Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Open Reply To Prof John Lewis

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This is a reply to the headlining argument by Prof John Lewis on Capmag located here:

Opposing Platonic Conservatism

The main problem with Prof Lewis' argument is that it presupposes those who plan to vote for Bush are doing so because of a sense of shared values with conservatives. I know I do not share values with religion. I was mainly planning on voting for Bush because of his foreign policy.

I do want to point out that I get the impression that most Objectivist with college level teaching positions are accustomed to arguing and winning over liberals. I do not think they are very familiar with environments where religious conservatives dominate. That is unfortunate because there are a good number of Objectivists who do come from religious backgrounds, myself included. There are times when I notice that many Objectivists in leadership positions are not familiar with the psychological issues relating to religion, and therefore downplay the idea that religious people can be won over to Objectivism. I have also noticed that people spending a lot of time around liberals, will occaisonally pick up on their paranoia about religion. Some liberals believe religion is the end all evil. Religion is bad philosophy, among the host of bad philosophies out there, but no more evil than environmentalism in my book. Perhaps that is why the idea of a leader who throws some token crumbs to religious constituents, is not threatening to me. Also we are talking about a centrist Bush, not an ultrareligious Buchannan or Alan Keyes. But I digress from my main point:

Bush has made his re-election foreign policy platform about continuing an offensive war against terrorism, as opposed to Kerry's defensive plans.

Kerry would boost Border Patrol, Homeland Security, National Guard, etc.

Bush would spend money on hi-tech weapons and an overseas military.

On the point of the Straussen Platonism, I would say that I cannot agree that is what Bush is doing on foreign policy. I would need a lot of more evidence of this argument. Simply using the example of North Korea and Iran is not enough.

I believe that Bush's philosophy is primarily pragmatism. He did not go after North Korea or Iran yet because with the nation focused on Iraq and the election, pragmatically, the timing was not right.

I would ask those who favor Prof Lewis' argument to consider this:

If Bush says he will wage war offensively against terrorism, how do you expect this will play out? Do you really think he will do nothing?

My major concern with Kerry is that he will withdraw the US so much from using our military overseas, that he will cripple us. His ideas about increasing border security will also have an extremely negative effect on commerce, doubling the cost of doing business outside of the US. Plus if Kerry does prevent the building of bunker buster bombs, we will not be able to face off against North Korea because that country has made a major investment in underground military. If we get involved in a ground war with Iran or N. Korea, and do not have the Bush-Platonic technology, then loss of life in our military will be massive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pericles,

I really think you're missing Prof. Lewis' argument.

You say you do not share the values of the conservatives; you were merely planning on voting for Bush, for his foreign policy. "Bush has made his re-election foreign policy platform about continuing an offensive war against terrorism", as you say.

(emphasis mine).

That's just Dr. Lewis' point. As he says, "The Platonic view demands tough talk--the expression of a principle--followed by compromise, the application of the principle. This has had horrendous consequences."

You ask, "If Bush says he will wage war offensively against terrorism, how do you expect this will play out?"

That Bush says he will wage war offensively against terrorism, is not a recent development. Remember this? How about this?

How has this played out? 1,000+ dead in Iraq -- thank God, too, because Iraq was such a more imminent threat than Iran or North Korea, and now there's no way for terrorists to train, hide, or attack us there, given how we have so utterly crushed the insurgency and humiliated the population. (Yes, that's sarcasm).

And lest we forget, I remind you that Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, and bin Laden and the Taliban remain uncrushed.

God help us if Bush goes after Iran or North Korea. Given how he fights a war, it would be a disaster. What's more, I think NoumenalSelf has provided a persuasive argument that such half-hearted military actions actually embolden terrorists, rather than demoralize them. Read it here. (You'll have to read down till at least the tenth paragraph).

Militant Islam is here to stay -- for now. If you want to see it eradicated, to paraphrase Dr. Peikoff, "Now is the time to become a philosophic hero, and speak out, on whatever scale open to you." And vote for the less destructive of the two candidates -- if you can discern who that is. You can guess where I stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God help us if Bush goes after Iran or North Korea.  Given how he fights a war, it would be a disaster. 

Would you prefer a badly fought war that overthrows the Iranian theocracy, or no war at all, which allows the Iranian theocracy to acquire nuclear weapons, and use them on the United States, either directly or through terrorist proxies?

I'll take the badly fought war that overthrows the fountainhead of terrorism in Iran.

