Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: Ted Cruz and Atlas Shrugged Against ObamaCare

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Brian, an interesting thing for one to do is research and consider the differences between the way Mrs. Rand talked about, and to, more libertarian types, contrasted with the way the ARI does currently.

 

Thank you Plasmatic, I've read "Ayn Rand Answers", to see her view of Libertarians and Conservatives, among others, who are not fully consistent with her philosophy. 

 

He should stop lying.

 

Objectivists should stop praising a liar.

 

"There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days-the conviction that ideas matter....That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one's mind matters..."

 

-- Ayn Rand, The "Inexplicable Personal Alchemy", The Objectivist, January, 1969

 

How's not supporting an individual that's trying to prevent an even more Socialist plan from taking effect in any way betraying this conviction? If ideas truly do matter, shouldn't an Objectivist see Ted Cruz as an opportunity to both, explicitly point out inconsistencies in his ideas AND prevent worse ideas from spreading? If one equates Miss Rand and her philosophy with Ted Cruz, then that's their error and low information voters who choose not to read her philosophy due to innocent ignorance or evil evasion who are not concerned with the power of ideas are beyond help anyways. As an example, many people demonize the free-market, which we've never had, and actually think that what we have today is Capitalism. Actually, I think ACA will collapse and upon this "trigger", Obama will say the failure is due to Capitalism, which will take the blame and be a scapegoat for the end game, fully socialized, universal healthcare.

 

Which politically active person is proposing an alternative, aside from Ted Cruz, that can inhibit more Socialism from taking hold? What if this is a stepping stone to jump upon shore, and not using it will drown out any chance that could have been?

 

To not appreciate what Ted Cruz has done for 21 hours on the senate floor seems rather malevolent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How's not supporting an individual that's trying to prevent an even more Socialist plan from taking effect in any way betraying this conviction? If ideas truly do matter, shouldn't an Objectivist see Ted Cruz as an opportunity to both, explicitly point out inconsistencies in his ideas AND prevent worse ideas from spreading? If one equates Miss Rand and her philosophy with Ted Cruz, then that's their error and low information voters who choose not to read her philosophy due to innocent ignorance or evil evasion who are not concerned with the power of ideas are beyond help anyways. As an example, many people demonize the free-market, which we've never had, and actually think that what we have today is Capitalism. Actually, I think ACA will collapse and upon this "trigger", Obama will say the failure is due to Capitalism, which will take the blame and be a scapegoat for the end game, fully socialized, universal healthcare.

 

Which politically active person is proposing an alternative, aside from Ted Cruz, that can inhibit more Socialism from taking hold? What if this is a stepping stone to jump upon shore, and not using it will drown out any chance that could have been?

 

To not appreciate what Ted Cruz has done for 21 hours on the senate floor seems rather malevolent.

 

Epistemology and Metaphysics trumps politics. The revolution Objectivism needs is a philosophical one. The battle cry of "round squares for liberty!" is not going to get anywhere. Ayn Rand wrote over, and over, and over again that unreason leads to tyranny regardless of what the short term might look like.

 

And what exactly do you think Ted did on the floor for 21 hours? It looked like a filibuster, but it wasn't a filibuster. It was pure bullishit. Is that what Objectivism now needs to rely on? Those who appeal to the lowest common denominator? Those who cannot think? If so, it's finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which politically active person is proposing an alternative, aside from Ted Cruz, that can inhibit more Socialism from taking hold? What if this is a stepping stone to jump upon shore, and not using it will drown out any chance that could have been?

Blabbing for 21 hours, saying nothing of substance, making poor arguments, failing to use those 21 hours to develop a plan, making a fool of himself, leaving behind no use of facts, no unifying thesis... He failed at many levels to demonstrate that he even cares a tiny bit about reason. Ted Cruz clearly has no commitment to truth, but he's sure good at complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should stop lying.

 

Objectivists should stop praising a liar.

Funny. But seriously, I'm trying to understand your position. If your options were to have the pre-Obamacare system or Obamacare, which would you prefer? Your statements lead me to believe you think Obamacare is better. Am I correct?

