Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It seems to me that the Objectivist view is that non-Objectivists are not completely rational...that is to say that they have some irrational principles.

That is not the Objectivist view.

I suggest that you read the first essay in The Virtue of Selfishness. Ayn Rand describes her view of rationality in that article. And nowhere does she state that being an Objectivist is required to be fully rational. On the contrary, she says that:

The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action.

She never says nor implies that rationality requires a total commitment to Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of a single Republican legislator who advocates outright theocracy.

I don't know of a single Democratic legislator who advocates outright communism. If there was a card-carrying commie in our government, I think I would have heard about it. Thus, I guess that means there is no danger of America becoming communistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of a single Democratic legislator who advocates outright communism. If there was a card-carrying commie in our government, I think I would have heard about it. Thus, I guess that means there is no danger of America becoming communistic.

I'm not suggesting that any Democrats advocate outright communism. But I think that this country has moved further towards the direction of socialism than it has towards theocracy, which is why I find them to be much more threatening. The left is also much safer to make radical comments, than is the religious right. Someone who makes statements about "the common good" or the obligation of society to provide for "the less forutnate" is actually making a rather radically left statement, but few people in this country would recognize it as such and most people would never even hear about it. Then watch what happens next time a senator makes some statement suggesting that the Bible should form the basis of American law.

David made a good post, quite a ways back, illustrating how much these predictions of theocracy have failed in the past. I've actually found that our society is in a trend towards increasing secularism, despite the efforts of some big-name Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is certainly a more reasonable view, but from my earlier participation in this thread (and my rereading of it a couple hours ago), this is not the position that his defenders were taking. While it's more reasonable, I still think it's wrong.

I would agree here, but this was also early in the debate. The view I just presented is where I have come to, and I think also where Diana's essay on the topic ends up.

Someone can be thinking properly and still come to a different conclusion than another person who is thinking properly. Why? Because when determining which party has potential to be worse for this country, we are essentially predicting the future. A lot of it is based on past experience, but an equal amount is pure guesswork.

As to prediction of the future being partly pure guesswork. I would agree with that statement somewhat; however, be careful in making an appeal to ignorance. Reason seeks to understand the essential nature of things and in doing so, since things act according to their nature, one can then predict the future. Is the problem of politics complex? Yes, but the basic principles of political philosophy help us to understand what will work and what will not. If the decision to be made here relies on properly applying Objectivist philosophy to everyday life, and what is being missed is not part of the "unknown" part of the problem, then appealing to ignorance is turning your back on the principles that will allow you to predict the future. That falls squarely into the camp that Peikoff calls out as rationalistically missing the link between philsophy and everyday life, i.e. the mistaken rather than the immoral. We can debate whether or not that is true, and it certainly is a complex problem, but it may still mean that those who don't are mistaken. (not irrational, though, but mistaken.)

Most people have pointed to DIM, but as I've said "The Wreckage of the Concensus" was extremely enlightening to me. Also, ironically, I am just reading through The Objectivist Forum and right about the early 80's, just after Rand's death, they started reprinting some of her journal notes. Here is what she said very early on in her philosophic development. From a journal entry dated April 9, 1934 (at the height of the "left's" dominance in politics):

The human race has only two unlimmited capacidties: for suffering and for lying.

I want to fight religion as the root fo all human lying and the only excuse for suffering.

I believe - and I want to gather all the facts to illustrate this - that the worst curse on mankind is the ability to consier ideals as somethgin quite abstract and etached from one's everyday life. The ability of living and thinking quite differently, in other words elminating thinking from your actual life. This applied not to deliverate and conscioius hypocrites, but to those more dangerous and hopeless ones who, alone with themselves and to themselves, tolerate a complete break between their convisions and their lives, and still believe that they have convictions. To them - either their ideals or their lives are worthless - and usually both.

I hold religion reponsible for this.

...

Religion is also the first enemy of the ability to think. That ability is not used by men to one-tenth of its possiblity, yet before they learn to think they are discourage by being ordered to take things on faith. Faith as the worst curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought.

spelling errors mine

Then again, a lot of it is personal preferences. As I said earlier, I'd rather live in a country where I am banned from wearing shorts but get to keep my whole paycheck, than I would living in a country that takes half my paycheck but doesn't force me to abide by any religion's laws.