If it were up to John Kerry, given his voting record, the United States wouldn't even have a military capable of fighting a war. The limit of Kerry's "toughness" is imposing sanctions. I'm sure the mullahs are shaking in their boots over that threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How has this played out? 1,000+ dead in Iraq -- thank God, too, because Iraq was such a more imminent threat than Iran or North Korea, and now there's no way for terrorists to train, hide, or attack us there, given how we have so utterly crushed the insurgency and humiliated the population. (Yes, that's sarcasm).

Like Kerry, you're context dropping. Bush even pointed this out (once) in the second debate. We only know that Iraq didn't possess weapons by controlling the country. At the time an invasion was ordered every intelligence aganecy in the world agreed that Saddam had weapons, thus his numerous terror connections meant he could give those weapons to terrorists if he wanted to. Given the nature of the war and all the stupid restrcitions on the troops, 1000+ dead is microscopically small by historical standards and making anything of it only contributes to making people less willing to fight bigger threats which may cost more people, i.e. Iran, Syria, North Korea.

Whether you support Bush or Kerry, I would refrain from picking up the partisan lingo and talking points of the side you support considering most of it is election baloney.

One last point, you mention how glad you are terrorists can't train, hide, and attack us in Iraq, sarcastically of course. You're making Bush's case for him, it's far better to have the terrorists all embroiled in Iraq against our trained professionals than plotting to blow up the Sears Tower or something. If only Iran could be made into a similar diversion for the terrorists so that they can throw themselves against the bulwark of the American military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the point of the Straussen Platonism, I would say that I cannot agree that is what Bush is doing on foreign policy.  I would need a lot of more evidence of this argument. 

The point about trying to understand a behavior is to look for a pattern, and to look for the fundamental cause underlying the pattern. You can't see the pattern unless you see the cause. This is induction. The fundamental cause is the one that explains the most characteristics of the pattern. To ask for "more evidence" is to miss the point.

In my opinion, Straussian Platonism (SP) is indeed what governs the Bush administration. Not until I read Dr. Lewis' article did I grasp the nature of the pattern! If you want to answer Dr. Lewis' central thesis, you have to address it directly. Do you agree that SP exists? If so, the oweness is on you to show the more fundamental cause. How is "pragmatism" more fundamental than Straussian Platonism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about trying to understand a behavior is to look for a pattern, and to look for the fundamental cause underlying the pattern.  You can't see the pattern unless you see the cause.  This is induction.  The fundamental cause is the one that explains the most characteristics of the pattern.  To ask for "more evidence" is to miss the point. 

In my opinion, Straussian Platonism (SP) is indeed what governs the Bush administration.  Not until I read Dr. Lewis' article did I grasp the nature of the pattern!  If you want to answer Dr. Lewis' central thesis, you have to address it directly.  Do you agree that SP exists?  If so, the oweness is on you to show the more fundamental cause.  How is "pragmatism" more fundamental than Straussian Platonism?

Hmm... I do think Prof Lewis has an interesting point. I would concede that there is a measure of Straussian Platonism in the Bush administration, just as there is a measure of religion. Does that measure add up to anything that I find threatening? Not really.

Consider this: under Bush we have had an unprecedented re-arming of the military. Regardless of whether the military has been used to go after Iran or N Korea, we are prepared, and being prepared is the larger part of the battle. Can you say the same for a Kerry presidency? Kerry already has promised to kill our most effective weapons against North Korea. We need the missile defenses and bunker busting bombs if we are going to have any sway against the Koreans.

Other than re-arming, Bush has taken action in Iraq and against Al Qaida. A genuine Strassian would have just sat and talked, but never taken action. Of course I agree that Bush should be doing more, but given the political climate it is easy to understand his hesistancy. I'm not excusing, just pointing out.

Secondly, and this supports my argument for the pragmatism, I think given enough public pressure (and it won't take that much) Bush will support a war against Iran. A few spokesmen doing media interviews to put pressure on Bush and he will have to answer. I am certain that Kerry would dismiss such pressure on his presidency as "conservative whining".

I actually suspect that the reason Iran is in the news is because of Objectivists. I am not saying this as a mere novice. I have a degree in journalism and have becoming very familiar with how the news media filters and accepts content. Other than Objectivists nobody was talking about Iran just 2 years ago. Objectivists also helped launch the career of Daniel Pipes. Pipes has been instrumental in getting Iran in the news. Middle East Commentator. Daniel Pipes has many ears in the Pentagon. How far up his influence reaches I cannot say for sure. But visit his website and see that he is no Straussian. Would you rather trade our current Pentagon for one staffed by people that do not listen to Pipes? In a defensive war there is no need to listen to Pipes, or have the ARI speakers visit Wright-Patterson to speak directly to the military. Under Bush the ear is open.