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blabbing for 21 hours, saying nothing of substance, making poor arguments, failing to use those 21 hours to develop a plan, making a fool of himself, leaving behind no use of facts, no unifying thesis...

I didn't see the whole thing. What little I saw consisted entirely of vague patriotic platitudes, so this evaluation may be correct regarding the content of his "filibuster." Cruz sure isn't a philosopher. Expecting him to make a sound moral argument against Obamacare while at the same time proposing a better plan is expecting too much. But it is probably right to expect him to make a better case than he did if he is going to pull a stunt like that. From what I understand, he was taking shots at Republican leadership. This seems to be more about who controls the party and establishing name recognition in the run up to the 2016 presidential race than it is about Obamacare. If that is his aim, the content of the filibuster doesn't really matter as long as the desired outcome is achieved. Of course, a well reasoned argument would certainly help achieve the outcome. Earlier I wrote this: 

 

Given that he probably knows his actions were not going to scuttle Obamacare, I assume his ploy was to keep up energy for and interest in de-funding it and eventually eliminating it. From what I can tell, he succeeded. Nothing about that is unreasonable. He damn well deserves praise for that.
 

 

It would have been better to say, "he deserves praise to the extent his ploy helps maintain momentum for eliminating Obamacare." It looks like a possible outcome is a division within the Republican party that withdraws momementum from repeal efforts. If that turns out to be the result, praise is out of the question.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epistemology and Metaphysics trumps politics. The revolution Objectivism needs is a philosophical one. The battle cry of "round squares for liberty!" is not going to get anywhere. Ayn Rand wrote over, and over, and over again that unreason leads to tyranny regardless of what the short term might look like.

 

And what exactly do you think Ted did on the floor for 21 hours? It looked like a filibuster, but it wasn't a filibuster. It was pure bullishit. Is that what Objectivism now needs to rely on? Those who appeal to the lowest common denominator? Those who cannot think? If so, it's finished.

 

Your first paragraph is 100% correct. The mistake you're making is thinking that Cruz becomes the last best hope of Objectivism when Objectivists praise him. The intellectual revolution will rise or fall irrespective of what Cruz does or doesn't say about Rand. He isn't an intellectual leader. I doubt that you would say Obama's rotten philosophy becomes an indictment of Objectivism when Objectivists praise his efforts to relax the drug war or sanction gay marriage. As with Obama, so with Cruz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blabbing for 21 hours, saying nothing of substance, making poor arguments, failing to use those 21 hours to develop a plan, making a fool of himself, leaving behind no use of facts, no unifying thesis... He failed at many levels to demonstrate that he even cares a tiny bit about reason. Ted Cruz clearly has no commitment to truth, but he's sure good at complaining.

Way to understand the concept "filibuster".

What did you do during those 21 hours, that was more useful than delaying the government's efforts to impose a multi-trillion dollar new entitlement program on the American people by 21 hours?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny. But seriously, I'm trying to understand your position. If your options were to have the pre-Obamacare system or Obamacare, which would you prefer? Your statements lead me to believe you think Obamacare is better. Am I correct?

 

I prefer that public voices for "Objectivism" don't praise somebody who willfully abandons reason as a centerpiece of his campaign.

 

As for OC itself, I don't have any earthly idea, but I know that before we had socialized medicine, and after we'll have... socialized medicine. Objectivists should be for neither of these. It's a sad commentary when Objectivists trade away their commitment to reason in exchange for some infinitesimal difference in the way in which we're enslaved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to understand the concept "filibuster".

What did you do during those 21 hours, that was more useful than delaying the government's efforts to impose a multi-trillion dollar new entitlement program on the American people by 21 hours?

 

"A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

 

Ted Cruz did none of those things. He did not prevent or even delay a vote. Everybody knows what a filibuster is and it's used for real all of the time, and when people tally up, "how many times have the demopublicans used the filibuster tool in xxx years" they will not count Ted's... thing.

 

I even watched a Fox News dude shake his head over Ted's farce. It even insults their intelligence.

 

(But it doesn't insult Nicky's intelligence... I wonder... why....? What is... missing there....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a filibuster! A filibuster stops a particular vote from occurring. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he wasn't in the way of anything at all.

