Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

GOPers: Let go of Rand?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts


Shouldn't the advice be for everyone to embrace Ayn Rand, discover her, be introduced to her ideas, not "let her go"?

My Dear GOPers, I beseech you, please resolve to let go of your Ayn Rand fetish.M

And what, pray tell, is an Ayn Rand fetish?

On the third page, he's smearing Rand using Hickman.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, your typical pile of Rand-bashing strawmen and nonsense. Sing it with me:

- Paul Ryan is a hardocre objectivist

- Rand's books only appeal to wimpy adolecents

- One of Rand's biggest platforms was "tax cuts for the rich"

- Rand was an elitist who wanted smart people to run the world

- The moderate Republican establishment (including Romney) "channels" Rand

- Rand was a massive hypocryte because she took social security and Medicare

- Rand championed a serial killer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I knew if I did a little digging, I would find an old thread connected to GOP politics and Ayn Rand. It turns out, it's not that old. In a more recent thread, folks have been kicking dirt back and forth over Republicans and Democrats, and how they are to be blamed, or how anyone associated with them can share the blame, for the decline of reason in the United States of America. Atheists versus "some-Christians-are-my-best-friends" debate on a few other pages. Libertarians are blamed for dividing votes that might change the outcomes of close elections, while getting no representation. The so-called Tea Party does not impress me as anything other that working-class populism, mixed with that Ole Time religion.

My congressional representative, Paul Ryan, may occasionally rely on my vote, but he certainly may have jeopardized it, when he withdrew his claim to have been inspired to a life in politics after reading Atlas Shrugged. I rather liked him more as a unique politician for that very reason. So, if pro-capitalist/pro-reason candidates cannot win the hearts and minds of the average voter, what to do? Will we ever see an admitted Objectivist emerging from the ranks of intellectual mediocrity, as is the norm in the USA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The so-called Tea Party does not impress me as anything other that working-class populism, mixed with that Ole Time religion.



Amen, brother.




So, if pro-capitalist/pro-reason candidates cannot win the hearts and minds of the average voter, what to do? Will we ever see an admitted Objectivist emerging from the ranks of intellectual mediocrity, as is the norm in the USA?


Well, here's what you don't do: you don't throw away reason and support a Big Lie because it might apparently help the party you think is closer (although still light years away) from the "ideal".


If our situation is grim, in other words, pretending its anything else will only make things worse.


And on that note, my answer: I think we're stuck with the present muddling welfare state for about another 50 years at least. Given that, the best thing to do is to make our welfare state as pleasant and stable as it can be in the interim, and make a difference in smaller ways where possible (which to be clear could never be anything as large as even a single candidate let alone a whole party).


I think objectivists/little-l-libertarians/etc. make a difference in privacy policy--which is generally non-partisan. I think they can make a difference in immigration policy, which is partisan, but is in an unstable balance and is currently searching for answers. I think they can and have made a difference in drug policy. I think they can push for more rational, more "fair" taxes--that are more closely associated with one's actual use of government service--as long as they simultaneously don't try to push for lower taxes or the elimination of social security and the rest of the welfare state. I think they can have a lot of impact beating the drum that religion and capitalism are incompatible: split the Republicans and force them to make a hard choice between religion and capitalism.


Now, I don't personally think things are that grim in a global sense. We have pockets of terribleness and we have an overall burden around our necks that ideally shouldn't be there, but we're not in Soviet Russia and I don't think we're going there, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I like that platform Crow. My main concern though is that both parties tend to monopolize support for issues and present two wrong ideas. When we share idea with egalitarians, they act as though our reasons for sharing their beliefs are misguided or convenient. Same with Christians. How can this be avoided?  


  Anyways, I would look at what Paul McKeever advocates for his political party in Canada. I haven't listened to this podcast in a long time, but he basically advocated a political party that would take up popular freedom issues, and offer the populous a chance to elect candidates that would force change that the political establishment on both sides avoid. 



  So for instance, in Oklahoma we have all of these ridiculous liquor laws. No one really supports them, but neither party wants to risk dealing with that.  So running a candidate or political activity that promises action in that limited area on the basis of their political principles can help build trust with the public..


 Another example: The Institute for Justice is got on the front page of reddit today for its victory against a imminent domain action that was going to help Donald Trump get an extra parking space. Victories like this show serious real world principles that actually serve life.  This kind of stuff gives capitalism credibility. 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just finished listening to the recorded talk-show message with Paul McKeever. While I am less than inspired to initiate a Freedom Party of America here in the US, however I would be thrilled to have this guy emigrate to the US so I can vote for him. He can come to Wisconsin; the climate is a lot like Canada's. I feel filthy after hearing him pelt the Libertarian Party, but it'll shower off. I have admitted to having supported Libertarian politics for lack of anything that remotely represents my opinions. If my (small-l) libertarian views have no effect on those Republican or Democrat, my Objectivist views would be rejected out of hand. The average working person in America rejects philosophy, that is, once it goes beyond the cracker-barrel cliches, as McKeever pointed out. This McKeever guy is strictly Objectivist, without the didactic. Just try suggesting the removal of a religious symbol from a public place, or prohibit prayer in public schools or other ceremonies and see what happens. It's hard enough to explain the labyrinth of political finances that would be required to create a government that performed only that which is its proper function. Our citizens are thoroughly convinced that only "rich people" can get their candidates elected, and they're not entirely wrong. Are we going to wait until the Canadians re-invent political freedom? Please, give me more cause for hope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I think Objectivists should let go of GOPers.  Having listened to many of Ayn Rand's interactions with conservatives of her day, in a manner of engagement sadly missing today, I've concluded that today's GOP could use a little more time wandering in the desert.  Ryan's political distancing from Objectivism under pressure demonstrates the weakness of relying on contemporary GOP candidates to understand, let alone appreciate and act on the whole package Objectivism offers.