BTW, It is funny how Iran is now being used against Bush by John Kerry. Its typical of the complete hypocripsy of Kerry's arguments to use examples of things he would never support, to attack Bush on foreign policy. Kerry also attacks Bush for not taking enough action in the War on Terror, even while his stated platform is focus on a defensive war, while doing nothing overseas. Kerry is willing to accept the mantle of virtue just long enough to use it as a debate tool. Iran and North Korea are just empty words to John Kerry. Somebody else put them in the headlines, so they become his tools of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Bush's main philosophy -- is it Straussian Platonism or is it Pragmatism?

I suspect this is a false dichotomy. If Dr. Lewis's description of neo-conservatives' dominant philosophy as Straussian Platonism is correct, then I would say that SP requires the philosophy of Pragmatism as an adjunct. What makes SP Straussian is precisely Strauss's belief that other-worldly principles must be bent in compromise with the ever-changing reality envisioned by Pragmatism. And constant adjustment to the flux of reality is precisely what Pragmatism is.

My assessment -- from trying to initially trace nonessential characteristics back to essentials -- is that President Bush is a Platonist Christian and a pragmatist, all in the Straussian manner of saying that, well, the masses won't really understand the pure Ideas of Christ from the Other World, so we must bend and hedge and compromise.

In summary, I would say that for President Bush (but not all neo-cons), Christian Platonism is the shaft, and Pragmatism is the spearhead. So far, we have received mostly the spearhead; next comes the shaft -- so to speak.

P. S. -- I look forward to more stimulating articles by Professor Lewis. I am convinced that this whole debate will enrich the Objectivist movement far beyond this election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you prefer a badly fought war that overthrows the Iranian theocracy, or no war at all, which allows the Iranian theocracy to acquire nuclear weapons, and use them on the United States, either directly or through terrorist proxies?

Given the technology available to the Bush administration, they have no excuse whatsoever to fight a badly fought war.

I'll take the badly fought war that overthrows the fountainhead of terrorism in Iran.
Fact is Bush is giving no attention to Iran whatsoever. You have no argument.

If it were up to John Kerry, given his voting record, the United States wouldn't even have a military capable of fighting a war.  The limit of Kerry's "toughness" is imposing sanctions.  I'm sure the mullahs are shaking in their boots over that threat.

Nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this: under Bush we have had an unprecedented re-arming of the military.  Regardless of whether the military has been used to go after Iran or N Korea, we are prepared, and being prepared is the larger part of the battle.  Can you say the same for a Kerry presidency?  Kerry already has promised to kill our most effective weapons against North Korea.  We need the missile defenses and bunker busting bombs if we are going to have any sway against the Koreans.

It is not sufficient to argue for Bush by pointing out Kerry's leftist positions. No one here is disputing that Kerry is a leftist, with everything that implies. The argument concerns whether the leftist Kerry will invite more danger and destruction than the conservative Bush. For every significant god-awful leftist position of Kerry's, Bush has on his record something equal or worse.

This has been argued articulately for many weeks now, both on this forum (see e.g. "Here Come the Christians"), in NoumenalSelf's essays, in Dr. Lewis' op-eds, on the HBL, in Dr. Peikoff's 'DIM Hypothesis' course...

To all of you who continue to maintain that Kerry is the greater threat to freedom: have you examined these arguments (above) carefully? Do you dispute the nature of integration and the role of epistemology in shaping a culture? Can you defend the position that compromised, half-hearted actions are not wrong actions, and that besides, it is better to do something wrong than to not do anything at all?

Because nothing less will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Kerry, you're context dropping. Bush even pointed this out (once) in the second debate. We only know that Iraq didn't possess weapons by controlling the country. At the time an invasion was ordered every intelligence aganecy in the world agreed that Saddam had weapons, thus his numerous terror connections meant he could give those weapons to terrorists if he wanted to.

I'm being accused of context-dropping? Why not read what I wrote:

"...thank God, too,because Iraq was such a more imminent threat than Iran or North Korea....(Yes, that's sarcasm)."

Do you seriously maintain that it was only possible to realize that Iraq was not the more imminent threat, after invading it? And that Bush publicly acknowledges such a thing?

Given the nature of the war and all the stupid restrcitions on the troops, 1000+ dead is microscopically small by historical standards and making anything of it only contributes to making people less willing to fight bigger threats which may cost more people, i.e. Iran, Syria, North Korea.