This one I'm going to take real issue with. Personal preference, or simply evaluating a party based upon the impact of its laws only to me is unprincipled decision-making. The first has some whim involved (if you really meant personal preference) and the second is pragmatism. If you really care about the future of the country, then the moral evaluation of a party should not rest simply on the personal impact of the laws they advocate today. This is the basis for pure democracy, rule of the majority, unleashed. I simply vote for what hurts me the least regardless of who else is hurt, and regardless of what foul principles we put into precedent. This is why I argued that the more imporant principle in Bush's tax cuts was not that my paycheck got bigger, but that the tax cut was more progressive. See you vote for a lower tax bill, but you also vote to shift the burden to the rich at the same time. If everyone votes on the basis of their tax bill, then soon the majority will vote all the taxes to the minority. Is it a big shift today? no. But the precedent is set, and it is set by both parties. There is no stopping it if this is the case.

Again, I don't think you are irrational, but if you really believe the last as a basis for rational choice, then I have to agree with Peikoff, that you are fundamentally missing the connection between philosophy and action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone who makes statements about "the common good" or the obligation of society to provide for "the less forutnate" is actually making a rather radically left statement, but few people in this country would recognize it as such and most people would never even hear about it.

According to this criteria, President Bush must be radically left:

The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.

Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities. And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless . . .

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens. Citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree here, but this was also early in the debate. The view I just presented is where I have come to, and I think also where Diana's essay on the topic ends up.

As to prediction of the future being partly pure guesswork. I would agree with that statement somewhat; however, be careful in making an appeal to ignorance. Reason seeks to understand the essential nature of things and in doing so, since things act according to their nature, one can then predict the future. Is the problem of politics complex? Yes, but the basic principles of political philosophy help us to understand what will work and what will not. If the decision to be made here relies on properly applying Objectivist philosophy to everyday life, and what is being missed is not part of the "unknown" part of the problem, then appealing to ignorance is turning your back on the principles that will allow you to predict the future. That falls squarely into the camp that Peikoff calls out as rationalistically missing the link between philsophy and everyday life, i.e. the mistaken rather than the immoral. We can debate whether or not that is true, and it certainly is a complex problem, but it may still mean that those who don't are mistaken. (not irrational, though, but mistaken.)

Most people have pointed to DIM, but as I've said "The Wreckage of the Concensus" was extremely enlightening to me. Also, ironically, I am just reading through The Objectivist Forum and right about the early 80's, just after Rand's death, they started reprinting some of her journal notes. Here is what she said very early on in her philosophic development. From a journal entry dated April 9, 1934 (at the height of the "left's" dominance in politics):

spelling errors mine

This one I'm going to take real issue with. Personal preference, or simply evaluating a party based upon the impact of its laws only to me is unprincipled decision-making. The first has some whim involved (if you really meant personal preference) and the second is pragmatism. If you really care about the future of the country, then the moral evaluation of a party should not rest simply on the personal impact of the laws they advocate today. This is the basis for pure democracy, rule of the majority, unleashed. I simply vote for what hurts me the least regardless of who else is hurt, and regardless of what foul principles we put into precedent. This is why I argued that the more imporant principle in Bush's tax cuts was not that my paycheck got bigger, but that the tax cut was more progressive. See you vote for a lower tax bill, but you also vote to shift the burden to the rich at the same time. If everyone votes on the basis of their tax bill, then soon the majority will vote all the taxes to the minority. Is it a big shift today? no. But the precedent is set, and it is set by both parties. There is no stopping it if this is the case.

Again, I don't think you are irrational, but if you really believe the last as a basis for rational choice, then I have to agree with Peikoff, that you are fundamentally missing the connection between philosophy and action.

You make some good points (and much clearer ones than other participants of this thread), but I'm gonna have to spend some time thinking about it before I make a proper response. Particularly on your last paragraph...I still think that I am perfectly justified in my judgement that I'd rather live in the UAE than France, but I need to do more thinking about the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this criteria, President Bush must be radically left:

:thumbsup:

In Bush's case, I think this is more a case of pragmatism than one of radical leftism. He says what he has to say to appease the left-wing. Granted, he also acts on these statements. But, I think that in the presence of a more capitalist Congress, he would not go down that road. It's still very damaging, but I think the root of the problem lies in the pressure he receives from the left. Bush has plenty of his own idiocies for us to make fun of, but I honestly don't think that he is ideologically a socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Bush's case, I think this is more a case of pragmatism than one of radical leftism. He says what he has to say to appease the left-wing. Granted, he also acts on these statements. But, I think that in the presence of a more capitalist Congress, he would not go down that road. It's still very damaging, but I think the root of the problem lies in the pressure he receives from the left. Bush has plenty of his own idiocies for us to make fun of, but I honestly don't think that he is ideologically a socialist.

Really? even in light of the medicare drug soon-to-be-crisis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Bush's case, I think this is more a case of pragmatism than one of radical leftism. He says what he has to say to appease the left-wing. Granted, he also acts on these statements. But, I think that in the presence of a more capitalist Congress, he would not go down that road. It's still very damaging, but I think the root of the problem lies in the pressure he receives from the left. Bush has plenty of his own idiocies for us to make fun of, but I honestly don't think that he is ideologically a socialist.

