist "politically correct," advocates of "hate speech" laws, "campaign finance reform," limits on "commercial speech," and the "Hush Rush" return of the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" institute censorship we'll be in trouble too.

Considering how much the Left has already restricted free speech and its current crusades to do more of same, its policies are much more of a realistic threat to the free market of ideas than the extremely far-fetched possibility of an American theocracy.

[noumenalself]

If Leftist "politically correct," advocates of "hate speech" laws, "campaign finance reform," limits on "commercial speech," and the "Hush Rush" return of the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" institute censorship we'll be in trouble too.

Considering how much the Left has already restricted free speech and its current crusades to do more of same, its policies are much more of a realistic threat to the free market of ideas than the extremely far-fetched possibility of an American theocracy.

As HB remarked in the discussion on his list, we're going to be able to find an unlimited number of bad concretes on either side. So we need to look at the principles that drive these movements and the track records that manifest them. The conservatives are traditionally the champions of censorship, and will remain so for some time, because of who they are:

The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man's spirit, i.e., man's consciousness; they advocate the State's right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect....The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories--with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington....[T]he conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the 'mystics of spirit'....[E]ach camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. ("Censorship: Local and Express," The Ayn Rand Letter, September 10, 1973, pg. 240).

And, incidentally, as I've said throughout this discussion, the right is good at learning the tricks of the left and co-opting their arguments. If you're worried about campaign finance reform and campus speech codes, notice who it was that promised to go after the "527" groups, and what's going on at Colorado University:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/09/10/academic.freedom.ap/

This last is not yet an example of actual censorship, but it points to a new impetus for conservative speech codes on campus. It used to be that you couldn't say anything offending minority groups. Well now conservatives are trying to get classified as minorities who shouldn't get offended, either.

[noumenalself]

Not every action requires values. Purposeful action requires values. Long-range action requires values. Whims and nihlistic motivation do not. Not unless we are going to be so vague with value that we use it to mean anything that is the end result of any action.

Altruism doesn't offer any values, that is the whole point of it.

I said "motivation requires values, in some form." The "some form" part is crucial, because of course nihilistic or whimsical actions are not motivated by genuine egoistic values.

There are, of course, two senses of the concept "value," the specific life-enhancing sense, and the generic one. The generic one is the one AR uses first in "The Objectivist Ethics": "that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

This is the only sense I meant in my discussion of motivation. Clearly altruism is a kind of code of values, in the generic sense. It says you ought to pursue helping others, obeying the Lord, etc.

There is a difference between egoistic values and corrupted values, but all human action requires motivation, and if one isn't motivated by egoistic concerns, one will instead look to values that parasitize the egoistic. They have the conceptual form of egoistic values (e.g., promise of the afterlife), but not the substance.

[noumenalself]

I'm not too sure about that.  It was my understanding that Christianity came after the collapse already was in-progress.

I already conceded that classical civilization was in decline prior to Christianity, but no one has answered my argument that it was only a mass movement like Christianity that could literally bury the achievements of classical civ and initiate a 1,000 year dark ages.

But I'm not a historian, so I wouldn't know what the specific evidence to present in favor of this view. Perhaps you should ask John Lewis, who's a professor of classics. Check out what he posted in the comments section of my blog at

http://www.noumenalself.com/archives/000059.html

Scroll down to September 13, 2004 08:51 PM.

[Thoyd Loki]

I don't spend too much time thinking about nihlists. I'll be back.

[Thoyd Loki]

I already conceded that classical civilization was in decline prior to Christianity, but no one has answered my argument that it was only a mass movement like Christianity that could literally bury the achievements of classical civ and initiate a 1,000 year dark ages.

http://www.noumenalself.com/archives/000059.html

Scroll down to September 13, 2004 08:51 PM.

I don't disagree with that at all. Scepticism and sophistry created a vacuum. Christianity (after fighting for supremacy with other cults) filled that vacuum. Maybe nobody was in disagreement all along, we just had to hash it out until it was a full explicit thought.

[Zeus]

I thought this might be relevant:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5819171/

[Betsy]

As HB remarked in the discussion on his list, we're going to be able to find an unlimited number of bad concretes on either side. So we need to look at the principles that drive these movements and the track records that manifest them. The conservatives are traditionally the champions of censorship, and will remain so for some time, because of who they are:

[Ayn Rand quote] ...

