So... what now?

[ers]

Well, I think that no matter who any of us voted for we can all agree there was no real positive way this election could turn out. Whether McCain or Obama, freedom loses.

I guess the pressing concern for myself is what to do about it now. I know the official objectivist stance has been to change the culture, but personally, I haven't had much luck. For every one person I can persuade about about pro-individual ideals, twenty others will spout collectivist nonsense and won't be convinced. I'm not sure where our country is heading in the next four years. I have a gut and nerve wracking feeling that our entire system is so far corrupt that we may be unable to come back from it. And honestly, this election had less to do with that than the $700 Billion dollar bailout that passed on October 3rd, which sets a huge negative precedent. Couple that kind of behavior with an irresponsible Federal Reserve, a largely collectivist government (on both sides) and we have a very big recipe for disaster.

I'm curious to know what everyone else's immediate plans are. Personally, I'm going to continue to build my arsenal.

[gags]

My wife and I are going to cut back even more on our personal consumption spending and save as much as we can. Given the increased tax bill that's headed my way, I'm going to do whatever I can legally to limit my liability. As far as activism is concerned, I'll continue to speak up, but it doesn't do much good.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Already put one piece in motion. I timed a big financial windfall to happen this year instead of next. What I end up doing with it will be another question but at least some of it will go to preparation.

[KevinDW78]

I am going to be shoring up my personal finances, eliminating all debt (paying off my mortgage outright over the next 5 years), and putting all my savings into buying gold.

[gags]

Already put one piece in motion. I timed a big financial windfall to happen this year instead of next. What I end up doing with it will be another question but at least some of it will go to preparation.

Unfortunately, the last time they did this sort of thing (under Clinton) they made the tax increases retro-active. When it comes to taxes, I guess ex-post-facto doesn't mean shit.

[KendallJ]

I know the official objectivist stance has been to change the culture, but personally, I haven't had much luck. For every one person I can persuade about about pro-individual ideals, twenty others will spout collectivist nonsense and won't be convinced.

Just a comment here.

If this sort of "one person at a time" methodology feels frustrating, it should. Given the challenge ahead of us, and the size of our effort, this is a highly inefficient way to influence. I don't fault the people who feel that this is an important effort, but I don't ever lump it in the category of activism, because it really isn't.

I know that there are people who think that this is a big collectivist lurch to the left, but I'm not convinced. The elections continue to be about people at the margins, the moderates, the swing voters. They can just as easily swing the other way.

I think rather than thinking about getting an integrated set of ideas presented one person at a time, activism needs to be getting very specific, concretizations of ideas in practice to thousands of people at a time.

[KevinDW78]

The elections continue to be about people at the margins, the moderates, the swing voters. They can just as easily swing the other way.

I would agree, except that they only swing one of two ways (the two established parties). As we saw in this election, which of the two ways they swung was pretty much irrellevent for our cause.

[KendallJ]

I would agree, except that they only swing one of two ways (the two established parties). As we saw in this election, which of the two ways they swung was pretty much irrellevent for our cause.

Agreed, so I think there is a piece of activism. I'm surprised at the number of people who had switched their party affiliation to "independant" as a result. I think voting in primaries is actually a bigger deal than the general because it in a way shapes the nature of the parties involved. Why give that option up?

There will always be two parties, but what they stand for has changed drastically over the years. Influence one or both of those parties to change for the better. The republican party for instance is going to be going through an identity crisis in the next 4 years. Why the hell opt out of that discussion and simply concede it to the neo-cons and religious nuts?

[ers]

The problem, as I see it, is the sheer volume of unprincipled people. And since the only thing unprincipled people have to rely on is force, the reasoned are forced into submission. Years of public education and religion are now reaping the benefits- people generally think that the idea of "selfishness" is evil and that the only way to be good is to give to/help/sacrifice for others. And our federal government (again, both parties) mandates this behavior with coercion.

Either we love freedom or we don't. People don't seem to realize that being free goes beyond what clothes you decide to put on or where you decide to drive your car for the day. It's all very frustrating and depressing. I wonder, have any of you ever considered running for some public office (local or otherwise)?

[adrock3215]

There was an Oped written by a Republican Congressman in the Washington Post today that advocated a pretty heavy reformulation of the party. The Republican party was resoundingly crushed yesterday. His view was that the Republican party has come to be associated with George Bush. He recommends a return to principled governance based on limited government and economic freedom, but also advocates a lesser embrace of social conservatism. He recommends a few things, but the one that I can remember off the top of my head is a push for a "timetable" to sell off government equity stakes in banks (since timetables will be in vogue for at least the next 4 years, he says).

Edit: Oh, I also remember him coming out against earmark spending, and he says the Gingrich led 'Republican Revolution' of the 90's made it a huge problem. I got the feeling that he was very unapproving of Bush, Gingrich, and the Republican Party in general. I think that there is a real chance here to reform the party and incorporate more elements of freedom (social and economic). Unfortunately, if we want to do that we will have a tough uphill battle against the wacko Huckabee-followers.

Edited November 5, 2008 by adrock3215

[KendallJ]

The problem, as I see it, is the sheer volume of unprincipled people.

Well I think this is the head fake. Unprincipled people have always existed and always will. I think rather than get nostalgic about a time when people were more principled (which they weren't) realize that the leverage comes with the intellectuals of the day. That is, get your ideas into the intellectual discussion and the unprincipled people go wherever the culture goes.

That's what the fundamentalists did with christian universities...

[adrock3215]

That is, get your ideas into the intellectual discussion and the unprincipled people go wherever the culture goes.

Kendall, my personal take on getting Objectivist thought into the intellectual discussion is through the arts. Victor Hugo writes in Notre Dame de Paris that "thought emancipates itself in all directions at the same time as the arts." And of course, one can remember the terrific argument Hugo presents for how thought manifested itself in architecture before the printing press was created.

Certainly there are some Objectivist values present in today's art (I think that the sense of life in some Pop songs resonates with certain Objectivist values). However, to me, the astounding chasm of quality art in today's world (whether painting, literature, sculpting, music, movies, or performance, and to some extent architecture) is the entry point for inserting Objectivism into 'mainstream' intellectual discussion.

I could honestly see a major, widely read work of new fiction causing a cultural and intellectual shift and an acceptance of new ideas into the academy. Also, possibly a literary critic, a 21st century Samuel Johnson or John Ruskin; an Objectivist version of Harold Bloom would really be tremendous for getting new ideas into the intellectual forum. I think that thought starts in the humanities and spreads it way out. The opportunities are there right now.

Edited November 5, 2008 by adrock3215

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Unfortunately, the last time they did this sort of thing (under Clinton) they made the tax increases retro-active. When it comes to taxes, I guess ex-post-facto doesn't mean shit.

It's possible--even likely--that the ex-post-facto, retroactive cutoff will be 1 January. That would be "convenient" because the entire tax year would be at the same rate.

(As an aside, when a tax change is discussed it is actually beneficial to at least make it retroactive to the beginning of the discussion. For example, if a huge tax cut is in the pipeline, you do *not* want business to come to a grinding halt, waiting for the cut to pass. Making the cut retroactive to the day they started talking about it means business can proceed; if the cut passes activity is already taxed at the new rate. Likewise if a tax hike is being discussed you do not want a sudden panic as people scramble to do things before the new rate takes effect. Like, say, I am doing now.)