Reblogged:Two Objectivists on the Presidential Election

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Over at Capitalism Magazine appears "Anti-Trumpites for Trump," by Leonard Peikoff, which I think is the best case that can be made for voting for Trump in tomorrow's election. I read this after viewing an interview of Peikoff by James Valliant on the same topic, and find the piece both a better presentation of that case, and easier to to comment on.

Specifically, the piece is better at laying out the positive case and is far better at acknowledging some of the many problems with Trump.

(This said, in neither place does Peikoff address Trump's disturbing and disgraceful admiration of dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. Is Trump a power-luster -- or does he think the only way to "save America" is to become a dictator himself? There is no comfort if either explanation applies, and I struggle to imagine an explanation that doesn't reflect badly on him.)

Yaron Brook makes best case for Harris on his podcast, within the episode titled "Why I'm NO on Trump," which is embedded below.

As I told a friend yesterday, I'll be casting a vote for Harris, but I can't summon a clarion call to do so: The choices are that atrocious, as I think one can gather from a couple of comments I'll make on the Peikoff piece.

Peikoff, to my understanding, argues that Trump genuinely loves America and, although he does not deeply understand what makes our country great, he will fight for it. Trump is, at an imperfect, sense-of-life level, for example, pro-capitalist, anti-woke, and pro-American self-interest. (Peikoff lists off these positives under "Trump's analysis of Americanism," and then gives "some Trumpian negatives.")

As I have myself have allowed in the past, Trump may well be, in a very imperfect, mostly emotional way, pro-American.

That said, I am very concerned that the combination of some of the weaknesses of Trump and the Republicans, both of which Peikoff acknowledges, could more than undercut any positives.

For example, Peikoff notes:

Trump is not an intellectual. He is often an emotionalist in voicing his viewpoint. If he feels an emotion strongly, especially in defense of what he regards as justice, he can say outrageous things that have no bearing on his policies. For example, when he was convinced that he was cheated in the election of 2020, his statement about the Constitution amounted to the assertion, "the courts be damned!" But, in the end, he left office peacefully.

Unlike Harris' assaults on the Constitution, Trump's assertions were a matter of outrage -- he believed that the election had been stolen -- and he saw himself as fighting for America.

In contrast, of course, Harris would alter the nature of Supreme Court itself, end the Electoral College, destroy the filibuster, and anything else that might limit the government's power. The threats from Harris to the founding documents are philosophical in nature, not just verbiage, but permanent and fundamental changes, with all of the practical consequences this implies.

Set aside that Trump persists in claiming that he did not lose the 2020 election: It was, in fact, Pence's refusal to cave in to Trump's demand not to certify that result, just as it was that election officials in Georgia didn't "find" more votes for him that made this demand irrelevant.

And as I believe Yaron Brook notes in his podcast, there are plenty of other instances of Trump being stopped from acting on his impulses by the people who were around him during his first term.

Trump's impulses may have often had no "bearing on his policies," but an important part of why they didn't would be absent in a second term: Considering the intellectual influences on and statist orientation of his awful vice-presidential pick, J.D. Vance -- not to mention the numerous people from Trump's administration who will not work for him again, who will there be to hold him back from doing something that could destroy the Republic?

Peikoff himself would have to admit this problem, based on how he answers the argument that a heavy Trump loss would force the GOP to rethink its recent trajectory:

Some Objectivists claim that if Trump loses that will "cleanse" the GOP. I would ask them the following:

1. Who is this Republican who could magically transform the GOP?

2. After four or eight years of Harris, what would be left of the American system, individual rights, freedom of speech, honest elections, et al.?

Who is this Republican indeed?

If there is nothing better waiting in the wings, there is nothing better restraining Trump, either.

This is a great point, and has helped me understand why I can't offer a full-throated endorsement one way or the other. Whichever party loses is, in today's irrational, anti-freedom cultural and political climate, more apt to double down on what caused them to alienate pro-freedom and centrist voters than to question it.

So, yes, the election won't "cleanse" anything, so we're down to the question of which side buys more time for America to change course: In my view, however horrible Harris is, at least she still has to go through Congress to enact the worst parts of her agenda. Because of this, she is more an ally of the American system, even if for nefarious reasons, than Trump is.

