Kentucky Senate race development

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Is there any other kind of politician to choose from?

Peter Schiff is pretty damn close. He's running for CT Senator as a Republican. Look into his commentary on everything from social issues to the economy to foreign policy... he's the best we've got. A pro-choice, capitalist, non-religious entrepreneur with sensible foreign policy views.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Andrew Grathwohl

[Marc K.]

No compromise is rational, or good. All compromise is irrational, and bad, for the reason I mentioned twice now.

Compromise is OK as long as both parties agree and as long as you are not compromising on the principle involved. Dr. Peikoff illustrates this in the Ford Hall Forum lecture that Trebor linked to. The example he gives is (paraphrasing): "If the owners of Ford Hall Forum want me to talk for an hour but I only want to speak for half an hour, then it is OK to compromise on 45 minutes. But, if they want me to give a lecture on Zen Buhdism, then that is unacceptable."

But we are talking about politicians here, all of whom hold the wrong principles, so you have to go on a case by case basis, as I think David Odden is suggesting. I'd say it is probably advisable to vote for almost anyone willing thwart the leftist agenda of Obama and the Dems, at least for the next two years.

"Compromise doesn't mean 'learn and change, when you're wrong', it means giving up an idea you know is correct in favor of an idea you know is incorrect, for the sake of joining someone's cause or having them join yours. " (me, a couple of hours ago)

This sounds more like the definition of "capitulation" to me.

[DavidOdden]

But just as you would choose a man of wavering principles over Hitler, so you might choose a man who wavers on some principles for the sake of those principles he does not waver on.

I would not support a quivering candidate only on the grounds that I have not yet observed him quivering on a particular point that I agree with. When a man appears to stand on some principle but embraces contradictions, then his principles have no real value to you -- if you believe in free enterprise and contradictions, then you can also support something that is contrary to free enterprise. Basically, there is a serious matter of trust involved here: why should we trust that his future conduct is predictable?

At the moment I don't see any reason to consider Paul better than the opposition; after the primary, things could be different. So perhaps if Paul is the Republican candidate and a flaming fundamentalist socialist is the Democrat then Paul could be the lesser of two evils.

[DavidOdden]

I'd say it is probably advisable to vote for almost anyone willing thwart the leftist agenda of Obama and the Dems, at least for the next two years.

It's also important to apply the Palin sniff-test. A monkey-wrench in the Obama "juggernaut" would be nice, though it seems that he's not as unstoppable as seemed to be the case a year ago. But it would not be good to support a candidate whose principles derive from almighty god.

[aequalsa]

My voting record wouldn't help clear up the meaning of the term compromise. This might:

"Compromise doesn't mean 'learn and change, when you're wrong', it means giving up an idea you know is correct in favor of an idea you know is incorrect, for the sake of joining someone's cause or having them join yours. " (me, a couple of hours ago)

If you want a reason why I wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, my reason is exactly the same as Kyle Haight's in Post #9, and David's a few posts earlier.

Those are reasons he is not ideal but not reasons that he is the worst candidate possible. There is an implicit assumption in your view, that it would be impossible for his opponent to be worse. If you can't vote for a candidate with mixed principles than there is no justifiable way to vote in almost any election.

[aequalsa]

IMO, not voting for a candidate like Paul is not an absolute for Objectivists. There is a context where I could imagine voting and maybe even campaigning for Paul, namely if he were running against a candidate who was likely to win and was comparable to Adolf Hitler or Mao Zedong, i.e. if the alternative is TEOTWAKI.

I would add,

...Or if their opponent shares the same mixed principles on abortion and not free markets as is the case with Trey Grayson.

[aequalsa]

Peter Schiff is pretty damn close. He's running for CT Senator as a Republican. Look into his commentary on everything from social issues to the economy to foreign policy... he's the best we've got. A pro-choice, capitalist, non-religious entrepreneur with sensible foreign policy views.

I'm familiar with Peter Schiff but he is not running against Rand Paul.

[Jake_Ellison]

Those are reasons he is not ideal but not reasons that he is the worst candidate possible. There is an implicit assumption in your view, that it would be impossible for his opponent to be worse. If you can't vote for a candidate with mixed principles than there is no justifiable way to vote in almost any election.

I'd still vote if there was something specific I was looking to prevent. (For instance, voting for Scott Brown helped prevent that "super-majority" the dems were gonna use to cause a lot more damage than they can now, for one year)

But that doesn't make Scott Brown a better candidate that that silly lady he won against, in the overall context of advancing the cause of freedom. If anything, his pretense that he is fighting for freedom makes him worse. Same is true for Rand Paul, but even more so.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I'm familiar with Peter Schiff but he is not running against Rand Paul.

Your question did not ask about politicians who ran against Rand Paul, so I think my answer was appropriate.

[aequalsa]

Your question did not ask about politicians who ran against Rand Paul, so I think my answer was appropriate.

I apologize for my lack of clarity then. I meant respond to Jake's comments regrading Rand Paul specifically, which has a certain context which I mistakenly viewed as self-evident.

[aequalsa]

Are we just going to go on exchanging questions in a never-ending series?

Do you think it would be a good idea to continue?