Is Objectivism's political philosophy subsumed by Right-Politics.

[khaight]

The fact is, at this time, all that exists is left, right and center. So you're going to be one of them.

This makes no sense to me. What actually exists are specific individual people who hold specific political views on various specific issues. We conceptually classify those views into groups based on essential similarities. I see no reason to believe that the political classificatory concepts of "left", "right" and "center" are jointly exhaustive, especially given that they are so ill-defined in their contemporary usages. (I'm not even convinced that they're mutually exclusive -- is support for abortion rights a "left" position or a "center" position?)

I see no need to assimilate my politics under a badly-defined pseudo-concept provided by others. I know what I believe, why I believe it and how it relates to what other people believe. The only reason to use terms like "left", "right" and "center" might be for purposes of communicating with other people, and I find them more obfuscatory than helpful for that purpose. When people ask me I tell them I'm an advocate of individual rights and political freedom across the board, and then ask *them* how *they* they think I should be classified.

[Grames]

The only reason to use terms like "left", "right" and "center" might be for purposes of communicating with other people,

Of course that is the sense applicable.

[khaight]

Of course that is the sense applicable.

The title of the thread asked whether the Objectivist politics is 'subsumed' by 'right politics', which sounds more like a question about proper conceptual hierarchy. Precisely because I don't think the term 'right politics' is very useful for communication precisely because I don't think it's well-defined.

[Space Patroller]

This question was settled 38 years ago:

There was an orgaization that was primarily (very) O'ist with some libertarian that put out pamphlets and buttons, two of which I had. ONe was a kind of magenta and said in black letters "WHO IS JOHN GALT?". The other was a kind of lemon peel yellow with black letters and said "FIGHT FOR CAPITALI$M":.

That outfit was called the New Right Coalition. It's chief spokesmen were Steve Zerak and Gordon Nelson

I came into contact with it from a friend who attended Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Since an 85% O'ist group has already declared itself Right and that is a fact then I guess that kind of settles it.

There was also some to-do with that chapter of the YAF that split down the middle about purging the O'ists but the boss of the capter wasn't having it. I know, but this was 1971.

On the other hand, Buckley did bounce us out of the Conservative movement along with the John Birch Society in about '65 but I see the cons are looking to us to save their chestnuts. We ought do it, but at a high price

[AllMenAreIslands]

...

Since an 85% O'ist group has already declared itself Right and that is a fact then I guess that kind of settles it.

...

Why struggle to fit into the playing field as defined by them? The "left/right/center" divisions in present-day politics basically stand for different variations of statism. Objectivism/Capitalism ought to reposition all of them as irrational, while claiming its rightful place as the rational alternative to statism.

[Space Patroller]

Why struggle to fit into the playing field as defined by them? The "left/right/center" divisions in present-day politics basically stand for different variations of statism. Objectivism/Capitalism ought to reposition all of them as irrational, while claiming its rightful place as the rational alternative to statism.

Something that's about 50 years old and maybe consists of 200,000 at most, is going to "reposition" something worldwide of 130 years standing and is the standard for the world and from no point on the field. Yeah, sure. Hell, even Rand didn't try that. I wonder why. What do you think your chances are if she didn't try it and what do you think she knew?

The libertarians tried that 37 years ago.

[khaight]

Since an 85% O'ist group has already declared itself Right and that is a fact then I guess that kind of settles it.

Do I really need to point out that the validity of a conceptual classification is not a matter of how many people accept it? We're *Objectivists*, not subjectivists.

[KurtColville]

Something that's about 50 years old and maybe consists of 200,000 at most, is going to "reposition" something worldwide of 130 years standing and is the standard for the world and from no point on the field. Yeah, sure. Hell, even Rand didn't try that. I wonder why. What do you think your chances are if she didn't try it and what do you think she knew?

The libertarians tried that 37 years ago.

Do you think Miss Rand viewed the dominantly anti-life philisophy facing her as grounds for budging one inch on Objectivism? Your entire objection boils down to the use of one word: "reposition". If AllMenAreIslands quote read thusly, would you agree: "Objectivism/Capitalism ought to reject all of them as irrational, while claiming its rightful place as the rational alternative to statism."

[Grames]

Something that's about 50 years old and maybe consists of 200,000 at most, is going to "reposition" something worldwide of 130 years standing and is the standard for the world and from no point on the field. Yeah, sure. Hell, even Rand didn't try that. I wonder why. What do you think your chances are if she didn't try it and what do you think she knew?

The libertarians tried that 37 years ago.

Philosophizing and popularizing are two different tasks. Marx was first, then later came Lenin. Someday there will be more of us, someday it will no longer be "too early".

[AllMenAreIslands]

Thanks, Grames.