Correction: the OLD RIGHT traditionally USED TO BE the champions of censorship, but the New Left has been way ahead of them in that department for quite some time.

The Neo-Puritan Assault On Sex and Pleasure

By Dr. Gary Hull

Why do feminists and the Catholic Church agree that sex is evil? What are the underlying ideas causing the growing assault on pleasures such as: chocolate, make-up, fashion, furs, jewelry, romance, sex?

In this talk, Dr. Gary Hull explains the three ways, now prevalent on college campuses, by which the neo-Puritans destroy romance and sex: “sexual harassment” rules, an arbitrary and ever-expanding concept of “rape,” and the imposition of “dating codes.” He then shows that the philosophy motivating the neo-Puritans is a fusion of Plato, Christianity and Kantian-inspired nihilism. He concludes with an explanation — based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism — of the proper view of pleasure and sex.

Observe that the Neo-Puritans nowadays are feminists and other Leftists.

And, incidentally, as I've said throughout this discussion, the right is good at learning the tricks of the left and co-opting their arguments. If you're worried about campaign finance reform and campus speech codes, notice who it was that promised to go after the "527" groups

That was (alas!) George Bush, but observe that he was never criticized for that by the Left. Bush did, however, catch hell from conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who have always opposed campaign finance "reform" for the violation of free speech that it is.

and what's going on at Colorado University:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/09/10/academic.freedom.ap/

This last is not yet an example of actual censorship, but it points to a new impetus for conservative speech codes on campus. It used to be that you couldn't say anything offending minority groups. Well now conservatives are trying to get classified as minorities who shouldn't get offended, either.

That article quotes Leftists LYING about what the proposed "Academic Bill of Rights" actually says.

It is REALLY about hiring professors and grading students based on merit rather than adherence to "politically correct" Leftist orthodoxy. Read it yourself here.

It REALLY advocates:

1.  All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

2.  No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

3.  Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

4.  Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

5.  Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

6.  Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

7.  An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

8.  Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

Do you see ANYTHING in there that would make discussion of stem-cell research off-limits or lead to death threats against liberal professors as the CNN article claims?

[noumenalself]

Correction: the OLD RIGHT traditionally USED TO BE the champions of censorship, but the New Left has been way ahead of them in that department for quite some time.

That was (alas!) George Bush, but observe that he was never criticized for that by the Left. Bush did, however, catch hell from conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who have always opposed campaign finance "reform" for the violation of free speech that it is.

I find this distinction between the "old right" and the "new right" to be without much justification. What is so new about the new right?

Is this supposed to be the same thing as "neoconservatism"? If that's what you mean, neoconservatism is the phenomenon of ex-liberals turning conservative. It's usually a view expressed in foreign policy that involves a lot of neo-Wilsonianism, e.g., the idea of spreading "freedom" around the globe as a moral imperative. I don't think this is a good idea, even though it sounds good.

But maybe you mean something new about the right in terms of domestic policy. But the newest, most influential trend on the right re: domestic policy is the rise of the religious right. So if there is a distinction between the new and the old right, it doesn't help your case. If the distinction means something else, you'll need to defend it.

By the way I'm not very impressed by the fact that various right wing commentators condemned Bush for his campaign finance reform sins. I'd be more impressed if they were also doing the same regarding the FCC and his religion. And if they were recommending a vote against him for it (but perhaps that begs the question).

You seem also to rely on the views of these commentators quite a bit in your arguments. I have no doubt that they are in many respects better than right wing politicians. But are they the leaders of the modern right? I have my doubts. It seems that Bush et al set the agenda, and the commentators do just about everything they can do to defend it, leaving aside the occasional criticism. If Bush and his ilk weren't the leader of the movement, I would expect to see these commentators endorsing some other, better conservative for president. But notice how none of them did.

It is REALLY about hiring professors and grading students based on merit rather than adherence to "politically correct" Leftist orthodoxy.  Read it yourself here.

<snip>Do you see ANYTHING in there that would make discussion of stem-cell research off-limits or lead to death threats against liberal professors as the CNN article claims?

