Open Reply To Prof John Lewis

[Betsy]

Kerry does not have all of Bush's flaws. Kerry is not interested in linking church and state.

Did you see the last debate? Kerry said his religion, unlike Bush's, requires faith to be expressed in "works" and Kerry gave examples of new welfare programs that would meet those requirements.

He is not interested in "faith-based initiatives."

And the "works" he would initiate are what??

He does not have great "faith" in the forward strategy of freedom.

Hell, Kerry has NO confidence in freedom at all. Maybe that's why he sided with the Communists all through the Cold War.

Also, Kerry's fundamental evils, even if they did take root, are not a long-term threat to society.

IF they take root? Kerry's fundamentally evil ideas have completely taken root, overgrown, and attempted to smother any rational ideas in our colleges, high schools, elementary schools, TV stations, or newspapers.

How bad could Kerry's socialism be for America? Is it going to get Europe-bad? Canada-bad? Is that really unbearable?

Is the way things were at the end of Atlas Shrugged "bearable?" Wesley Mouch, Robert Stadler, and Cuffy Meigs were secular.

Religion is the long-term threat. Religion causes Dark Ages. It wipes out science and medicine. It wipes out all sorts of things that secularists love. Religion wipes out secularists.

So does any form of irrationality when it wields force. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were secular mass murderers and their millions of victims are just as dead.

if you agree that Bush is no better on the war issue than Kerry, then, the way I see it, the focus must be on what is the long-term threat to America. If you believe that Bush is substantially better than Kerry on the war issue, then I fail to see it. All I see is Bush making it harder and harder for us to focus on the true enemy and maintain a willingness to be victorious.

Bush is fighting the war on Islamic terrorism very badly and thus is vastly superior to Kerry who, based on his lifelong record of passivism and opposition to American self-defense, would not fight the war at all.

The question you pose is basically the first question an Objectivist would think of in the Kerry vs. Bush debate.  It has been answered by Leonard Peikoff and many others after him.

I know. Peikoff says he will vote for Kerry. Robert Tracinski and most of the writers for The Intellectual Activist are voting for Bush. Harry Binswanger just announced he is voting for Bush. Objectivists are deeply divided.

This is no time to take anyone or anything on faith. It is a time to examine the facts, consider the arguments, and come to a first-hand conclusion in the matter. I did so and I am voting for Bush. My reasons are on the record here, on TIA Daily, and on HBL.

I'm not going to repeat all their answers here, nor the many other answers that I have given all over this forum. I'm not going to start this debate over again. I'm not going to answer this question anymore. This is it. Sorry. I'm moving on to try to prove the existence of a threat of religious dictatorship in America, which I think is a much more important thing to prove.

Good luck! After I vote for Bush I'll be moving on to continue to prove that nothing can stop a small group of Objectivists who are determined to completely take over the culture.

[Lone Wolf]

Bush is fighting the war on Islamic terrorism very badly and thus is vastly superior to Kerry...

No. His half-war is infinitely more disgraceful.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3982

[Thoyd Loki]

No. His half-war is infinitely more disgraceful.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3982

Yeah, I read that article. At the end it says "vote for John Kerry." Sorry, but all of these arguments are non-sequitors if I have ever seen a single one. Any and all the bad things that Bush does, combine them all, doesn't lead to the conclusion "vote Kerry". Yes, Kerry is that bad.

[Montesquieu]

I can annecdotally point to troops who think Bush is doing a fantastic job, that doesn't make them correct. This is an appeal to authority, and is thus, a fallacy. Now, some of the points they make are good and very poignant, but I fail to see how Kerry's rules of engagement in the tactics of the war, assuming he fights any wars at all, will be better. If anything they can only become more restrictive since it was the Democratic Party that came up with the rules Bush is using today, and Kerry has condemned all of the limited rules of engagement we used in Vietnam, not because they were too restrictive, but because they were reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.

[oldsalt]

It really is a sad state of affairs when Objectivists find themselves arguing over two such perfect mediocraties. I'll be so glad when this is over!