Objectivists should worry less about flirting with any particular party, and focus more on reaching the individual in all parties.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocate: I agree with you most sincerely. The Republicans have been enablers of crony-capitalists since the party was led by US Grant, to greater or lesser degrees. But what to do? I agree that approaching individuals, and engaging them in challenging discussion may cause them to question their own convictions. But convictions they have, and as irrational as those convictions may be, people tend to cling to them. It's too bad we don't have a "celebrity" spokesperson. We have no Brad nor Angelina. The best support I've seen in the broadcast media are libertarians, such as Penn Gillette, or parables through cartoon animation, such as Matt Stone and Trey Parker, producers of South Park. And while they offer little for solutions, I must give them credit for exposing the absurdity of Leftist and Right-wing moral claims. Discrediting Leftist culture is an important step; I've found that humor is the most persuasive means to convey a more serious point. Maybe I'm too bewildered by the perception that most Americans don't really care about anything, except playing games. Nothing matters as long as "I'm winning," (arm-pumping). As I've mentioned in other postings, we are rogue elements, free agents, ronin, in the so-called Culture War. This Culture War is the process of dividing and conquering the legislative process for the advantage of moochers. If we allow it to happen, we deserve it. At least we have a philosophy to secure our moral claims. As for those legions of voters holding "liberal" and "conservative" convictions, I guess I'll do my best to activate their minds one at a time. But like most of us, I have more important things to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A GOPer who accepts AR's philosophy, in effect, denounces religious faith, and almost guarantees he won't get re-elected.

One of the different types of run-off election processes is what I need to vote for a third party candidate. The two parties won't allow it.

Until a third party vote isn't a wasted vote, I won't let go of the GOP because compared to a Dem candidate, a GOP candidate will grow government a little bit slower.

Sounds mighty, pragmatic, like I gave up on my ideals.

I haven't. Run-off elections are possible. Then I can vote for a genuine hero of Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I like that platform Crow. My main concern though is that both parties tend to monopolize support for issues and present two wrong ideas. When we share idea with egalitarians, they act as though our reasons for sharing their beliefs are misguided or convenient. Same with Christians. How can this be avoided?  [...]


Don't share. :-)


Seriously, while politics might try to force you to pick some group to associate with, you should resist that. Don't support politicians or political parties. In this day and age you will only be compromising with evil every single time by definition. If a politician gets elected, that means they are not even remotely rational in their views. If they were, they wouldn't get elected.


This sucks, but this is reality ladies and gentlemen. Objectivists can only expect a (rare) victory on some point issue. Forget about a sweeping change and forget about having "the right candidate" in office since there is no such thing. If you let your emotions get in the way on this you'll end up with another Paul Ryan or Rand Paul--politicians who tell people, Objectivists included, what they want to hear in order to get elected.


Again, support an issue and make that issue a popular one, in your case getting rid of certain liquor laws. Invite both parties to cease upon your issue and exploit it for their own gain. Etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, I disagree with your assertion to simply support "an issue." Often that issue is the property, not solely own, but nonetheless the property of the Republican or Democratic Parties. If I recognized only, for example, federal spending as the issue, I would be committed to support the Republican candidate; if abortion was the only issue, the Democrats would be my choice. One is bound to support either the candidate that wants the Bible taught in public schools, or the party of government overreach. I think I understand your intent, that is, to support your favorite issue in conversation, or to develop a strong argument in the event you are required to make that argument. This has been my habit for a long time. But if the policy-maker that supports that issue is an irrational hack, demigod, basically blathering for big bucks, one either votes for him/her, or you allow his/her equally corrupt opponent to receive that vote. I do approve of your suggestion that the amplification of a key issue could make a difference, but only if there were some way to associate that issue with a specific candidate or party; the approach you described in the preceding post is that of the Canadian, Paul McKeever.

In general, most people vote against the candidate they most disapprove of, rather than cast a vote in favor. Most of us here agree that Democrats and Republicans, regardless of their original intentions, are corrupted at some point as they advance up the hierarchy of positions. Yet, most of us want to participate in the electoral system. And we don't want "throw away our vote," on a third-party candidate. I, for one, have no problem voting for the third-party. It establishes the fact that people are coming to the polls, but the candidates of the mainstream are not worthy.

Could the one issue most needed be ballot reform, an initiative to advance more political diversity. To clarify, what I'm suggesting is a way to introduce new and diverse parties that adopt a specific issue on national, state, local election ballots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Above was a Repairmain quote to which I say Amen, brother.


I support some type of run-off election system.


Many less-free countries use it.


Until then, I will pull the lever for the lesser of two evils: ®.


Because my issue is simply slowing the growth of government.


I haven't given up on my ideals. It just seems like it.

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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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