I disagree. While Bush is a pragmatist, he is also an altruist. It was the altruistic element, not the pragmatic one, that was showing in that quote. And while he has some reservations about forcing people to be altruistic, remember that his pragmatic element will do away with any resistance that this has to offer. After all, it's the "right" thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Bush's case, I think this is more a case of pragmatism than one of radical leftism. He says what he has to say to appease the left-wing. Granted, he also acts on these statements. But, I think that in the presence of a more capitalist Congress, he would not go down that road. It's still very damaging, but I think the root of the problem lies in the pressure he receives from the left. Bush has plenty of his own idiocies for us to make fun of, but I honestly don't think that he is ideologically a socialist.

I think this might be a bit circular. I'm not sure what "leftism", but I know what altruism is and as Inspector says, I think Bush isn't pretending. I think he believes some of what he says.

If you don't believe that the right can be just as altruistic as the left, I'd look for some of Brad Thompson's work on the neoconservative intellectual movement. It will be eye-opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually found that our society is in a trend towards increasing secularism, despite the efforts of some big-name Republicans.

I would generally agree, but not with the "despite" part. What worries me is that I have not seen such a strong backlash before as the one now starting to grow against secularism per se. And not just some big name Republicans. This is pervasive in the conservative media.

Medved (who regularly has debates on his show giving "Intelligent Design" a fair position)

Ingraham (a converted Catholic who rails against the secular, and also buys the new Intelligent Design lines)

O'reilly (a self described independant whose "Culture Warrior" takes aim directly at "secularism")

Bill Bennett

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about:

http://www.rationalmind.net/2007/01/29/bri...ng-on-fox-news/

It's one thing to take aim at the idiotic "progressive" policies of the left. It is another thing entirely to associate those policies with and also take aim at the one thing that will bring you to the correct policies: reason (as opposed to faith). What I see rising in the conservative media is a desire to attack atheism, as such, to replace the basis of conversation with faith, and then substitute their own version of "compassionate" socialism. (which is what compassionate conservatism is, and why I say that Bush believes what he says, not that he's caving to leftist pressure).

Look, I don't think this is an easy discussion - it's quite complex, and some of the mistakes Peikoff talks about in his statement are not mistakes of the newbies. They are advanced mistakes (most particularly, the rationalism aspect). I'm not trying to convince you to vote Democrate, but I am trying to convince you that a vote with the Republicans is not nearly as safe as you might think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw most of this documentary on HBO yesterday: Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi. I highly recommend it as up-close anecdotal evidence regarding the intensity of religious belief in the Bible Belt. It is not a statistical survey and excludes (I believe) heathen parts of the U.S. such as my hometown, New York, but the real-life portrayals and spontaneous interviews are disturbingly interesting.

What struck me the most is just how intensely these people believe in Christian doctrine. (Of course, they are all hypocrites; one funny juxtaposition shows a strip club next door to a gigantic cross. Certainly, those two behaviors need each other. Without the strip club there can be no cross and vice versa.)

I wasn't an adult before the 1980s when the Christian Right attained political ascendancy, but my impression is that in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, secularism was on the rise, and religion was looked on as something that was largely private and personal. Proselytizing and public displays of religiosity seemed to be relatively dormant, or directionally flat or declining in strength. Of course, I welcome the opinions of those "older and wiser" than me for their thoughts on the status of religiosity in those earlier decades compared with today.

My bottom line on the type of people shown in this film is that they're scary. Their mentality really does seem like the precursor to the type of mentality that commits terrorist acts. After all, a segment of these people blow up abortion clinics. They see themselves as "soldiers of God" and believe that they have a holy mission to make America Christian. As for politics, they preach from the pulpit which candidates to vote for, and they all seem to be Republicans.

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats definitely talk a more socialist line than the Republicans, but I question if they walk a more socialist one. In actual practice, the Republicans end up giving us Medicare prescriptions, socialist health care in Mass, socialist Healthcare (possibly) in California, Sarbanes-Oxley (a serious but under-reported problem for US business). In comparison to these, the minimum wage law (in the form it passed) does not have as large an impact. As for Barney Frank's anti CEO pay bill, the impact is minor, and anyway Bush agrees in principle.

So, I'd question the idea that the GOP is less likely to move the country closer to socialism. It seems clear that a GOP president with a GOP legislature won't help the country step away from socialism.

And, then there's my pet peeve: the GOP has taken a huge step toward being anti-immigrant.

