Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dr. Peikoff on which party to vote for: GOP or Democrat

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Another point is that even though socialism has been discredited, environmentalism has not. So maybe the left do have some intact philosophical base.

Beyond that, the Left has embraced environmentalism as a form of religion. Michael Crichton has some interesting thoughts on the issue: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/sp...es_quote05.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't agree with his blanket condemnation of people who vote Republican or abstain from voting. Didn't Rand, at one point, abstain from voting?

I also can't agree that religious conservatism is more of a threat. Socialism is a much bigger and more immediate threat, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is too late to modify my initial response but after further contemplation, I am not sure if I agree wholeheartedly with the second to last sentence from Dr. Peikoff, considering that prominent Objectivists like Harry Binswanger endorsed President Bush in 2004. But even then I found Dr. Peikoff's argument to be more persuasive than Dr. Binswanger's.

That statement also rubbed me the wrong way. It comes across as arrogant and sophmorist, rather than measured and philosophical. Sort of like "if you don't believe the way I say you should, you're an ass". (I can't believe I'm disagreeing with the Good Doctor, but his statement a few years ago that he voted for Kerry did put me on that path).

While there are many that feel that G.W.B. is on a transparent mission to grab power, and that his latest proposals to suspend habeus corpus are nothing more than a return to Nazism in our time, we have seen what physical harm the Demoncrats have wrought on this nation's citizens, including the folks at Waco, TX, and Ruby Ridge, and others. There were more high profile abridgements of human rights during the Clinton/Reno years than any other year since the Japanese internment during WWII.

If these things are true about Mr. Bush and his attempt to dismantle our constitutionally protected freedoms, then the Good Doctor might wish to be more careful and less direct with his attacks on Bush, lest he might have another Library of Congress type of experience, only worse. If Bush is that dangerous (and there are some who swear that he is the Devil incarnate), then more subtle means of educating the public about dictatorships and the dangers of theocratic government need to be done, Ayn Rand style, not this mudslinging style that Dr. Peikoff seems to have stooped to of late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think either party will do much to curtail Islamist attacks, but I also don't think either will do so little as to really put me at terrible risk... the Islamists simply don't have that kind of power; yet. Yes, the war is a threat, but the fact is that our enemy is still quite weak. It is simply that we do not properly fight back. If I lived in France or Sweden it would be a different matter…

I don't think either party will do much to combat the growth of the welfare state; Bush has grown it more than Clinton ever did. Read Decline and Fall and you will know it is pointless to vote republican to protect your pocketbook.

There is a vast world of leftist views that are just waiting to be exploited... multiculturalism, environmentalism, veganism, epistemological nihilism.

This is my major concern. Dr. Peikoff's states that Socialism has had its day, but I need only look across the Atlantic to England to see what it would be like to live under the Democratic party. They disarm the populace and let criminals loose in the streets. Anyone who attempts to defend himself against crime - even in his own home - will suffer the wrath of the law, while the criminal will go free. That sort of situation is a real danger to my very life.

What I need to know is: what does he mean when he declares the left's ideologies to be dead? How does he know this? He says Socialism is dead, but what about all the other ideologies of the left? And if they are also dead, how does this make them less threatening when the evidence I see is that they are perfectly capable of making European nations into miserable hell-holes?

I need to know more. When is his DIM book coming out?!?

Oh, and I'll second Lazlo's comment that Antonio's accusations are inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my understanding is correct, intrincism too is based on the "primacy of consciousness". Intrincism is disguised subjectivism because it is ultimately based on whims rather than reality.

Perhaps I should not have described my substitution of "primacy of consciousness" for "intrinsicism" as an error when being imprecise would have been sufficient. However, intrinsicism is definitely distinct from subjectivism. Intrinsicism would be assuming faulty premises that might not necessarily have a basis in reality and then using (sound) deductive reasoning to glean knowledge. Prime examples of intrinsicists are Plato and Leibiniz. On the other hand, subjectivism is just being plain inconsistent. For example, the idea "that may be true for you, but that is not true for me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, I think Dr Peikoff is losing his grip on reality.

What happened to all the ominous changes the last election was supposed to bring? Where is the public swing towards theocracy?

I think gay marriage is an interesting indicator of the threat of theocracy. From March 1996 to June 2006, support for gay marriage rose from 27 to 39%. 35% of republicans and 37% of democrats support civil unions of some sort. Support is dramatically higher among younger people. Since Bush’s anti-gay marriage amendment, several states now recognize civil unions or domestic unions.