[Thoyd Loki]

It really is a sad state of affairs when Objectivists find themselves arguing over two such perfect mediocraties.  I'll be so glad when this is over!

I agree.

Anybody want to debate who was the better Stooge, Shemp or Curly?

[Montesquieu]

Holleran also makes the point that Bush is altruistic, but Kerry went out of his way in the third debate to show how altruistic he himself was, condemning Bush for not helping his neighbors enough through "works."

The only way voting for Kerry would be acceptable would be if a vote for Kerry would meen a mandate for fighting a much more aggressive war, without the restrictions, a war that went immediately into Iran, and that was fought guilt-free. This is not the case. Kerry and his party have alligned themselves with Michael Moore, a man who not so long ago said there was no terrorist problem (this was after 9/11) and that Bush was using it as an excuse to steal oil, he condemned the invasion of Afghanistan!!! which he now claims to support, criticising Bush for "diverting" resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. Kerry has promised to do nothing as far as the war goes, aside from making the North Korea deal that Clinton made in 1994, except this time with Iran. He has promised to dismantle our nuclear weapons programs. He has promised to cosy up to onerous "allies" that Bush at least had the guts to eventually ignore. He, and most others, will see his victory as a clear rejection of the war and a mandate for his ideas.

[Montesquieu]

I agree.

Anybody want to debate who was the better Stooge, Shemp or Curly?

That's easy, Curly.

[oldsalt]

That's easy, Curly.

Not being a guy -- and the stooges are definitely a guy thing -- I have no opinion. But, my husband said the same thing when I asked him. No hesitation.

[Kitty Hawk]

In addition to wanting to unilaterally disarm our bunker busting bomb program (pro-Kerryites have been strangely silent on this), so as not to offend the Iranians or North Koreans, here is a partial list of other weapons systems that Kerry has wanted to kill in the past (as documented here):

MX ICBM

B-1 Bomber

Strategic Defense Initiative

AH-64 Apache Helicopters

Patriot Air Defense Missiles

Aegis Air Defense Cruiser

AV-8B Harrier VTOL

F-15

F-14A/D

What would our military look like now if Kerry had been in charge? However, I have no doubt that Kerry would be willing to use our military forces---if he could find a Rwanda like situation where it would be of zero strategic value to the US.

[Pericles(MBA)]

Bush is actively funding churches and faith-based organizations using your tax money. It used to be the case that to get government grant money churches had to start up a secular branch of their organization and keep the religious and secular elements separate. Any money they got could not go to explicitly religious activities. That is no longer the case with Bush.

Bush has already made religion a part of his administration and our government. His policies reek of religion and faith. He and his Cabinet members even begin each Cabinet meeting with a prayer to God.

There were lots of complaints during the Clinton administration of tax money going to churches. There was a movement to repeal the money going to faith based charities but it failed miserably. I seem to recall there were also allegations of improper use of tax money to directly fund religious propaganda, which the Clinton administration ignored.

As far as prayer in govt goes, that was done during Reagan and Jimmy Carter administrations also. Carter held public discussions on his faith and invited his favorite ministers to the White House.

It is naive to think that a populist president would not have some homage to religion. Americans enjoy their freedom too much to let it get carried far. Only after much loss of freedom and heavy suffering could Americans choose to look the other way when it comes to heavy-handed religion. But hey, if John Kerry wins we may just experience that kind of suffering!

[AisA]

Like it or not, this election is a referendum on the effectiveness of terrorism. If Bush is defeated, terrorists all over the globe will celebrate with renewed energy and conviction. Bush’s defeat will be touted as proof that bin Laden was correct: America does not have the stomach for a tough, protracted fight. Murder enough “infidels” and even the great Satan will back down. Imagine the impact of that message in recruiting new killers.

Correspondingly, our military and our allies will be deeply demoralized. The loss of the will to fight at home is the end for the soldiers in the field. 75% of our soldiers will vote for Bush (according to recent polls), and then wonder why we won’t let them finish the job we sent them to do.