Okay. Better suppress our outrage that they've died for nothing. After all, it was probably just this once that Bush will wage a feeble, losing war (on Iraq and Afghanistan). No doubt you have plenty of reason to believe he'll be different with Iran and North Korea?

Whether you support Bush or Kerry, I would refrain from picking up the partisan lingo and talking points of the side you support considering most of it is election baloney.

This is completely unwarranted and insulting.

One last point, you mention how glad you are terrorists can't train, hide, and attack us in Iraq, sarcastically of course. You're making Bush's case for him, it's far better to have the terrorists all embroiled in Iraq against our trained professionals than plotting to blow up the Sears Tower or something. If only Iran could be made into a similar diversion for the terrorists so that they can throw themselves against the bulwark of the American military.

Yes, better to tie our soldiers' hands in Iraq, and keep all the terrorists embroiled over there. After all, what's 1000+ dead? It's not like 3,000. And as you say, all of them are embroiled in it. Well... maybe not all. Maybe there's one or two who aren't in Iraq, and still have time to plot to blow up the Sear Tower or something. But everyone knows it takes at least 19 of them to blow up a building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you seriously maintain that it was only possible to realize that Iraq was not the more imminent threat, after invading it? And that Bush publicly acknowledges such a thing?
Of course it was possible to recognize Iran as the greater threat to the United States before we invaded Iraq, but in the context of world affairs before the invasion one could certainly make a great case that Iraq was very dangerous and had to be dealt with. Bush chose Iraq as a matter of convenience, given that they clearly broke a cease fire agreement, attacked us overtly everyday, and had numerous connections with terrorists. In the context that everyone thought they had weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was clearly a large threat, Iran was and is a bigger threat, but that doesn't diminish the threat Iraq posed.

Okay. Better suppress our outrage that they've died for nothing. After all, it was probably just this once that Bush will wage a feeble, losing war (on Iraq and Afghanistan). No doubt you have plenty of reason to believe he'll be different with Iran and North Korea?

Our soldiers haven't died for nothing, we have the right, whenever we want to, to get rid of unfree governments at any time. Saddam's attacking of us on a daily basis was reason enough to get rid of him. The fact that you think Iraq and Afghanistan are losing efforts is amusing. Even with Bush's dopey way of prosecuting them I think it improbable that we will actually lose, rather we will spend more time and money and blood than is necessary and proper. I have no particular reason to think Iran and North Korea will be different, except that they are different countries. Iran's population hates its own government and is actively trying to undermine it, which means an invasion or toppling of the mullahs will be a lot easier to accomplish. North Korea isn't going to be attacked by either Bush or Kerry, because the North Koreans are savvy as to how modern politics work and will not push the situation to the point of war, they will push it far enough to get concessions. They are dopey communists, not fanatical lunatics.

This is completely unwarranted and insulting.

It was meant to be, though it was entirely warranted.

Yes, better to tie our soldiers' hands in Iraq, and keep all the terrorists embroiled over there. After all, what's 1000+ dead? It's not like 3,000. And as you say, all of them are embroiled in it. Well... maybe not all. Maybe there's one or two who aren't in Iraq, and still have time to plot to blow up the Sear Tower or something. But everyone knows it takes at least 19 of them to blow up a building.

You never would have made it through World War 2, you would have gone mad with the casualty lists. Over 10,000 dead in the Battle of the Bulge alone. We often lose far more people in the war than in the attack or event that led to the war in the first place, does that mean we shouldn't fight? Or should we fight only if we can keep the deaths below those of the initial attack?

Iraq will eventually stabilize and cease to be a diversion for the terrorists who are already regrouping in Iran and Syria. The question is will anyone pursue them to their new hideouts? Bush has a record of attacking terrorists and taking out countries, Kerry and his Democratic Party has no record of doing anything. Everything he has said and done point to a reversal of Bush's policy back to Clintonian foreign policy, which means nothing will happen.

Perhaps you think that doing nothing is better than doing a flawed something, I do not. We don't have the luxury of waiting around for a pacifist John Kerry to blow to political pressures which may or may not come around, and why should he? He will have defeated the policy that said doing something was necessary on a platform of doing nothing as opposed to doing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it was possible to recognize Iran as the greater threat to the United States before we invaded Iraq, but in the context of world affairs before the invasion one could certainly make a great case that Iraq was very dangerous and had to be dealt with.

