Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Confused About The Objectivists View On Republicans, Democrats, Etc

Rate this topic


Lateralus

Recommended Posts

First of all, I am not an Objectivist. I just discovered the philosophy recently and I plan on studying it.

Just reading what the members of this forum had to say about liberals/democrats and conservatives/republicans has made me unsure about what I know about both of these parties. I don't know if it's me or the members here who have their information mixed up. Let me explain...

Republicans of today, in my view, are religious conservatives. But Objectivists are (generally) Atheists and believe in secular government and (I'm not sure on this) are against social issues such as pro-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-school prayer. Which Democrats hold the same view on those issues. Democrats want a secular government, equality for all. Yet, these Objectivists think they're Conservatives. Because they are against Socialism/big government and pro-Capitalists. So these Objectivists are pro-social liberties and pro-economic liberties... on the political spectrum that indicates Libertarian. But these Objectivists are against them too because Libertarians are too Anarchists.

Back to Republicans. Why should Objectivists support this party? They have some kind of dangerous religious agenda. George Bush said it himself that he think Atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. Plus, they're trying to shove their silly ideas like Intelligent Design into science classes. Thus they're not the type to support reason.

But Democrats support Socialism and Altruism which goes against the philosophy.

I myself considered myself a liberal but I'm re-thinking about Altruism and espistemology and my values and I'm not sure anymore where I stand.

The point I'm trying to make is that I really can't see why Objectivists could support Republicans OR Democrats... so who or what do they support?

Edited by Lateralus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not attempt a thorough answer to these several questions, because I don't have time right now, but I wanted to correct one glaring error in Lateralus' post. He said: "George Bush said it himself that he think Atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots."

The is exactly opposite. In response to an interview question about precisely this, Bush answered the Atheists can certainly be patriots. Given time, I can track down a reference to this source -- it was discussed a lot before last year's election, when the issue of George Bush's religiosity was a hot topic among O-ists. Maybe a better route, however, would be to request that Lateralus cite his source for the postive claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not attempt a thorough answer to these several questions, because I don't have time right now, but I wanted to correct one glaring error in Lateralus' post. He said: "George Bush said it himself that he think Atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots."

I just googled it and found this:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?" GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

I don't know how true the source is, but I'm sure the original poster is refering to this exchange.

Also, I vote Republican, because I see it as a lesser evil. As it is, when it comes to voting, it's not as much as who'll do more good, but who'll do less damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Objectivists are (generally) Atheists and believe in secular government and (I'm not sure on this) are against social issues such as pro-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-school prayer.
First of all, Objectivism isn't necessarily bound by such concrete issues politically. It is a comprehensive philosophy in which certain views are reflected in the mainstream. Your studies will illuminate you, but to answer these specific ones ...

- Abortion is every woman's right. A fetus is a potential, a part of her body, and it is her values that determine its destiny.

- Gay marriage: disregarding the varying views on homosexuality, marriage is an interpersonal contract that should fall under the protection of law, not its mandates and prohibitions. Rights are not given by the state - they are self-evident. The State can - and regularly does - violate individual rights, and an official policy against gay marriage would be an example of aggregious government interference.

- School prayer: Objectivists are generally atheist and not fond of State-run education. A private school would have a right to require it, offer time for it, or not acknowledge it during school hours or on school property. It would be up to parents to decide which school they'll send their kids to. Basic capitalism: let the market decide for itself.

Democrats want a secular government, equality for all. Yet, these Objectivists think they're Conservatives. Because they are against Socialism/big government and pro-Capitalists. So these Objectivists are pro-social liberties and pro-economic liberties... on the political spectrum that indicates Libertarian. But these Objectivists are against them too because Libertarians are too Anarchists.

The bold area is wrong. Objectivists identify liberals properly: paternal government; state-mandated "equality"; centrally-planned, regulated economy.

Otherwise, on a surface level, you've got the right impression. Liberals/democrats do have socialistic tendencies, believing the State to be at least a safety net for those they label "unfortunate". Relief (welfare, universal health insurance, MediCare/Cade, Social Security, food stamps) for the "unfortunate" comes at great expense to the wealthiest citizens - society's producers - who must pay the lion's share of the taxes that fund these programs. Objectivists are for separating State and economics.

While "liberal" doesn't necessarily mean socialist, or "conservative" theocrat, "Libertarian" doesn't always mean anarchist ... but there are strong tendencies. Essentially, Libertarianism borrows surface-level ideas from Objectivism, but denies Objectivist metaphysics and ethics. Without those, Lib. policy wouldn't have the proper foundation to support itself, and the most likely consequences would create anarchy.

