Reblog: The “objective” label in electoral politics

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2013/09/15/neither-conservative-nor-liberal-nor-libertarian-the-objective-label-in-electoral-politics/

 

In 2010, I produced my third episode of “Freedom School” with an actual group of people in London (the entire Freedom School series is available as a playlist on youtube, here) who were members or supporters of the political party I lead in Ontario, Canada: Freedom Party of Ontario (FPO). At one point during the session, the issue arose of what an FPO candidate or representative should call him/herself if he faces the “Are you liberal, conservative, libertarian?” question. My position then – as now – is that the candidate/representative should not call himself an “Objectivist” (which is a term referring to someone whose personal philosophy is that identified by author/philosopher Ayn Rand), but I didn’t get into why I held that position (the conversation went off in a different direction). Recently (see e-mails below) two Objectivists who have watched episode 3 of Freedom School have asked for my reasons. I’ve decided here to present, briefly, my reasoning against using the term “Objectivist” to refer to ones political orientation in an electoral context, and also to explain what a FPO supporter (and all others who share FPO’s views on the proper way to govern) should call himself.

As a matter of describing my personal philosophy, I’d always say that I am an Objectivist. And, for all who areObjectivists and who are discussing their philosophy, I see nothing wrong with saying one is an Objectivist.

However, electoral politics is not and – if you want to win – cannot ever be equivalent to a discussion about your philosophy. A political party’s purpose is not to change anyone’s philosophy (indeed, most people will live and die without ever even trying to identify the philosophy that is guiding their own decisions and actions) or to educate the public about philosophy. A political party’s purpose is to win seats and thereby to make government do what the party believes government should be doing. A party – every party – is a power-seeker that may or may not know what to do with the power once it is obtained. If a party’s policies or election planks are guided by a philosophy, that might be a good thing (depending upon the philosophy), but that does not mean that the party should go about pushing its philosophy. Instead, it presents – to the extent it is *electorally* advantageous – the results of applying that philosophy to the issues at hand. Were a political party a restauranteur, it would sell the tasty dish, not the recipe, and it would list only the dishes that would encourage people to enter the restaurant. Just as the restaurant’s patron wants good food rather than a piece of paper with instructions on how to make it, the voter wants good governance, not a course in philosophy.

FPO is a party that does have a philosophy, but it is not a personal philosophy. Rather it is a philosophy for government decision making and action. FPO’s philosophy of governance determines its range of proposed solutions to issues facing the province. FPO’s philosophy does not restrict itself to the political branch of philosophy, but addresses the entire philosophical hierarchy, from metaphysics, to epistemology, to ethics, to politics (in that logical order). It is expressed in the Freedom Party International (“FPI”) logo (you can read my extended explanation about the logo here) as: “Reality. Reason. Self. Consent.”

 

More on:  http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2013/09/15/neither-conservative-nor-liberal-nor-libertarian-the-objective-label-in-electoral-politics/