Where’s the proof? North Korea has the bomb, and I have more faith in the incompetence of George Bush than Kim Jong-Il. Really, I think it comes down to incompetence – who’s most likely to screw up at radical changes while good ideas have a chance to spread through our culture.

By the way, the #10 and #11 books on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list argue for atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Peikoff's states that Socialism has had its day, but I need only look across the Atlantic to England to see what it would be like to live under the Democratic party.
But compare this to Republican theocracy and its foreign analog, Iran.

Today, we talk about the threat of socialism - communism is so outmoded as to not even be a real consideration. Today, "liberal" is a pejorative term. Socialism isn't dead, but it's been beaten to a pulp.

On the other hand, theocratic ideals are thriving. Bible-based laws against abortion, homosexuality, for discretionary snooping, etc - these things "aren't that bad" so long as the economy's humming and no one's attacking us...

Unlike Democratic socialism, Republican theocracy is rarely checked in our society, either ideologically or politically. I can't speak for Peikoff, but this is why I think the Republican faults are more dangerous right now.

I don't think either party will do much to curtail Islamist attacks, but I also don't think either will do so little as to really put me at terrible risk...
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with some of Peikoff's points, but not all of them. How can I (as a NJ resident) pull the lever for Menendez - a corrupt, tax raising, anti-war sleezebag - over Tom Kean Jr. who voted for tax cuts and privitization of SS reforms?

Like a previous poster wrote: the economy is great. I give (as well as others like Larry Kudlow) credit to the Bush tax cuts which have juiced economic growth in America that isn't occuring other Western nations. Seems like we are the best of the worst, which isn't that bad.

I vote with my pocketbook, not because Im afraid of crosses and praying. Perhaps Dr. Peikoff has to be reminded that the Democrats have their own version of the "religious left" and morality police which potentially is much worse than what a neo-conservative has to offer.

Also, I agree that politics is local. Most of what effects you is at the township or county level. I'm a firm believer that national politicans are pretty much centerists that float wherever reelection will push them. If cutting taxes is popular, then even the liberals will vote for taxcuts. But, property taxes - for instance - are really controlled by state and local government entities. What about enforcement of the law? Again, another local issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, I think Dr Peikoff is losing his grip on reality.

I was going to say something like this, but figured I would get flamed for it. I remember thinking this when he endorsed Kerry. He's in his mid-70's after all...it's about the right time for him to start suffering from dementia and senility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to all the ominous changes the last election was supposed to bring? Where is the public swing towards theocracy?

If one of the biggest government spending increases on socialized medicine - prescription drug plan, under the guise of "compassionate conservatism" doesn't convince you I'm not sure what will. Peikoff isn't talking about an overt swing, but it's clear to me that when something like compassionate conservatism, which is nothing more than leftist socialist altruism recast in CHRISTIAN terms, can gain enough hold that such a bill as prescription drugs can be passed by Republicans, then the signs are there.

I was of the same "aw, the Republicans aren't so bad" attitude until OCON this year and Brad Thompson's talk on neo-conservatism. His follow up essay at TOS carries similar themes. Republican inability to control govt spending is not an accident. It is very much idea driven. I notice the details of this more and more.

There is a religions swing that is starting to take hold, and you can see it in mainstream conservative culture. Talk radio now has Medved and Ingraham, both avowed religionists. And the neo-conservatives are cooperating. As I've said, I don't think Peikoff is off his rocker, he is dead on about the trends. This is just a debate about when, not if. Yes, I'm still voting R this year, but there will come a time...

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if conservatives got everything they wanted?

- No gambling

- No drinking

- No pornography

- No blasphemy

- No abortions

- No contraception

- Prayer in schools

It wouldn't be great, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

A friend of mine who votes Democrat and I (who vote Republican) have this argument. He says to me "I vote D because the Republicans want to legislate morality." To which I say "I vote D because I look at my tax bill every year and realize that the left is already doing it." :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another forum (now closed) we had a running list of bills and law enforcement examples where liberal politicans or cities (San Fran, Seattle) took "moral stands" against "social ills". One, IIRC, wsa a stand against lapdances in Washington by a liberal politican that cited some religious moral reasoning.

The right-wing does not have the monopoly on religiousity in America. Look through any bookstore and you'll find probably dozen books in the current events and religious sections on liberal politics and religion (one that stands out is "God's Politics"). After all, Christianity isn't "conservative". It's a great base for socialism, and Christianity has replaced Marxism as the new reasoning for increased government control.