In other words, no, you do not seriously maintain what you said. Sure, Iraq was a threat. And perhaps there was even a possible justification for crushing Iraq first. Perhaps, because that is debatable. But it would have at least involved: first of all, actually crushing Iraq -- which has not been done (nor is there any reason to believe it ever will be). And then, taking military action against Iran -- similarly crushing them and imposing an American system of government and western values. And don't forget: North Korea was and continues to be a greater threat than Iraq, on the grounds that that country already possessed weapons of mass destruction.

we have the right, whenever we want to, to get rid of unfree governments at any time.

Who denies this?

Our soldiers haven't died for nothing...Saddam’s attacking of us on a daily basis was reason enough to get rid of him....  You never would have made it through World War 2, you would have gone mad with the casualty lists. Over 10,000 dead in the Battle of the Bulge alone. We often lose far more people in the war than in the attack or event that led to the war in the first place, does that mean we shouldn't fight? Or should we fight only if we can keep the deaths below those of the initial attack?

But our soldiers have died for nothing: they've died senselessly, fighting the wrong battle -- wrong, because it is fought for the wrong reasons, and fought with their arms tied behind their backs. If Iraq were approached in the manner I suggested above, that is, a manner which would have dealt it an uncompromising, crushing defeat, and treated it as the more minor threat it was (compared to Iran and North Korea) , then I would say that those soldiers killed, would not die in vain. Certainly context is relevant here, in terms of just how uncompromising Pres. Bush could be. For example: however immoral it may be for even *one* soldier to lose his life as a result of some political hand-wringing over 'civilian casualties', it would not necessarily invalidate an entire war. But the reasons for the 1000+ who have actually died, are so far beyond a situation like that, I don't even consider it up for debate.

It was meant to be, though it was entirely warranted.

No, to the extent that it is even a coherent statement, it's not warranted. It's psychologizing. Perhaps you'd like to reveal which of my statements you consider "partisan lingo", why, and by what means you know that I'm 'picking up' such lingo and simply 'talking points of the side I support'.

Perhaps you think that doing nothing is better than doing a flawed something, I do not. We don't have the luxury of waiting around for a pacifist John Kerry to blow to political pressures which may or may not come around, and why should he? He will have defeated the policy that said doing something was necessary on a platform of doing nothing as opposed to doing more.

Even if Kerry truly would do nothing (which is impossible to entertain), how would that be any worse than what Bush would do? Which is precisely what you say he would do: he would kill some terrorists. Maybe he'll even kill some members of governments somewhere, like he did with some of the Baathists, and some of the Taliban. So what? Half-hearted actions do not a war make.

You suggest that World War II would have made me squeamish, as if you're some kind of hawk. But World War II is exactly what I'm calling for: the complete, uncompromising destruction of our most lethal enemies and imposition of our system of government and our values. Without any regard for civilian casualties, or the freedom and wealth of the population. Nothing less will diminish the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

With either candidate, Islamic fundamentalism will continue to exist in a significant way (and as I've referenced previously, there is even reason to believe Bush's half-hearted actions may actually embolden terrorists more than doing nothing at all).

Why then, do so many on this forum go on supporting Bush?

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one puzzle I have been wrestling with.

1. Premise: I want the total destruction of anti-Western terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

2. Premise:__________________________________

3. Conclusion: Therefore I will vote for John Kerry.

How do the supporters of John Kerry get from 1 to 3?

What is the unstated thought in step 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one puzzle I have been wrestling with.

1. Premise: I want the total destruction of anti-Western terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

2. Premise:__________________________________

3. Conclusion: Therefore I will vote for John Kerry.

How do the supporters of John Kerry get from 1 to 3?

What is the unstated thought in step 2?

There is no way to prove that Kerry will do this any better or more than Bush has done it, in fact he is saying things that are quite the contrary.

Their must be a premise two and a premise three to get to the conclusion. 2 must be that Bush is harming premise one, and 3 must be that Kerry will not do so to the same extent as Bush. If this is one's argument then fine, we can debate the merits of those premises and the facts one can cite to support them, but to make a positive argument for Kerry is ridiculous, the only way he can be preferable is through default, due to the dangers and inefficacies of Bush. But then why should one vote at all? Ayn Rand abstained from voting in 1980, a very important election, although admittedly not one which ended up being very close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one puzzle I have been wrestling with.

1. Premise: I want the total destruction of anti-Western terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

2. Premise:__________________________________

3. Conclusion: Therefore I will vote for John Kerry.

How do the supporters of John Kerry get from 1 to 3?

What is the unstated thought in step 2?