An example: both Objectvist and Libertarians would like to do away with income taxes. Many Libs enjoy the fantasy of an Executive Order banishing the IRS forever. People would have more money and the government would be forced to cut spending ... but those that live off entitlements would be left in the cold, starving and homeless. A likely result is a condition that makes income tax more established than it is now. A more rational view (one I've read a few O'ists mention) is, since income tax is part of a large, entangled economic system, the proper course would be to replace income tax gradually over time.

Back to Republicans. Why should Objectivists support this party? They have some kind of dangerous religious agenda ...

... Plus, they're trying to shove their silly ideas like Intelligent Design into science classes. Thus they're not the type to support reason.

...(skip)

The point I'm trying to make is that I really can't see why Objectivists could support Republicans OR Democrats... so who or what do they support?

Objectivists are individualists, so each person has a standard by which they will cast a vote. Some people vote against a candidate. Others abstain. Some write-in votes, and I'm sure there are a few that trust Libertarians. Some vote for a Rep or Dem based on a likely policy decision that is pertinent to their state or to the country's immediate needs. One guy votes for Kerry to prevent the President from installing Chrisian fundamentalists in positions of power; another guy votes for Bush because his was the lesser-stupid Iraq/Terror policy.

Without a real pro-capitalist, pro-individual rights, secular, and philosophically-guided political party out there, it's a personal decision. I think Objectivists do what most people do - vote their conscience. There is no "official Objectivist position" regarding politicians or parties ... only politicians'/parties' policies and the oft-misguided ideas they betray.

Edited by synthlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any Objectivist who supports conservativism. Supporting voting for a particular conservative candidate in some limited context does not equal supporting the conservative movement as such. If you see someone here who seems to be supporting conservativism, then I encourage you to reply to them and ask for clarification.

Here are some articles from the ARI on conservativism, to give you an idea.

Say "No" to Bush and His "Compassion"

The Conservative Welfare State

The Faith-Based Attack on Rational Government

Reclaiming the "Right"

Republican and Democratic--The Identical Party?

Religion and Capitalism Are Antithetical

The Fundamentalist Threat

FYI, Objectivism is equally critical of the "Left." (But I take it you have already seen some material to that effect? If not I can provide plenty of it...)

Remember also that many members of this board are not Objectivists, and even the ones that are (including myself) do not speak for Objectivism. (Only Ayn Rand's words speak for Objectivism)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all Republicans are religious. The religious wing of the party is just one (loud) aspect of it but there are a lot of other competing groups within the "big tent." I vote Republican and have off and on sent money to them during elections whereupon I get a card saying I'm a member but I certainly don't have any attachment to any religion or religious agendas.

I just think Republicans are more likely to support less regulations on business, and lower taxes and privatizing social security. Often this isn't the case, but the Democrats are nowhere near doing any of these things.

Although I'm unsure as to the value of working within, or through, a political party to cause change, I think the Republicans today are a far better bet then the Democrats.

- Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Historically, from the Sherman Act to Herbert Hoover to the Bush Administration, it is the conservatives, not the leftists, who have always been the major destroyers of the United States." Dr. Leonard Peikoff in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I have to say that I find it confusing as well. When I see so many Objectivist vote for republicans I can't help but to wonder why? Conservative republicans say they want to fight "big government" in the economic realm, which is a clear Objectivist value, but when it comes to social liberties that directly conflict with their unreasonable religious beliefs they want the government to outlaw it. So in my opinion conservatives still would like strong government control just not economically but in moral and intellectual freedom. It seems then the only way to piss Objectivists off is to mess with their money.

Edited by KnockOut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your on the right track, sort of, since money is the root of all good. However, the liberals don't want moral freedom, but freedom from morality. Also, they don't want intellectual freedom, but the freedom to enact their evil ideals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists historically tended to gravitate towards the GOP as the clear lesser of two evils, e.g. Nixon v. Humphrey or McGovern, Reagan v. whatever forgettable inutile mutts he ran against (I'm kidding of course). These neocon jerx like Bush and Rove are a disgrace to standard conservativism, and unspeakably vile w.r.t. Objectivism. The only thing that makes sense is a comparison to what the Dumbocrats have fielded. Of the three options, you can only support the donkeys as the cynical option. I don't know of any Objectivist who thinks that the elephant candidate is an actually good candidate.

In the contemporary context, I maintain that the elephants are the worst choice. They no longer support capitalism, and they do support religious statist. The mules at least are better on non-monetary issues, so since the elephants have sacrifices all traces of moral superiority, I can't see any reason to vote grey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] I really can't see why Objectivists could support Republicans OR Democrats... so who or what do they support?

Lateralus, Objectivism is a philosophy, the one which Ayn Rand created. A philosophy applies universally. It does not specify an ideology (which is an application of a philosophy to a particular milieu), nor a strategy, nor tactics (such as whom to vote for in a particular election).