Thanks for posting the text of their policy, it does make the discussion more objective. But yes, I do see material in here that could lead to a new kind of censorship. It it is the concept of "academic freedom."

"Academic freedom" is an invalid concept. It suggests that a professor has a right to a job, no matter how lacking in professional skills, no matter how odious his views, just because he has a "viewpoint" that has a right to be expressed. Academic freedom has for decades been championed by the left as a means of entrenching leftist ideology in the universities, and as such has been properly opposed by Objectivists.

Now that the right is picking up the banner of academic freedom, but with a twist. Here's the paragraph from that policy that I find the most destructive:

Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

The argument here is that the justification of "academic freedom" is "uncertainty." I'm sorry, but no kinds of freedom are justified on the basis of the uncertainty of knowledge. See Robert Garmong's excellent work on John Stuart Mill and the history of liberty to see what kind of destructive consequences that idea has for the defense of liberty in the long run. We can see those destructive consequences here.

Consider this point: "Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions." That would be a fine piece of pedagogical advice if it were really about unsettled questions, or even about simply controversial questions, if we were talking about a private educational setting. But this is supposed to be a policy for a public university. There's no limit to what kinds of ideas could be considered "unsettled" and therefore no limit to what kinds of imperatives to "diversity" could be mandated. Notice that this is the same exact premise that was used by the state of Kansas to argue for the inclusion of creationism in the public biology curriculum.

Unless and until universities are privatized, any restriction on ideological content--even if it is merely an imperative for a "diversity" of content--amounts to censorship or worse. I suggest rereading Onkar Ghate's excellent ARI op-ed on this subject. (And I know that AR advocated a "fairness doctrine" in education, but on this basis I have to disagree with it. I don't think she saw the consequences of the diversity idea.)

There is also an important general point to make about the nature of censorship and dictatorship in contemporary America. While I have argued that dictatorship is more plausible in the near term than many think, I also think that a new dictatorship in this country would be of a kind never seen before. History doesn't repeat itself in obvious ways. There will never be jack-booted thugs marching down the street with swastikas in America. That would be too obvious of a threat.

Dictatorship in this country will arrive by stealth. It will come draped in American flags, accompanied by the rhetoric of "freedom" and "democracy." If you want an excellent model for how dictatorship might come to this country, I recommend one book in particular: Atlas Shrugged. While that is a socialist dictatorship, a religious version of the same is equally conceivable.

How does this apply to the issue of censorship? Again, I don't think explicit censorship of ideological content is on the horizon anytime soon. There won't be any laws passed saying "you're not allowed to favor atheism," for example. But there are subtler and perhaps more effective ways to impose government control of ideas than outright censorship.

Look at universities and anti-discrimination policies. This is not an issue of censorship (yet), but notice how government funding for even private universities has given the government the leverage to demand that private universities have non-discrimination policies. Now look at the stem cell research ban. This is actually not an outright ban, but a ban on federal funding for universities that do it. This is much closer to censorship, because it constrains the actual pursuit of human knowledge on the basis of religion.

Now turn to right's idea of imposing ideological "diversity" on publicly funded universities, by virtue of this same government control through funding. This is the thin end of a wedge toward the new censorship. Once it becomes established, it will be left to the government to decide what counts as a "fair balance," and what kinds of alternatives should be considered. I imagine a future in which the leftists get to make their arguments, as long as they also mention the arguments of religious conservatives. Not much room for a viewpoint like Objectivism that both sides and all of the major pressure groups reject, is there? Meanwhile, increased federal funding for education (thanks to the conservatives), and for "faith-based initiatives" (thanks to the conservatives again, thank you) will have dried up the private alternatives to public education.

Again, the right has learned the tricks of the left--in this case, the control through funding trick, and the "diversity" trick--and is using it to further its own, more destructive agenda. Thanks for posting this policy statement. It helped me realize just how threatening these kinds of policies are.

[Betsy]

I find this distinction between the "old right" and the "new right" to be without much justification. What is so new about the new right?

Is this supposed to be the same thing as "neoconservatism"? If that's what you mean, neoconservatism is the phenomenon of ex-liberals turning conservative.