What Drs. Peikoff and Lewis, and their supporters, are saying is:

1. Premise: Religious fundamentalists are a threat to America.

2. Premise: George W. Bush is a religious fundamentalist.

3. Conclusion: Therefore, I will vote against George W. Bush.

The main argument against this reasoning is: Is Bush really that dangerously religious? And even if Bush the man were, is his party? The GOP's leading lights - Gulliani, Ridge, and Schwarzenegger - are pro-abortion.

In other words, someone would have to show that the Religious Right had truly seized the Republican party.

The other argument is: Voting against Bush means voting for Kerry, an anti-American candidate running for America's presidency. Can the nation risk a do-nothing candidate, as opposed to a flawed, do-something candidate, in a time of possibly-nuclear war?

Here too, someone would have to show that Kerry would do something, anything, to protect America.

Owing to a lack of detailed scenarios which would illustrate how a Bush presidency would evolve into a theocracy or a Kerry presidency would become pro-American self-defense, the jury is still out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one puzzle I have been wrestling with.

1. Premise: I want the total destruction of anti-Western terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

2. Premise:__________________________________

3. Conclusion: Therefore I will vote for John Kerry.

How do the supporters of John Kerry get from 1 to 3?

What is the unstated thought in step 2?

1. I want to win the war.

2. I think the Bush policy results in losing the war.

3. I will give Kerry a chance to change direction.

Don't ask me to explain (again) why the Bush policy results in losing the war, because I already did that on other threads, and other Objectivists have written whole essays and given whole speeches on the subject.

But, let me remind you, the war is not the fundamental philosophical issue in this election. It goes deeper than who is going to screw up the war less.

Most Objectivist Kerry supporters have basically conceded that neither Bush nor Kerry can win this war for us--let alone identify the real enemy. Bush will continue defending the blood sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan until he gets blue in the face. Maybe he'll start another half-ass war in Sudan or something. And who really knows what Kerry would do? Probably much of the same. After all, who really believes the Republican Congress and Religious Right will allow him to do nothing?

What we need to do, as a nation, is get away from White House-level faith-based thinking and policy-making and move a little closer to acknowledging reality again before we act. And, unfortunately, our best hope of doing that is in John Kerry, who actually realizes that there is something seriously wrong with our war policy. Obviously he doesn't have a grasp on the problem; he is a pragmatist. But at least he will help this country publicly address the problem--rather than blindly continue on this crusade to bring "democracy" to the Middle East.

I think it is the height of fantasy to believe in the magical healing powers of "democracy," when we have failed to do anything crucial to winning a war. We have lost all interest in formally declaring war. We have lost interest in demanding unconditional surrenders from our enemies. We have lost interest in doing what is necessary to end all resistance to occupation. Basically, we have lost interest in fighting real wars. And because of our disinterest in war, our war-making enemies are walking all over us.

War is ugly. If we aren't prepared to get ugly, then we are going to get killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't ask me to explain (again) why the Bush policy results in losing the war, because I already did that on other threads, and other Objectivists have written whole essays and given whole speeches on the subject.

Most Objectivists have read those essays and heard those speeches yet remain unconvinced. On Harry Binswanger's List, it is running about 3-4 to 1 for Bush.

But, let me remind you, the war is not the fundamental philosophical issue in this election. It goes deeper than who is going to screw up the war less.
Elections are not philosophy debates. The purpose of an election is to select the man who can best protect our rights. Considering that we are at war, the war is pretty fundamental.

Of course, if you want to look at it philosophically, there is much more at stake than a referendum on religion. The philosophical issue is Western Civilization (with all its imperfections including Christianity) versus Barbarism (Islamic, North Korean, Nihilistic, and Kantian).

Most Objectivist Kerry supporters have basically conceded that neither Bush nor Kerry can win this war for us--let alone identify the real enemy.

Not true. We have such overwhelming technological superiority that we can win the war using only a tenth of our capacity. Unfortunately, that is how we have been fighting it with an unnecessary loss of life and treasure.

And who really knows what Kerry would do? Probably much of the same.
Probably much the same as he has ALWAYS done: support Communists and other enemies at the expense of the US.

After all, who really believes the Republican Congress and Religious Right will allow him to do nothing?

It's not up to the Congress. Only the President can wage war. If he chooses not to, there isn't a damn thing anyone else can do about it. (See the Presidency of Jimmy Carter.)

What we need to do, as a nation, is get away from White House-level faith-based thinking and policy-making and move a little closer to acknowledging reality again before we act. And, unfortunately, our best hope of doing that is in John Kerry

:rolleyes:

No comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Betsy.