If you want to know Ayn Rand's views on conservatives and liberals, as well as particular politicians of her time, then start with articles in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. (The latter is indispensable for any serious study of Objectivism.) Examples are: "Conservatives," "Conservatives vs. Liberals," "Liberals," "Libertarians," and "Rightists and Leftists."

You should also do a search of Oliver Computing's research CD, for names such as "Goldwater," for whom she had some respect, and "Reagan," whom she despised.

Further, I would urge you to be very cautious about anything you learn in this forum. Many who participate here are not Objectivists or are new to it and know little about it. If you want to know about Objectivism, then read its creator's own writings.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have to say that I find it confusing as well. When I see so many Objectivist vote for republicans I can't help but to wonder why? Conservative republicans say they want to fight "big government" in the economic realm, which is a clear Objectivist value, but when it comes to social liberties that directly conflict with their unreasonable religious beliefs they want the government to outlaw it. So in my opinion conservatives still would like strong government control just not economically but in moral and intellectual freedom. It seems then the only way to piss Objectivists off is to mess with their money.

I think this largely depends on who you consider the larger threat due to your personal, individual context. Leonard Peikoff, for instance, advocated voting for Kerry in last year's presidential election.

Most Objectivists (that I know) see your vote as a means of stating what principles you are choosing to stand for as most immeditately important. Peikoff explained that the reasons to vote for Bush (his stand on the Iraqi war, for instance) were negated by the fact that he had consistently failed to demonstrate, say, a real "hard nose", and that he was endorsing Kerry because he thought that Bush's inconsistency was far worse than Kerry's outright surrenderism.

It was my thinking that having an inconsistent but occasionally useful president was a greater value than an outright evil one, so I voted for Bush. I might be wrong about which compromise was best overall, but since some compromise was necessary regardless (there being no candidate with whom I could agree on all principles) it's up to the individual to weigh the alternatives.

I really don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that Objectivists can disagree on the applications of principles. Applications are always based on your personal context and knowledge. It is intrinsicists and subjectivists who believe that sharing an ideology means that you automatically come to the same conclusions about everything, intrinsicists because their conclusions are dictated to them, and subjectivists because they think they need to show solidarity in order to keep the universe doing what they want it to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, Libertarianism borrows surface-level ideas from Objectivism, but denies Objectivist metaphysics and ethics.

Libertarianism per se does not deny Objectivist metaphysics and ethics. It is a purely political belief system which takes no position on issues of metaphysics and ethics. (I realize that, to most Objectivists, that's just as evil; fine, I don't propose to beat that dead horse here.) Some individual libertarians deny Objectivist ideas; others (most of the founders of the Libertarian Party, I'm pretty sure) got their worldview straight from Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.

And the Schwartz quote referenced by Fear No Evil is just wrong. There may be some self-styled "libertarians" who reject "the legitimate state function of identifying and banning the use of force," but any mainstream description of libertarian beliefs, such as the platform of the Libertarian Party, clearly names these as the only proper functions of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists historically tended to gravitate towards the GOP as the clear lesser of two evils, e.g. Nixon v. Humphrey or McGovern, Reagan v. whatever forgettable inutile mutts he ran against (I'm kidding of course).

You are comparing President Carter, Mondale who had a glowing career as a senator from Minnesota, and Geraldine Ferraro from NY to inutile mutts?!

That's an insult to inutile mutts.

Though my dog only got 10 less electoral votes than Mondale did and he's not mobbed up like Ferraro. Though he does like peanuts like Carter, though I think he's more intelligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are comparing President Carter, Mondale who had a glowing career as a senator from Minnesota, and Geraldine Ferraro from NY to inutile mutts?!

That's an insult to inutile mutts.

My deepest apologies to any inutile mutts who may have been insulted by my thoughtless comments. I shall immediately grovel and pee all over the floor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Schwartz quote referenced by Fear No Evil is just wrong. There may be some self-styled "libertarians" who reject "the legitimate state function of identifying and banning the use of force," but any mainstream description of libertarian beliefs, such as the platform of the Libertarian Party, clearly names these as the only proper functions of government.

The scare quotes don't answer the obvious question, though: are those self-styled libertarian anarchists libertarians or not? If they aren't, then why don't the 'mainstream' libertarians firmly denounce them for trying to hijack their movement? And if they are, then it's correct to say that libertarianism as an ideology denies the necessity of government -- because people can hold that ideology while denying that government is necessary.

It's worth noting in this context that the Libertarian Party platform (at least the last time I read it in the early 1990s) did not unequivocally support the necessity of government. Instead it used mealy-mouthed phrasing like "governments, where they exist, must..." which was obviously intended to skid around the issue on wheels instead of addressing it forthrightly.

Personally, I recommend that people who think the Libertarians are useful allies in the defense of liberty start attending meetings of their local party affiliates. That's what I did, and what I saw there put me off the LP forever. If they're our best defense of liberty, then I'm off to buy my jackboots because I know which side is going to win.