I don't think you're wrong. You're much worse than just wrong. I think you're saying something you know nothing about for the sole purpose of disagreeing. That's not wrong, that's willfully irrational.

If you're really interested in exactly how the filibuster saved Tea Party efforts to link the budget proposal to delaying Obamacare (and why Democrats are now forced to either shut down parts of the government or accept delaying Obamacare by a year), it's explained in detail here: http://news.yahoo.com/senate-puts-obamacare-funding-back-into-spending-bill-and-sends-to-house-republicans-162322607.html

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you're wrong. You're much worse than just wrong. I think you're saying something you know nothing about for the sole purpose of disagreeing. That's not wrong, that's willfully irrational.

If you're really interested in exactly how the filibuster saved Tea Party efforts to link the budget proposal to delaying Obamacare (and why Democrats are now forced to either shut down parts of the government or accept delaying Obamacare by a year), it's explained in detail here: http://news.yahoo.com/senate-puts-obamacare-funding-back-into-spending-bill-and-sends-to-house-republicans-162322607.html

 

From the article so-linked:

 

"Earlier this week, Cruz delivered a 21-hour speech on the Senate floor to gain attention for the cause, but on Friday, most Senate Republicans rebuked his strategy and supported ending debate. That allowed Senate Democrats to reintroduce the Obamacare funding and pass it with only a majority vote."

 

The vote was going to occur whether Ted Cruz sat there and talked or not. He could have pissed his pants in front of everybody to make a point. Anything. No change in the voting schedule. None.

 

What do you expect from a guy that hold a love of Jesus and Ayn Rand in his head at the same time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Cruz couldn't muster enough support for the filibuster to succeed in delay does not change the fact that it was, strictly speaking, a filibuster. You can say you don't think it was a true filibuster because Cruz knew it wasn't likely to be successful. But don't try to make a mountain out of that molehill.

 

If the House amends the bill the Senate sent to them, again de-funding Obamacare, we may have Cruz to thank. His "filibuster" could be the test balloon that lets house conservatives know that their base supports such a move.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Cruz couldn't muster enough support for the filibuster to succeed in delay does not change the fact that it was, strictly speaking, a filibuster. You can say you don't think it was a true filibuster because Cruz knew it wasn't likely to be successful. But don't try to make a mountain out of that molehill.

 

Probably because he made no case at all when he spoke for 21 hours. Speaking for 21 hours is absolutely not a valid way to persuade anyone to do anything. Filibusters aren't supposed to garner support, but apparently Cruz was hoping a pseudo-filibuster would persuade other people to do a real filibuster? I really have no idea, I can't come up with even a devil's advocate argument to support what Cruz did. I feel as though the argument is that showmanship is better than any rational argument. I'm perplexed how speaking for 21 hours is better than even a 30 minute speech with substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Cruz couldn't muster enough support for the filibuster to succeed in delay does not change the fact that it was, strictly speaking, a filibuster. You can say you don't think it was a true filibuster because Cruz knew it wasn't likely to be successful. But don't try to make a mountain out of that molehill.

 

If the House amends the bill the Senate sent to them, again de-funding Obamacare, we may have Cruz to thank. His "filibuster" could be the test balloon that lets house conservatives know that their base supports such a move.

 

He was not trying to block a vote any more than me doing a rain dance was me trying to make it rain. That's the definition of a filibuster. The thing he did was a publicity stunt not anybody's definition of a filibuster. Did you even visit the Wikipedia link?

 

So now we're engaging in Orwellian doublespeak in his defense? Seriously? We're now supposed to accept that meaningless theatrics meant to impress idiots who don't understand are... what Objectivists are in favor of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Crow on ignore, but I assum

Probably because he made no case at all when he spoke for 21 hours. Speaking for 21 hours is absolutely not a valid way to persuade anyone to do anything. Filibusters aren't supposed to garner support, but apparently Cruz was hoping a pseudo-filibuster would persuade other people to do a real filibuster?

You can keep repeating the same nonsense, or just read up on what the purpose of the filibuster was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Crow on ignore, but I assumYou can keep repeating the same nonsense, or just read up on what the purpose of the filibuster was.