Trump, as Brook has pointed out, can unilaterally sledgehammer the economy by raising tariffs on his own. Trump's unpredictability/impulsivity can be an advantage, as Peikoff points out, but it can also destroy the American system without decent advisors around him to calm him down. He has tried to once, and he's a safe bet to do so again.

There will be no decent advisors, as far as I can see the second time around.

So yes, while the left is attempting to destroy America from within, at least it is using our system against us. Trump could well destroy that system and, with it, America.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[Jon Letendre]

Which destruction during 2016-2020 would you rate the most destructive?

$1.75 gas?

Peace in Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, Lebanon?

Invitation to the Forbidden City, as no foreign leader had ever been before?

Visiting North Korea in person and in peace, like no President had been invited to do before?

No need to speculate, he was President for four years.

Explain it to me like I wasn't there, thriving.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Jon Letendre

[SpookyKitty]

Donald Trump is a Nazi, and I have no idea how some of you can vote for him and call yourselves Objectivists.

Shameful. Utterly shameful and disgusting.
 

Edited November 4, 2024 by SpookyKitty

[Jon Letendre]

So, we were all forced to speak German during 2016-2020, is that your answer as you recall things?

[SpookyKitty]

In addition to putting known Neo-Nazis in his cabinet, like Stephen Miller (*spits*), he is also an extremely immoral person. He is a convicted fraudster and rapist. He is most likely a pedophile, and a traitor to his country and the Constitution.

Anyone who supports him should be treated as if they were all of the above as well.

Edited November 4, 2024 by SpookyKitty

[Jon Letendre]

Just now, SpookyKitty said:

In addition to putting known Neo-Nazis in his cabinet, like Stephen Miller (*spits*), he is also an extremely immoral person. He is a convicted fraudster, rapist, pedophile, and a traitor to his country and the Constitution.

And the destruction to my country and person during 2016-2020 was ... 

[SpookyKitty]

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

And the destruction to my country and person during 2016-2020 was ... 

Nazi Germany suffered no harm in 2016-2020, you will be relieved to hear.

[Jon Letendre]

4 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

In addition to putting known Neo-Nazis in his cabinet, like Stephen Miller (*spits*), he is also an extremely immoral person. He is a convicted fraudster and rapist. He is most likely a pedophile, and a traitor to his country and the Constitution.

Anyone who supports him should be treated as if they were all of the above as well.

That last part sounds like support for violence.

I thought that was discouraged, here.

[necrovore]

1 hour ago, Gus Van Horn blog said:

in neither place does Peikoff address Trump's disturbing and disgraceful admiration of dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. Is Trump a power-luster -- or does he think the only way to "save America" is to become a dictator himself? There is no comfort if either explanation applies, and I struggle to imagine an explanation that doesn't reflect badly on him.

I suspect it's a negotiation tactic on Trump's part to make his opponents more receptive to his ideas.

Obviously he doesn't do it in all cases, but he's shown some reversals, going from making up bad names for people (like when he called Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man") to heaping praise upon them, e.g., when opponents such as Nikki Haley came around to his side he started praising her.

This is superficial and not deep.

Edited November 4, 2024 by necrovore

[SpookyKitty]

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

That last part sounds like support for violence.

I thought that was discouraged, here.

Nein! Das ist "Free Speech".

[Jon Letendre]

 

3 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Nein! Das ist "Free Speech".

Please keep it up. Most people who get to see what really makes your side tick will become motivated to vote Trump harder. Please do keep it up.

[SpookyKitty]

2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Please keep it up. Most people who get to see what really makes your side tick will become motivated to vote Trump harder. Please do keep it up.

Hitler had a better chance of surviving his own suicide (only correct decision he ever made) than Trump does of winning this election.

Welcome to the trash heap of history, Herr Letendre.

[DavidOdden]

11 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Hitler had a better chance of surviving his own suicide (only correct decision he ever made) than Trump does of winning this election.

Although Trump is utterly deplorable and deserves to be consigned to the historical oubliette, this is just fantasy-reasoning. He stands a substantial chance of winning tomorrow, thanks to the fact that the Democrats could not offer a stronger candidate. The only thing Harris has going for her is the argument "At least she is not Trump".

[Jon Letendre]

2 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Although Trump is utterly deplorable and deserves to be consigned to the historical oubliette, this is just fantasy-reasoning. He stands a substantial chance of winning tomorrow, thanks to the fact that the Democrats could not offer a stronger candidate. The only thing Harris has going for her is the argument "At least she is not Trump".