It is precisely the context of the war that I think has been given short-shrift in this argument. Nothing about the military has been given any consideration, other than statements about the casualty rate. About that, I would defy anyone to name any war in history where a regime has been overthrown at such a price in men. Our military has and is performing magnificiently -- a fact overshadowed by the fervent wish to be living in some ahistorical world where things are done without loss to our side, and with the indiscriminate mass slaughter of anyone in our way to the enemy. I assume that all of those who advocate this slaughter will be joining up and volunteering to be the ones to go in and clean up the mess -- and live the rest of their lives with the memories and the nightmares, right?

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Everytime John Kerry lets it be known that he thinks Iraq is the wrong war and the wrong time in the wrong place, Americans die in theater. The rise in terrorist attacks in Iraq are meant to intimidate, to effect the elections here and in Iraq. Kerry's words tell our enemies that victory is just an election away. After all, they threw the mighty Soviet army out of Afganistan, and they can now taste the victory of American retreat from Iraq.

This war is the fundamental context of my vote. The other issues are internal issues to be fought intellectually, and not in a way that endangers this country's safety from fascists who would cut your head off without regard to your philosophy. If you are unhappy with the way the war is being fought, start a movement for a more aggresive war and let your voice be heard. Start a blog. Write letters to editors and politicians. Get experts on your side -- military experts, not philosophy professors. Dr. Lewis and Dr. Peikoff are correct that we must battle philosophically, and ARI is doing that job. But where are the foot soldiers in the movement? Where are the ad hoc activists to convince those who aren't going to sit for philosophical debates about which is worse: Marxist/nihilism or Christian Platonic Pragmatism. Argue the issue. There are plenty of people out there who are aggitating for a more aggressive war. (The same ought to be done about 1st Amendment issues.) You aren't helpless in these battles, and you don't have to wait until the country is Objectivist -- you should live so long.

It is dangerous -- historically dangerous -- to say that we won't do anything about this war unless and until we do it perfectly according to Objectivist precepts. We won't have a country left if we underestimate the enemy, and the enemy will not sit on their thumbs until we've resolved the question.

The point may be rendered moot anyway. Mr. Kerry and his 10,000 lawyers, his international election monitors, the voter fraud that is already evident, the mass voter registrations meant to overtax the system so that claims of disenfranchisment can be made -- all will cause a civil explosion in this country come election day. I doubt the philosophical points of Objectivism, or any other philosophy, will be heard in the screaching of the protestors. The only things that will be heard in such a racket are the explosions of terrorist bombs. If this happens, we'll be wishing there was a God to save us from ourselves.

I'm sorry. I've been feeling very pessimistic lately.

Betsy, you once wrote that Objectivists were human just like everybody else, only more so. You were right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldsalt, I think you make some good points.

We have a two front fight, and it's not clear what is the best way tactically to fight it as Objectivists. There is the war for Reason versus intrinsicism(religion) and skepticism. There is also the war for U.S. safety from its enemies.

I'm not convinced that Bush is the driving force behind advancing religiousity. If this were the case, Alan Keyes would be the Republican candidate, or would have at least been able to keep his TV show on the air. Stop Bush, and another similarly religious person will take his place, because he's not the source and root of this religious movement. Tactically, I suggest Objectivists identify and take on the real root of the religious movement, rather than one of its typical products.

In regards to U.S. security, of course I agree that Bush could be better on offense. But I don't think Kerry would do better, more likely he would increasingly institutionalize the U.N.'s control over U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, I think a Bush defeat would be really bad from one particular perspective. I see the current situation as a hostage situation - right now much of the world (e.g. China, France, Germany, practically every global journalist) is saying to the U.S. - we won't cooperate with you if you don't get our agreement on your military endeavors, we will do what we can to cause any president who even appears to be a "unilteralist" to loose his election. If Kerry wins, they will perceive that their strategy worked, and the rest of the world will be emboldened to use this power again and again. This is similar to paying for hostage returns, you get one back, and ten more hostage-takers are encouraged.

The argument for Kerry that resonates most with me is that if failure is a foregone conclusion, then it would be better for it to fall in the lap of a vacillating appeaser so that policy can take the blame. I had similar thoughts before the 2000 election, I figured a recession was a sure thing, and thought it might be better for tax cuts and alleged "free marketeers" to take the blame.

I work in Manhattan, and having had to already step over pieces of people on the sidewalk once, I would vote for a candidate who would reduce my chances of being killed over the next for years, if such a candidate existed. I personally have to survive in the short-run in order to see how the long run plays out. I think Bush probably is slightly ahead in that regard, though I'm not sure because Kerry hasn't really focused on that issue that I have seen.