In many cases, it is. Some Neo-Cons were intellectual liberals of the Old Left who were put off by the nihilism, anti-intellectualism, anti-Americanism, and dishonesty of the New Left and began to rethink their positions. Examples are many formerly staunch Democrats like Ronald Reagan, radio commentator Dennis Prager, or convention speaker Zell Miller.

Some are former liberals who read Ayn Rand and were convinced or strongly influenced by her -- or were won over by the ideas of someone who was influenced by Ayn Rand. Examples would be Stephen Green, editorial page editor of the Orange County (CA) Register, Congressman Christopher Cox (R-CA) and about a third of the newly elected Republican Congressmen in 1994, and Rush Limbaugh.

It's usually a view expressed in foreign policy that involves a lot of neo-Wilsonianism, e.g., the idea of spreading "freedom" around the globe as a moral imperative. I don't think this is a good idea, even though it sounds good.

The "neo-Wilsonianism" you cite is rare among Conservatives. Sec. of State Powell suffers from it, and so does Bush to a lesser degree, but they are criticized by most Conservatives (but no Liberals) for not being aggressive enough in the War on Terrorism.

But maybe you mean something new about the right in terms of domestic policy. But the newest, most influential trend on the right re: domestic policy is the rise of the religious right.

I do not agree that it is. The Old Right argued in terms of tradition, faith, and original sin. The New Right champions facts and values -- and makes factual arguments for the value of America and individual freedom in addition to whatever mentions of faith they also include.

The Old Right was William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, and illiterate Southern Baptist hillbillies. The New Right is Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Chris Cox, Arnold Schwartzeneggar, and the kind of Scoop Jackson Democrat Ayn Rand would sometimes support.

By the way I'm not very impressed by the fact that various right wing commentators condemned Bush for his campaign finance reform sins. I'd be more impressed if they were also doing the same regarding the FCC and his religion.

They ARE doing the same regarding the FCC. (Two out of three ain't bad -- especially considering that the Dems are batting 0 for 3.)

You seem also to rely on the views of these commentators quite a bit in your arguments. I have no doubt that they are in many respects better than right wing politicians. But are they the leaders of the modern right?

They are the INTELLECTUAL leaders of the New Right and, when it comes to politics, they are more influential than all of the preachers in all of the pulpits added together.

I have my doubts. It seems that Bush et al set the agenda, and the commentators do just about everything they can do to defend it, leaving aside the occasional criticism.

That is just false. Listen to Rush or Hannity or Tony Snow (whose new show on Fox Radio is pretty terrific).

If Bush and his ilk weren't the leader of the movement, I would expect to see these commentators endorsing some other, better conservative for president.

Bush is a POLITICAL leader, not an intellectual leader. Rarely, as with a Jefferson, you have a leader who is both, but that is an exception.

But notice how none of them did.

WHICH "better conservative for president" should they have endorsed? I didn't see one running.

Thanks for posting the text of [The Academic Bill of Rights], it does make the discussion more objective. But yes, I do see material in here that could lead to a new kind of censorship.

I see that too, but it is a bold first step and I wish them luck. As for the dubious formulations in their "Bill of Rights," maybe we can get some Objectivists to help them with the next draft.

Unless and until universities are privatized, any restriction on ideological content--even if it is merely an imperative for a "diversity" of content--amounts to censorship or worse. I suggest rereading Onkar Ghate's excellent ARI op-ed on this subject. (And I know that AR advocated a "fairness doctrine" in education, but on this basis I have to disagree with it. I don't think she saw the consequences of the diversity idea.)

I agree with Ayn Rand. A "fairness doctrine" is a step in the right direction. Complete privatization is the ultimate goal, of course, but the only way to get there is one step at a time.

Let's get moving.

[noumenalself]

In many cases, it is.  Some Neo-Cons were intellectual liberals of the Old Left who were put off by the nihilism, anti-intellectualism, anti-Americanism, and dishonesty of the New Left and began to rethink their positions.  Examples are many formerly staunch Democrats like Ronald Reagan, radio commentator Dennis Prager, or convention speaker Zell Miller.

Some are former liberals who read Ayn Rand and were convinced or strongly influenced by her -- or were won over by the ideas of someone who was influenced by Ayn Rand.  Examples would be Stephen Green, editorial page editor of the Orange County (CA) Register, Congressman Christopher Cox (R-CA) and about a third of the newly elected Republican Congressmen in 1994, and Rush Limbaugh.