 

(Little does he know we all have read the definition of a filibuster on Wikipedia, and even read his link supposedly defending Cruz but actually also makes the case that Cruz is just a charlatan [presumably he didn't read that either]).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruz drew a distinction between which Republicans support ending debate on amendmending the bill that was sent to the house (the one that defunded Obamacare) and which ones supoorted proceeding with debates, amendments, and ultimately funding Obamacare. It was a succesful leadership gambit that didn't require a substantive speech. It couldn't be successful without dividing Republicans according to their support for a particular kind of procedure.

What was that procedure?

Filibuster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Crow on ignore, but I assumYou can keep repeating the same nonsense, or just read up on what the purpose of the filibuster was.

I'll call it a filibuster just for now then. Still, I see no reason to even say his idea was sensible. Substance over theatrics is what we should seek. Whatever you call it, wouldn't a substantive speech be better? Something about real ideas? Maybe it will work in the short term, but a long-term commitment to ideas and truth is always better. A commitment to truth requires more than what Cruz has done - I have no reason to praise him. I bet someone will say "at least he did something". Except, what good is "something" if he has no message to convey...  A short speech is good because people remember that. If Cruz made a rational argument before his stunt, things would be different. He didn't, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A substantive speech that outlined a proper course of action sure would have been better. I'm not praising Cruz for his ideas. If his leadership gambit works, and by that I mean leads to some delay or repeal of Obamacare, then it deserves praise. Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. A possible outcome is a government shutdown that lasts several weeks, Republicans backing down and funding the bill and a loss of support for getting rid of Obamacare in the long term. Cruz deserves harsh criticism if that happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was that procedure?

Filibuster.

 

What was the name of the bill he delayed the vote on? Give me its exact number, and when it was scheduled to be voted upon.

 

The only one I know about was a vote scheduled after this publicity stunt and not before or during. His speech changed absolutely nothing in terms of a vote.

 

So if you define filibuster as, "making a long speech in congress" then sure, it was a filibuster. If you go by the definition on Wikipedia then it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I read the article which contains the following sentence?

 

Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.

 

I read it. Filibuster isn't something written into law by name, therefore there is no formal definition. In common parlance any long-winded speech can be loosely described as a filibuster. But strictly speaking, a filibuster must delay a vote or debate. Nobody else can speak when a Senator occupies the senate podium, so yes, by definition any long-winded speech given in the Senate without the intent to provoke discussion prevents a back-and-forth exchange of points and thus qualifies as a filibuster. The process by which a filibuster ends is called cloture. The name of the bill associated with Cruz's filibuster is House Joint Resolution 57. Cloture was achieved on Wednesday, just after Cruz stepped down. What's strange is that Cruz began his speech after the motion to pursue cloture was passed. Normally cloture is pursued after a filibuster begins, so Reid must have suspected a filibuster was going to happen if it started to become clear that the Senate was going to amend H.J. Res. 57. The Senate has to wait a day before voting on cloture... So Cruz starts his speech 21 hours before the scheduled cloture vote, stepping down just prior to the vote because Senate rules require it. What makes this even more strange is something I realized when looking up the name of the bill, which is that all 100 Senators, including Cruz, voted for cloture. This falsifies something I said earlier:

 

Cruz drew a distinction between which Republicans support ending debate on [amending] the bill that was sent to the house (the one that defunded Obamacare) and which ones [supported] proceeding with debates, amendments, and ultimately funding Obamacare. It was a [successful] leadership gambit that didn't require a substantive speech. It couldn't be successful without dividing Republicans according to their support for a particular kind of procedure.

 

Firstly, filibuster isn't really a formal procedure, but that's not what I'm referring to. I had heard of a vote that split the Republicans and assumed that was the cloture vote. But no, Cruz votes for cloture, and later the Republicans split over amending the bill. So yes, it was a filibuster because it delayed debate. No, it didn't delay a vote. Yes, it looks more confusing and less praiseworthy in light of a unanimous vote for cloture. And, yes, this may still be a successful leadership gambit because it drew attention to the later vote to amend the bill.

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...