As for Space Patroller's comment:

Something that's about 50 years old and maybe consists of 200,000 at most, is going to "reposition" something worldwide of 130 years standing and is the standard for the world and from no point on the field.

YES! It isn't about who's been around longer; take that tack and you doom the campaign forever. After all, compared to "established politics" Objectivism is always going to be the newest kid on the block.

[Space Patroller]

Do I really need to point out that the validity of a conceptual classification is not a matter of how many people accept it? We're *Objectivists*, not subjectivists.

True; and as an Objectivist of two generations experience, I know that Objectivism was made to be used in the world as it is; "...a philosophy for living on earth". Objectivism is a tool like a saw, but if you don't get the wood to saw, then how useful is the saw?

Objectivism pre-supposes that existence esists. The relevant corollary here is "Identity". Politics is a social activity. To prove that: Would you need politics if you were the only person in the Universe? In any social activity knowledge of what is true must be spread amongst the particiapents. As they adopt or not adopt the ideas, they test them in their own minds. The "best" idea isn't worth jack until it does something in the real world. As Rand said the "abstraction" is a two-way trip, from concrete to abstract then back to concrete.

Now if you never come to the table or the field, but try and re-position the players at that table or field it gives the aura of being a kibitzer telling the players how to play the game and givew the impression of being a poseur; something about talking the talk but not walking the walk, and the player say "If you're so damn good, sit in and play, if not go back to your airy-fairy Mickey Mouth Club: In other words S**t or get off the pot!" Nobody likes or respects a no-show who runs his mouth. If you say "I don't like the field" they'll say "Aw; he doesn't like the field. Poor baby maybe you want us to wipe your little nose for you". The players operationally define the game because they're in the game. Why should they think any different?

Besides which, active participants of our like have staked out a position on that field which means we have an existing, meaning an in-the-real-world, presense to start with You don't take Normandy if you don't hit and stay on the beach: A ____ in the ____ is worth ____ in the ____.

[khaight]

I think we're talking past each other because we're focusing on different things. As I see it there are two distinct issues here. One is a question of conceptual classification. The other is one of communication and cooperation. I take them in that order. First, decide for myself what is true. Then work with others, within their own context of knowledge, to advance the truth. Obviously I need to take account of what others believe and what concepts they use to understand the world, for good or ill. But that 'taking account' doesn't mean I ignore my own knowledge of what is right. I can build a bridge without crossing over to the other side.

[AllMenAreIslands]

...

Now if you never come to the table or the field, but try and re-position the players at that table...

Space Patroller, sounds like you are unfamiliar with the advertising concepts of Positioning and Repositioning. They do what khaight said: take account of what others believe and what concepts they use to understand the world.

When you say, "active participants of our like have staked out a position on that field which means we have an existing, meaning an in-the-real-world, presence" what exactly are you thinking of? None of the current participants are fully consonant with the individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism platform. So why would you want to align Objectivism with any of them, when we have a number of distinguishable attributes which can be used to effectively position Objectivism?

Running a successful political campaign is an exercise in marketing, and just like in the business world, new products coming onto the market need to find a way through the infomation overload and get into prospects' minds. Having taken account of what's in the prospects' minds, a Positioning campaign seeks to exploit what is already in those minds.

If we conducted a survey, I expect an overwhelming majority of people would admit they consider politics and politicians to be dishonest. It's well-known that politicians say one thing to get elected and do another once they're in power. The track records of the vast majority of politicians stand as evidence for that proposition, after all.

Given that Politics is generally viewed as a dishonest business, we don't want to occupy a rung on the current ladder. We have a brand new product in Objectivism. We SHOULD reposition ALL the competition as irrational not just because we need to, but because we can.

The product "ladder" for Politics in people's minds already has a number of positions on it. The labels differ (Left/Right, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative etc. etc.) but the essence of left/right/center are positions already occupied by other parties. Trying to dislodge one of those parties and take over its position is an irrational way to market Objectivism, because the ladder itself is tainted. We don't want a position on a tainted product ladder.

Working with what already exists in people's minds means that in order to effectively introduce a new "ladder," we need to identify not only in what way the Objectivist political philosophy can be distinguished from all others, but how it can be related to them. Objectivism can own the rational ladder because it is a rational philosophy. Therefore, it can't seek a position on the "irrational" ladder. It has to bring a new ladder into the mind but it would not be doing so in a vacuum. As I said, there is plenty of evidence to support our claim that the others are all irrational. When we position the Objectivist political party as the "rational political party," we effectively reposition everyone else as "irrational political parties." We can use their dishonesty against them by demonstrating that they have to be dishonest because what they seek to achieve is the irrational.