That said, I'm increasingly disgusted by Bush's moral (mis)justification for war, driven by duty and sacrifice, which ties in to the Neoconservative and religious-altruist philosophy of the Bush administration. And I think that more than anything may lead to Bush's defeat. I hope and think that the country is willing to go to war for selfish reasons. But when people hear that the U.S. is fighting out of duty and self-sacrifice, then that's implicitly telling them that the war is of little or no benefit to them personally. That's like advertising a candy bar by telling the customer about the factory employees' poor hungry kids - if you're not telling me it tastes good, it must be bad candy.

What's my conclusion? Objectivism needs to take on lots of bad ideas in the world. Is the Bush administration the locus and driving force for bad ideas in our culture, requiring that Objectivists focus their philosophical efforts at stopping it? I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who really knows what Kerry would do? Probably much of the same. After all, who really believes the Republican Congress and Religious Right will allow him to do nothing?

This argument is used over and over again by Kerry supporters. The Congress won't let him get away with not fighting the enemy. The American people won't let him get away with it.

But on the flip side of the coin, they say that if Bush is elected, theocracy is imminent. Congress, and the American people, will roll over and play dead while this fantasy scenario is taking place.

It's a lot more likely they'll roll over and play dead when Kerry turns us into a Euro-wimp nation---because that's what his half of the populace wants, in the first place. Elect Kerry if you want the US to be France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the flip side of the coin, they say that if Bush is elected, theocracy is imminent.  Congress, and the American people, will roll over and play dead while this fantasy scenario is taking place. 

Congress is ruled by Republicans, Kitty Hawk. For the most part, they are already rolling over for Bush's faith-based agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Objectivists have read those essays and heard those speeches yet remain unconvinced.  On Harry Binswanger's List, it is running about 3-4 to 1 for Bush.

Talk about fallacious argumentation!

I guess I better get in line with "most Objectivists" if I don't want to be outnumbered 4 to 1.

And, to think, you have the nerve to accuse me elsewhere of appealing to authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, the whole discussion of what is more important to an objectivist: atheism or capitalism comes into play.

Historically speaking, I'd prefer to have a president who believes in a diety who may or may not have an effect on an individual versus a man who puts full faith in the greatness of government which has a profound effect on our individual lives.

Something that just came to mind: what if James Taggart et al were not socialists, but religious fundamentalists. What would be the difference in outcome in Atlas Shrugged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime John Kerry lets it be known that he thinks Iraq is the wrong war and the wrong time in the wrong place, Americans die in theater.

Is that a one-to-one ratio? Or do multiple soldiers die each time Kerry criticizes the war?

At least let Kerry get into the oval office before you blame him for our self-sacrificial war policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  Everytime John Kerry lets it be known that he thinks Iraq is the wrong war and the wrong time in the wrong place, Americans die in theater.  The rise in terrorist attacks in Iraq are meant to intimidate, to effect the elections here and in Iraq.  Kerry's words tell our enemies that victory is just an election away.  After all, they threw the mighty Soviet army out of Afganistan, and they can now taste the victory of American retreat from Iraq.

This war is the fundamental context of my vote.

I agree, I noticed also how the attacks have worsened as the public criticism has increased here. Terrorist know how to play to the news media.

I also understand where you are coming from Janet. I think people who have been in the military appreciate much more how important it is to have a president that has a proper foreign policy since the military is fhe first to suffer when we don't. If Kerry does win I doubt many Americans will know fully what damage he is doing to our military in terms of lost talent and cancelled programs. They will only feel the affects later, when we are threatened again with imminent destruction.

But I have noticed that many of the general public do have a better understanding of foreign policy than the news media gives them credit for. I think lots of Bush supporters know that Kerry is the wrong man, because of his bad ideas about foreign policy. It is frustrating to watch Bush try to explain foreign policy on TV, when he often does poorly explaining why we need to go after terrorists. It is only now in the last days of the election that he is fully explaining the need for an offensive war.

Bush should have been explaining more fully what he was doing with our programs and overseas actions all thru his presidency. His best speeches on foreign policy were right after 9/11, and during the convention. How unfortunate for us all he is not a better spoken man. But the actions of his cabinet speak for themselves. And it is good to see that many people are coming forward who do understand the issues and speaking up.

Some of us do get it.

BTW, my personal life has been too busy lately to participate much in these forums. But I do enjoy reading all these posts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...