Of course, Kerry could create the reverse effect if , upon his election, he immediately announced an invasion of Iran and North Korea. But how likely is that?

No, Kerry will do whatever plays best with CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, Sean Penn and the United Nations – all of which are vigorously rooting for an American defeat anywhere they can get it.

Why have there been no additional attacks in America? Certainly, some credit goes to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that have broken up a number of plots – such as the effort to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge. But another factor has to be our response to 9/11. However imperfectly it has been done, I don’t think bin Laden et al expected the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. 150,000 American combat boots on “Islamic soil” was not the desired effect.

Yes, we should plant those combat boots square on the foreheads of the mullahs in Tehran. But our best hope for getting there is to re-elect a man who has been willing to take at least some action – and who, in a second term, won’t be constrained by the need to get re-elected.

[Godless Capitalist]

It really is a sad state of affairs when Objectivists find themselves arguing over two such perfect mediocraties.  I'll be so glad when this is over!

It's a tough choice when both are awful!

I for one find the gradual slide into socialism more of a threat than the possibility of a theocracy. There is a huge part of our society, incuding many religious people, who are opposed to any significant involvement of religion in politics. There is almost nobody opposing the gradual expansion of government into every other area of our lives.

Oh and by the way life in Canada is not so bad despite the high taxes and socialist nonsense. At least they don't have nearly as many Bible-thumpers.

[Betsy]

No. His half-war is infinitely more disgraceful.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3982

This CapMag article you cite was based on an article in the ultra Liberal Washington Post in which the WP reporter selected quotes from 12 selected soldiers.

If you believe the Washington Post, as the CapMag writer did, you would think that the military is 100% for Kerry. In fact, all of the main political polls show the military is 4 to 1 FOR BUSH. For the reasons why, see this post (click here).

[Bill Jerdee]

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?

The latter is Bush's policy to date, and by the time he gets through another 12 years of dickering with the UN it will be too late. I don't see much difference between him and Kerry on this issue, although Kerry wants to add yet another layer of dickering with his bizarre plan of first "proving" that Iran has bad intentions by offering them uranium on the condition that they return the spent fuel (when they decline this offer, we'll know for sure that they're bad guys).

The current neo-con line on this is absurd - the claim is that we can't be sure we can take out all the sites (there may be as many as *gasp* 15), so we'd better sit back and twiddle our thumbs while waiting prayerfully for the IAEA and the UN to defend us from this threat. This is a thin smokescreen for the idea that America's self-defense must be balanced with other considerations, such as avoiding killing "innocent" Iranians, meeting the global test (and here Bush is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black), and above all, not appearing to act too selfishly.

[AisA]

I don't see much difference between him and Kerry on this issue, although Kerry wants to add yet another layer of dickering with his bizarre plan of first "proving" that Iran has bad intentions by offering them uranium on the condition that they return the spent fuel (when they decline this offer, we'll know for sure that they're bad guys).

Here is another difference between the two. The Bush administration is developing bunker busting bombs and missile defense systems, both of which are potentially needed in conflicts with Iran and North Korea. Kerry has repeatedly pledged to cancel both programs.

[erik]

Where in Ayn Rands works does she say that Religion is a bigger threat than Socialism/Communism. Socialism/Communism is the destroyer of civilization from what I remember in Atlas Shrugged.

The choice is between two religeous men. Bush is a crony-captitalist who wants to kick ass to protect America. Kerry is a socialist/communist who has a life long record of appeasement.

I can't believe that objectivist would say European Socialism or Candian Socialism "wouldn't be so bad".

[oldsalt]

In his lecture, "Kantianism vs Objectivism in The Fountainhead," Andrew Berstein states that Any Rand chose Kantianism as the foil for her heroes over other philosophies, including religion, because it was (and is) the most dangerous. He states explicitly that, while religion may surge, Kant's ideas are so deeply ingrained in the culture that they had to be her focus.