At the same time, we should look to thwart Republican whack-jobs like Santorum from PA but support good Republicans like Kean Jr. and George Allen (at least as good as they get... I'm a fan of Allen). Again, how can a free-marketer vote for Menendez, a corrupt, anti-market, anti-war, anti-reform dirtbag that was appointed to the Senate by his crony Corzine (who both happen to live in the same apartment building in Hoboken, NJ)? I mean, I know an informed Democrat who says that Menendez is as dirty as they come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one of the biggest government spending increases on socialized medicine - prescription drug plan, under the guise of "compassionate conservatism" doesn't convince you I'm not sure what will.

To me, "compassionate conservativism" is nothing more than the typical pandering the right does to leftist ideals.

There is a religions swing that is starting to take hold, and you can see it in mainstream conservative culture.

I see this as more of a polarization that began with Reagan and is fueled by talk radio. It may have ominous overtones, but what has it achieved? On the plus side of the polarization, the secular side is radicalizing as well:

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in favor of a Democratic congress proposing big spending and having it vetoed by a Republican president, as against a Republican congress proposing big spending and having it waved through by a Republican prez. So maybe it would be ok the Dems won back congress.

That's fine as long as the Repugnants can take back Congress when Hilary moves back to 1600 Pennsylvania. Otherwise we'd have a Democrap congress' spending being waved through (hell, whipped along like a racehorse down the stretch) by a Democrap president. Ask anyone who was around during the Lyndon Johnson years what that's like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, "compassionate conservativism" is nothing more than the typical pandering the right does to leftist ideals.

Read the link to the Brad Thompson's essay. What if it's no longer pandering, but an indicator of a shift in ideas? You may be right, but then who would I expect to spot a real idea shift earlier, but someone who believes in the Objectivist theory of history, and has studied it himself in depth. For this reason, I give Peikoff some leeway.

I'm not sure about a "polarization that began with Reagan and is fueled by talk radio". That sounds to me like an effect. Things don't just polarize by themselves without a cause, right? What's the cause? Actually, Rand hated Reagan specifically because of his religiosity. One would wonder if that doesn't bolster my point.

It's a tough issue, no doubt. Brad Thompson's essay convinced me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine who votes Democrat and I (who vote Republican) have this argument. He says to me "I vote D because the Republicans want to legislate morality." To which I say "I vote D because I look at my tax bill every year and realize that the left is already doing it." :lol:

Even in a Republican dominated congress the left is still managing to usher their liberal, tax-and-spend, agenda through! There is no stopping these guys! (sarcasm). Of course, I am sure that you were referring to a time when there were more Democrats with legislative power but I still wanted to be silly.

Otherwise, good posts. I am still voting Democrat this November in terms of choosing a Senator because Katherine Harris is running for the Republicans in the state where I am registered to vote.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand died before the Reaganomic revolution and before the downfall of the Soviet Union, in which he played so instrumental a part. Whatever flaws Reagan had with regards to religion are dwarfed by the economic good that he did for this country, not to mention the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Organization based question here, if Peikoff is the legal and philisophical heir to Ayn Rand, and considered the foremost authority on the topic, why does his most recent statement about voting Democrat (and how not doing so would demonstrate that you have "no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism") get posted on capmag.com but not on the ARI website? What are the factors in the ARI that are preventing him from making that statement in that venue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more worried he's seen a trend the rest of us have not, than that he is losing grip. He's at that age in his life where is able to perform very wide integrations.

For my love of Dr. Peikoff and his work, I hope you're right. For the welfare of myself and others in this country, I hope you're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Organization based question here, if Peikoff is the legal and philisophical heir to Ayn Rand, and considered the foremost authority on the topic, why does his most recent statement about voting Democrat (and how not doing so would demonstrate that you have "no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism") get posted on capmag.com but not on the ARI website? What are the factors in the ARI that are preventing him from making that statement in that venue?

The Ayn Rand Institute is incorporated as a 501©3 non-profit educational foundation. As such, it is prohibited by law from engaging in direct political advocacy, which would include the endorsement of one slate of candidates over another in an election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise, good posts. I am still voting Democrat this November in terms of choosing a Senator because Katherine Harris is running for the Republicans in the state where I am registered to vote.

Yikes, I heard her on Medved the other day. Yikes. Here is an example of the religious right taking over. If I was in Fla, I'd vote Democrat just to keep her out of office.

Michigan goes as Detroit votes, so my little republican vote is not enough to change our democratic senators, who are avowed socialists (Stabenow and Levin). Luckily my representative district is dominated by my company, and therefore always goes pro-business ("Goldwater") Republican.

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...