<snip>

I do not agree that it is.  The Old Right argued in terms of tradition, faith, and original sin.  The New Right champions facts and values -- and makes factual arguments for the value of America and individual freedom in addition to whatever mentions of faith they also include. 

The Old Right was William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, and illiterate Southern Baptist hillbillies.  The New Right is Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Chris Cox, Arnold Schwartzeneggar, and the kind of Scoop Jackson Democrat Ayn Rand would sometimes support.

Sorry but this distinction seems to be little more than that between conservatives you like and ones you don't.

Is the "new right" a new movement? That's hard to see since the people you like come from vastly different time periods (Reagan vs. Schwarzenegger).

Is it merely being an ex-liberal? Many of these people aren't (Hannity and Limbaugh).

Is it about the content of their ideas? Surely some conservatives are better than others, but I don't see a distinctive divide. There's a big movement to use "facts and values" instead of faith? I think you'd have hard time proving that. Any intellectual with any ideology is always going to cite some facts in support of his position.

The question is what is the basis of his fundamentals. If you can show me that a single one of these conservatives bases his value of, say, "freedom" in something other than God (or the public welfare), then maybe I'll think twice about this. And of course showing that for a single conservative doesn't prove there's a new movement. Cursory examination of some of these commentator's views doesn't support your position:

Ronald Reagan:

http://dunamai.com/articles/American_Histo...an_Abortion.htm

Dennis Prager:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisp...p20040316.shtml

Zell Miller:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat779.html

Sean Hannity:

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/webonly/a0016699.cfm

But I think the burden of proof is on you. Point to evidence showing there is some new movement afoot to base conservative arguments on "facts and values" rather than faith. Otherwise, even though you simply deny it, the overwhelming trend noted by many observers is the recent upswing in the religious right, and I don't know how this can be denied.

They ARE doing the same regarding the FCC.  (Two out of three ain't bad -- especially considering that the Dems are batting 0 for 3.)

Well you got me there.

They are the INTELLECTUAL leaders of the New Right and, when it comes to politics, they are more influential than all of the preachers in all of the pulpits added together.

<snip>

Bush is a POLITICAL leader, not an intellectual leader.  Rarely, as with a Jefferson, you have a leader who is both, but that is an exception.

<snip>

WHICH "better conservative for president" should they have endorsed?  I didn't see one running.

If these talk show hosts are such influential leaders, who do they lead? Why don't the important politicians follow them? Why doesn't anyone rise up to become a better conservative for president under their influence? And again, I'm still looking for you to prove that these "new rightists" are so distinctly different from others (see my point about the burden of proof above).

I see that too, but it is a bold first step and I wish them luck.  As for the dubious formulations in their "Bill of Rights,"  maybe we can get some Objectivists to help them with the next draft.

I agree with Ayn Rand.  A "fairness doctrine" is a step in the right direction.  Complete privatization is the ultimate goal, of course, but the only way to get there is one step at a time.  Let's get moving.

That's great but you're not answering any of my arguments about this.

[Betsy]

Sorry but this distinction [between the Old Right and the New Right] seems to be little more than that between conservatives you like and ones you don't.

It is an historical distinction between the Right pre-1980 and the Right post-1980. There are marked differences between the two groups in both psycho-epistemology and motivation.

The Old Right were the true "conservatives" who hated change and innovation. The New Right DO want change and are challenging the entrenched liberal establishment.

Is the "new right" a new movement? That's hard to see since the people you like come from vastly different time periods (Reagan vs. Schwarzenegger).

The movement toward the Right began with the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957 and the candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964. I place the dividing line at 1980 because it came into its own, and finally overcame the liberal establishment, with the election of Reagan in 1980.

Yet the New Right is not a movement as much as it is a cultural and political trend away from socialism and a search for something better, in America's past or in its future, by a very motley group of individuals. Some of them are Objectivists and ObSymps. Some are ex-Liberals and former Old Lefties. Some are young people whose first exposure to politics was a Conservative radio talk show host whose ideas made more sense to them than the New Leftism of their parents.