Edited July 1, 2009 by AllMenAreIslands

[Space Patroller]

Space Patroller, sounds like you are unfamiliar with the advertising concepts of Positioning and Repositioning. They do what khaight said: take account of what others believe and what concepts they use to understand the world.

When you say, "active participants of our like have staked out a position on that field which means we have an existing, meaning an in-the-real-world, presence" what exactly are you thinking of? None of the current participants are fully consonant with the individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism platform. So why would you want to align Objectivism with any of them, when we have a number of distinguishable attributes which can be used to effectively position Objectivism?

Running a successful political campaign is an exercise in marketing, and just like in the business world, new products coming onto the market need to find a way through the infomation overload and get into prospects' minds. Having taken account of what's in the prospects' minds, a Positioning campaign seeks to exploit what is already in those minds.

If we conducted a survey, I expect an overwhelming majority of people would admit they consider politics and politicians to be dishonest. It's well-known that politicians say one thing to get elected and do another once they're in power. The track records of the vast majority of politicians stand as evidence for that proposition, after all.

Given that Politics is generally viewed as a dishonest business, we don't want to occupy a rung on the current ladder. We have a brand new product in Objectivism. We SHOULD reposition ALL the competition as irrational not just because we need to, but because we can.

The product "ladder" for Politics in people's minds already has a number of positions on it. The labels differ (Left/Right, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative etc. etc.) but the essence of left/right/center are positions already occupied by other parties. Trying to dislodge one of those parties and take over its position is an irrational way to market Objectivism, because the ladder itself is tainted. We don't want a position on a tainted product ladder.

Working with what already exists in people's minds means that in order to effectively introduce a new "ladder," we need to identify not only in what way the Objectivist political philosophy can be distinguished from all others, but how it can be related to them. Objectivism can own the rational ladder because it is a rational philosophy. Therefore, it can't seek a position on the "irrational" ladder. It has to bring a new ladder into the mind but it would not be doing so in a vacuum. As I said, there is plenty of evidence to support our claim that the others are all irrational. When we position the Objectivist political party as the "rational political party," we effectively reposition everyone else as "irrational political parties." We can use their dishonesty against them by demonstrating that they have to be dishonest because what they seek to achieve is the irrational.

I see we're talking about different things. US particiapatory politics is more than just advertisement and we have a two-party system that is for all practical purposes, locked in. Third parties do not compete on an equal footing with the Republicans and Democrats.

In our system there are many groups that participate in different ways such as advocacy and spreading ideas but aren't professionals. This is what I was talking about.

At this point in time, I know of no active persons or groups that profess to be Objectivist. Working from Rand's quote we could claim to be the true right ("The 'swing to the right' is a move away from collectivism and toward individual rights"). While she did excoriate conservatives, she did not reject outright the left-right notion (excetp maybe on very limited and technical grounds for not delivering on the implicit promise). It is from the New Right Coalition and Rand's statement that I am working.

Another oft used model is the circle, where the left and right meet ach other

Trying to introduce a new paradigm means that you still have to create a smooth transition from the old. If I were not an Objectivist and you tried to use the model that you are using (of which I have no knowledge anyway) I'd be likely to say "Huh?" and you'd have about 9 seconds to latch me. The best way may be with something humorous. Making persons laugh is a good control mechanism. I used to use "the right ain't always right ", which has about 3 different sub-meanings and sets up as oxymoronic

[Capitalism Forever]

I think it's time we snapped out of this "left/right" dichotomy. The choice is between the wrong politics and the right politics--and on that scale, Objectivism is pretty much the sole occupant of the right "wing."

[AllMenAreIslands]

Capitalism Forever, I agree with you that we're the right choice and everyone else is the wrong one. Unfortunately, that approach won't work even in politics with so much evidence to support it. Even my initial idea (that we focus on RATIONALITY won't work, because its opposite is IRRATIONALITY, and nobody would consciously choose to take that position.)

However, there are a number of strong positions that the Objectivist political party could own, and I think the very strongest one is to appeal to voters as Individuals. The other parties all treat voters as groups, lumping people in together. Our party could take up and own the Individual position. Not just with the emphasis on individual rights, but also incorporating the fact that rationality is a faculty of individuals.

Perhaps someone will suggest an even better word, but no matter what: we should select a key word that drives the entire campaign, underscores every public statement and at the same time conveys the message that our party cares about people as individuals.

"Participatory Politics" in my view has lost a great deal of credibility. The arena has become a battleground in which various groups take turns shoving their views down everyone else's throats. Furthermore, all the existing parties cherish and revere the idea of "the group."