The Democrat Party is in the hands now of people who do not care what Democrat voters want. The Republican Party had that problem, too.

[Jon Letendre]

Speaking of fantasy-reasoning, presenting THE NAZI:

Trump Becomes First Sitting U.S. President to Visit Western Wall

[tadmjones]

But SK thinks the Jews are the Nazis

[necrovore]

As for the Nazism stuff... the only reason the Nazis were able to pull off the Holocaust was because they got rid of free speech, took control of the press, and prevented any news of it. Most Germans were unaware that the Holocaust was going on, although they heard rumors, which were thought to be misinformation or disinformation. (Although there was also some willful self-deception.) It wasn't until after the war that the US made a point of showing the German people what had happened.

It's the Left that wants to get rid of free speech. This paves the way for government misconduct, including "holocaust-level" misconduct. Trump's side supports free speech, and precisely for that reason, he'd be unable to get away with something like the Holocaust, even if he wanted to do one, which he doesn't.

(Also there are a lot of actual Nazis working for Ukraine including that actual Nazi war criminal who was invited to Canada by Trudeau to be applauded by the Parliament...)

(Also it's people on the left who fantasize about "re-education camps" for Trump supporters, sometimes in private and caught by Project Veritas, but sometimes out in the open.)

All that being said, I do think the religious Moral Majority people deserve a lot of blame for driving otherwise good freedom-loving people into the arms of the Left.

Edited November 4, 2024 by necrovore

[SpookyKitty]

24 minutes ago, necrovore said:

As for the Nazism stuff... the only reason the Nazis were able to pull off the Holocaust was because they got rid of free speech, took control of the press, and prevented any news of it. Most Germans were unaware that the Holocaust was going on, although they heard rumors, which were thought to be misinformation or disinformation. (Although there was also some willful self-deception.) It wasn't until after the war that the US made a point of showing the German people what had happened.

It's the Left that wants to get rid of free speech. This paves the way for government misconduct, including "holocaust-level" misconduct. Trump's side supports free speech, and precisely for that reason, he'd be unable to get away with something like the Holocaust, even if he wanted to do one, which he doesn't.

(Also there are a lot of actual Nazis working for Ukraine including that actual Nazi war criminal who was invited to Canada by Trudeau to be applauded by the Parliament...)

(Also it's people on the left who fantasize about "re-education camps" for Trump supporters, sometimes in private and caught by Project Veritas, but sometimes out in the open.)

All that being said, I do think the religious Moral Majority people deserve a lot of blame for driving otherwise good freedom-loving people into the arms of the Left.

Trump's side is literally banning books about the holocaust.

[SpookyKitty]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

Although Trump is utterly deplorable and deserves to be consigned to the historical oubliette, this is just fantasy-reasoning. He stands a substantial chance of winning tomorrow, thanks to the fact that the Democrats could not offer a stronger candidate. The only thing Harris has going for her is the argument "At least she is not Trump".

Stronger in what sense? If she were more left, she would lose the center. If she were more right, she would lose the left. Harris is the ideal candidate for defeating Trump.

[SpookyKitty]

55 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Speaking of fantasy-reasoning, presenting THE NAZI:

Trump Becomes First Sitting U.S. President to Visit Western Wall

 

"But Hitler shook that black athlete's hand that one time! He can't possibly be racist!"

-Morons

[DavidOdden]

1 minute ago, SpookyKitty said:

Harris is the ideal candidate for defeating Trump.

We'll know soon enough. Or, not soon enough.

[SpookyKitty]

1 minute ago, DavidOdden said:

We'll know soon enough. Or, not soon enough.

I already know. I used induction. 😎

[necrovore]

7 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Trump's side is literally banning books about the holocaust.

That's probably some of the Moral Majority people in some school district or other. It is not a Trump policy.

[SpookyKitty]

Just now, necrovore said:

That's probably some of the Moral Majority people in some school district or other. It is not a Trump policy.

"The Moral Majority people" ARE Trump's side. They are virtually his entire base.

[tadmjones]

I think you are confusing your political aphorisms, by Moral Majority are you referring to evangelical Christians? Because Trump's base is pretty much what Nixon referred to as the Silent Majority, what today most call the 'flyover' folks.