Is it about the content of their ideas? Surely some conservatives are better than others, but I don't see a distinctive divide. There's a big movement to use "facts and values" instead of faith? I think you'd have hard time proving that. Any intellectual with any ideology is always going to cite some facts in support of his position.

The skeptical New Leftists who dominate our universities and Old Media are anti-intellectual and have very little respect for facts. They are driven by their emotions and cite "facts," even if they are lies, as rationalizations only. In fact, they take their authorities, from Noam Chomsky to Michael Moore, on faith.

Yes, some conservatives are better than others. Some Objectivists are better than others. You have to judge real people, as individuals, by what they say and do.

Doing that, I judge the typical person on the Right today to be intellectually and morally superior to Conservatives of the past and vastly superior to those in the New Left.

The question is what is the basis of his fundamentals. If you can show me that a single one of these conservatives bases his value of, say, "freedom" in something other than God (or the public welfare), then maybe I'll think twice about this.

Listen in to Rush Limbaugh and his callers and you'll see that God is rarely mentioned. Usually they simply discuss the events of the day with the underlying sense of life premises that facts matter and individual liberty is a value. If you ask them why this is so, I think almost all of them would be stuck for an answer. A sense of life isn't a philosophy, but these people are ready customers for OUR philosophy.

If these talk show hosts are such influential leaders, who do they lead?

The general public -- especially the voters. Rush Limbaugh is credited with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 so much that the "Freshman Class" of new Republican Congressman gave a banquet in his honor. Incidentally, a full ONE THIRD of that Freshman Class cited Ayn Rand as a major influence on their political thinking.

Why don't the important politicians follow them? Why doesn't anyone rise up to become a better conservative for president under their influence?

They will -- in time. Cultural change takes a generation or two, even under the most favorable conditions, and politics is always a trailing indicator.

And again, I'm still looking for you to prove that these "new rightists" are so distinctly different from others

Compare Old Right William F. Buckley's opinion of Ayn Rand with New Right Rush Limbaugh's.

[noumenalself]

Betsy,

I'm stopping this discussion because you are not engaging with my arguments. Good bye.

NS

[argive99]

Betsy,

I'm stopping this discussion because you are not engaging with my arguments. Good bye.

NS

What more do you want? She anwered you. She doesn't agree with you that America is in greater imminant danger from conservatives as opposed to liberals. I don't agree with you either. You made interesting points but don't delude yourself into thinking that you said anything that wasn't answered by others.

[Betsy]

Betsy,

I'm stopping this discussion because you are not engaging with my arguments. Good bye.

Noumenal Self,

I have done my darndest to answer your questions and to indicate the facts and reasoning my opinions are based on. If there is an argument I have failed to engage, I would appreciate it if you would state what that is so I could answer it. Now that I am on deadline for my October CyberNet, I can't spend hours researching and writing replies to your posts as I have been doing, so take your time in formulating what you see the issues are that you think I need to address.

In the meantime, you might be interested in a column by Mike Rosen, a typical New Right Conservative. Rosen has a popular three-hour morning talk show on KOA in Denver and writes a regular column for the Rocky Mountain News.

Rosen's show is described on the KOA home page (click here) as "Politics, lifestyles, entertainment, sports: you'll hear it all on the Mike Rosen Show. He's smart, funny and irreverent. He's a free market conservative, pro-defense, pro-choice in just about everything and anti-government meddling in your life. He eats liberals for lunch."

He is not an Objectivist, but is a definite ObSymp. His Recommended Reading List (click here) includes:

· Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

· The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand

· We the Living, Ayn Rand

· The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

The column I recommend appeared recently in the Rocky Mountain News (click here) and deals with the differences between Liberals and Conservatives as Rosen sees it. While an Objectivist could do a much better job of homing in on the essentials, observe that his discussion is ENTIRELY secular and factual.

The reason the column came to my attention is that Rosen cites LEONARD PEIKOFF as an authority in his column, thusly:

"Modern-day liberalism is hopelessly utopian, as Leonard Peikoff put it, 'A cry from one heart to another, bypassing any intermediary such as the brain.'"

Observe that Rosen finds it unnecessary to identify Dr. Peikoff as a philosopher, writer, or exponent of Objectivism. Instead, he TAKES IT FOR GRANTED that his readers KNOW who Dr. Peikoff is!