On a more positive note, I agree with JMeganSnow's observation that many Objectivists vote strategically in defense of whatever principle they think is most urgent at the time of the election. In my own case, this usually means voting Republican because I'm in California. Out here the Democrats are whacked-out hard left loons, and the electable Republicans are moderates. If I lived in Georgia, this might be different -- I would almost certainly have voted for Zell Miller with great pleasure. I voted for Bush in 2004 for much the same reasons that JMeganSnow cited, but I'm currently registered as a Democrat so I can vote in their primaries. I'm planning to send some money to Bob Casey Jr.'s Senate campaign in Pennsylvania in 2006, in the hopes that he can knock off Rick Santorum -- a particularly vile religious conservative. There's no party loyalty here; it's a question of figuring out how to vote in specific cases in a way that best protects my values. (I may -- I emphasize *may* -- wind up voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, particularly if the Republicans look like they'll hold Congress. She seems moderately hawkish on foreign policy, and a GOP Congress could block the worst elements of her domestic program while the anti-war Democrats would be disarmed by a Democrat in the White House.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I may -- I emphasize *may* -- wind up voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, particularly if the Republicans look like they'll hold Congress. She seems moderately hawkish on foreign policy, and a GOP Congress could block the worst elements of her domestic program while the anti-war Democrats would be disarmed by a Democrat in the White House.)
Wow! That mirrors my sentiment as well; though I suspect that on voting day I'll be too sick to go vote!

The religious Republicans and folks like McCain must be kept in close check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, Hillary? I don't think I could ever vote for her. I just hate her so much. She's spoken the most nakedly altruistic statements I've heard out of a politician since.... well, Hitler I guess. The very thought of voting for her makes me ill.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry that you reject both Ayn Rand's position and that of her loyal supporter, Peter Schwartz. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I would strongly argue against your presumed "right" to promote your anti-Objectivist views on this forum. Ayn Rand repeatedly opposed the Libertarian Party. By what "right" do you presume to discuss the LP platform here?

I didn't think he was "promoting anti-Objectivist views;" I thought he was just making a correction.

While I have no particular desire to make a pro-libertarian case, it does seem a bit extreme to consider Dem/GOP support as contextually rational and libertarian support as "a betrayal of basic Objectivist principles." I understand why you and many others dislike the LP, but I see little argument against it here that doesn't similarly apply to the big parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scare quotes don't answer the obvious question, though: are those self-styled libertarian anarchists libertarians or not? If they aren't, then why don't the 'mainstream' libertarians firmly denounce them for trying to hijack their movement?
They do. The history of the libertarian movement is full of factional disputes as bitter as any between ARI and TOC, over this and other issues.

Personally, I recommend that people who think the Libertarians are useful allies in the defense of liberty start attending meetings of their local party affiliates. That's what I did, and what I saw there put me off the LP forever. If they're our best defense of liberty, then I'm off to buy my jackboots because I know which side is going to win.

If by this you mean that the Libertarian Party has little hope of ever getting more than lunatic-fringe vote totals, I sadly agree. (Here in Orange County, CA, a special Congressional election yesterday generated 880 votes for the LP candidate. . . and 1242 for the Green Party!)

However, I don't see Objectivists exerting any significant influence on the political process or the wider culture either. I take no pleasure in this observation; I fervently wish it were otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do. The history of the libertarian movement is full of factional disputes as bitter as any between ARI and TOC, over this and other issues.

I'll just say this doesn't match my own observations of Libertarian events and party documents. The events I've attended were well-supplied with anarchists who seemed to feel quite at home, and the LP platform and remarks on the issue by the LP candidate in 1996 and 2000 seemed designed to sweep the issue under the table rather than show the anarchists to the door. It's possible the party has improved on this since I last paid serious attention to it, but I doubt it.

However, I don't see Objectivists exerting any significant influence on the political process or the wider culture either. I take no pleasure in this observation; I fervently wish it were otherwise.

It's still early days, frankly. But there is a lot more going on now than there was, say, ten years ago.

Not long ago, Objectivist ideas were impossible to find in the media. Today millions of people see ARI spokespeople interviewed on TV news programs each year, and millions more read ARI op-ed pieces. Objectivist penetration of academia is proceeding more rapidly than I've ever seen, largely due to the good works of the OAC and the Anthem Foundation. There is a Fortune 500 company with an Objectivist CEO, who was once asked by Republican party leaders to consider a run for governor of North Carolina. (He declined.) The annual budget of the Ayn Rand Institute is currently larger than the annual budget of the Christian Coalition. (Granted, that's because the CC has imploded, but it's amusing nonetheless.)

We're a long way from a majority, and I expect things will get worse before they get better. Nevertheless, I do think we are making progress.

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...