Space Patroller, I think it will pay to bear in mind that the Right (Republicans) doesn't mean what it used to in Ayn Rand's day. It has been taken over by those with a religious agenda. Sure, there are candidates who don't push religion in their agenda and where are they today? Trying to change people's minds back to a meaning the Right used to have is doomed to fail. You can't make the same word mean two different things in people's minds.

Instead of trying to change people's minds, we want to work with what they already know.

Consider this. Of all the voters out there, who are most likely to be attracted to our new vision of politics? People who are disaffected with their own party, that's who. They already don't like the opposite party, but now they feel let down by their own as well. It makes sense to reposition all existing parties as being essentially the same - because it's something that people are now sensing for themselves.

[khaight]

Consider this. Of all the voters out there, who are most likely to be attracted to our new vision of politics? People who are disaffected with their own party, that's who. They already don't like the opposite party, but now they feel let down by their own as well. It makes sense to reposition all existing parties as being essentially the same - because it's something that people are now sensing for themselves.

In personal discussions I often say "I don't have a political party, I have political values." People find this intriguing, apparently because they aren't used to anything deeper than describing oneself as a "Republican" or "Democrat". This approach, when used on people who feel disaffected with party politics as usual, often leads to a discussion about exactly what my political values are and how they relate to the existing parties. That's already progress, IMHO, because it means talking about ideas instead of the concrete events of the current news cycle.

Another useful technique, when someone asks you whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, is to say something like "I support economic freedom, abortion and the separation of church and state. You tell me which party I should belong to." (Or pick your own grab-bag of specific policy positions that mix together the two major parties.) As with the earlier technique, the goal is to shift the discussion from the level of concretes to the level of ideas.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Thanks, khaight. That is very interesting AND helpful. I especially like the political values angle.

I've used a variation of the grab-bag issues, for example stating that I support individual rights for homosexuals, including same-sex marriage (usually considered a liberal/lefty position) as well as capitalism (a conservative/righty position.) But I haven't used that variation of the punch line - "You tell me which party I should support."

[L-C]

Another useful technique, when someone asks you whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, is to say something like "I support economic freedom, abortion and the separation of church and state. You tell me which party I should belong to."

Good one. I remember years ago when I took the political compass test and ended up in the lower right corner (advocate of both economic and "social" freedom). There were no politicians there. Crickets and tumbleweed.

[Zedic]

classical liberals (the old political right)

The ideas of left and right politics started to form from the mid to late 1700's with the American and French Revolutions. Classical liberalism, as it's known now, was very much the "leftist" political theory of its time and monarchy was the "rightist" political theory (although I don't feel comfortable with the usage of "rightist" and "leftist" in the sense we use it today because of the different context 200, 250 years ago).

[khaight]

The ideas of left and right politics started to form from the mid to late 1700's with the American and French Revolutions. Classical liberalism, as it's known now, was very much the "leftist" political theory of its time and monarchy was the "rightist" political theory (although I don't feel comfortable with the usage of "rightist" and "leftist" in the sense we use it today because of the different context 200, 250 years ago).

Certainly at the time of the American and French Revolutions the "conservatives" were busy trying to conserve monarchy. Conservatives only started to look pro-freedom when the system they were trying to conserve was already free, and I strongly suspect they were trying to conserve it less for that reason than simply because it was there at the time. It has been said that conservatives are pro-freedom only if one understands that to them "freedom" means "whatever America was like when I was growing up".

[Zip]

Conservatism as conservatism is neither "right" or "left" it is the ideology of the status quo.

[Zedic]

Certainly at the time of the American and French Revolutions the "conservatives" were busy trying to conserve monarchy. Conservatives only started to look pro-freedom when the system they were trying to conserve was already free, and I strongly suspect they were trying to conserve it less for that reason than simply because it was there at the time. It has been said that conservatives are pro-freedom only if one understands that to them "freedom" means "whatever America was like when I was growing up".

The point I'm making is, liberal philosophy in the 18th century was "left wing" and Academically is still considered left wing philosophy today. But generally, one can think of liberal, or leftist, theory as that which challenges the status quo and created to bring more freedom and democracy to the masses.

[khaight]

The point I'm making is, liberal philosophy in the 18th century was "left wing" and Academically is still considered left wing philosophy today. But generally, one can think of liberal, or leftist, theory as that which challenges the status quo and created to bring more freedom and democracy to the masses.

If your conceptual model leads you to classify modern leftism as an attempt to bring more freedom to the masses, I think something is wrong with your conceptual model. Contemporary leftists are not liberal in any sense; they're totalitarian.

[Zedic]

Not everyone is an Objectivist, they don't see things the way Objectivists do. Remember what Karl Marx said about the "wage slave". Yeah, you could object and say why he's wrong, etc etc. But then you'd be missing the point and isolating yourself conceptually.