In summary: it's not just about religion vs. socialism. It is a religious, xenophobic socialism versus the Democratic variant.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Of course, they are all hypocrites; one funny juxtaposition shows a strip club next door to a gigantic cross. Certainly, those two behaviors need each other. Without the strip club there can be no cross and vice versa.)

On a side note, this reminds me of a friend of mine. He lives in a seedy part of town (temporarily). He told me that he lives in the part of town that has only two kinds of bookstore: "Christian" and "adult." (this is literal truth; I've seen the town) "The two need each other" is very much hitting the nail on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats definitely talk a more socialist line than the Republicans, but I question if they walk a more socialist one. In actual practice, the Republicans end up giving us Medicare prescriptions, socialist health care in Mass, socialist Healthcare (possibly) in California, Sarbanes-Oxley (a serious but under-reported problem for US business). In comparison to these, the minimum wage law (in the form it passed) does not have as large an impact. As for Barney Frank's anti CEO pay bill, the impact is minor, and anyway Bush agrees in principle.

So, I'd question the idea that the GOP is less likely to move the country closer to socialism.

I completely agree. In my blog here I say, "Republicans are often worse enemies of capitalism than Democrats." I mean it.

I also make the point here that Republicans are essentially the same as Democrats when judged on economic matters, with the only key difference being the Republicans' greater willingness to violate separation of church and state.

And in foreign affairs, I contend here in a piece entitled, "President Bush--Big Talk and Little Action, a Dangerous Combination," that the Republicans may actually be worse than Democrats.

These views may not be controversial to many readers of this forum, but I am thoroughly convinced that Republicans, on balance, are no better for the economy than Democrats. They promulgate destructive policies with about the same frequency as Democrats, and relatively minor good policies with about the same frequency. However, within this pattern, there are big-time statists such as Republican President Richard Nixon, who massively expanded government power. So far on economic matters, I would call Bush a "Nixon-lite", although he is moving in the "Nixon-heavy" direction.

Politically, I think the Republicans are at their best when they are not in power. As the party of opposition, it is easier for them to be principled and pressure Democrats into adopting moderate positions. Remember when Bill Clinton said, "The era of Big Government is over."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you've all definitely giving me some things to think about. But allow me to make clear that I don't think Republicans to be the "safe vote," as one person put it. I recognize that they are dangerous. I just don't think they're as dangerous as the Democrats, for the following reasons:

  • They may be doing a terrible job fighting the war, but at least they recognize that it needs to be fought.
  • They may be moving this country towards socialism, but I think that they will progress it slower than the Democrats.
  • They recognize that America is not morally equivalent to Iran and North Korea. More often than not, their Christian beliefs don't even factor into this judgement.
  • Censorship tends to come from the left. McCain-Feingold included, since McCain is a Republican in name only. Look at the Fairness Doctrine or at the situation on today's college campuses. It is the left that continually tries to suppress the speech of its opponents.

But, like I've said, you've definitely given me some things to think about. The arguments in this thread over the past couple pages make infinitely more sense than the arguments that were made when I initially participated in this topic. So, while I'm still not sure I agree with your assessments of the situation, thank you for giving me some things to think about.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does Piekoff justify splitting ones moral code by voting for a lesser candidate and not a "good" Republican, or a good anything, anyone?? Is jhe of the "Kill them all and let god sort them out" metality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piekoff in the above statement sounds like only the Repubs are theists. Am I too assume that with the above pronuncement I have gotten "The Word"???

I love his lectures but his directions sometimes astound me.

Edited by RumbleFish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you've all definitely giving me some things to think about.

Seriously, you're only just now re-thinking those assumptions? Have you read Decline and fall? Have you actually listened to DIM? Have you been keeping up with The Objective Standard's blog? This is not new information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a reason the Republicans are able to pull off socialist schemes with impunity -- because their brand is identified with free-market ideas, and because they don't get much opposition from the other side.

...some things to think about.
Well, here's something more to think about, then. A savvy Democrat may find a way to co-opt some religious ideas and manage to placate objections from their own party because of the same reasons as above: their brand makes people think they won't "take it to unreasonable limits" and because they won't get push-back from the GOP. So, with a politically savvy Democrat in place, theism could get an actual boost through more government support, with less protest than today. Fortunately, I don't think any of the current crop of Democrat top-folk can pull it off; but if they get their equivalent of a Reagan, it could happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, with a politically savvy Democrat in place, theism could get an actual boost through more government support, with less protest than today. Fortunately, I don't think any of the current crop of Democrat top-folk can pull it off; but if they get their equivalent of a Reagan, it could happen.

Two words: Barack Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words: Barack Obama.

Barack Obama on the Left and Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Right. Between the two of them, we can get government-funded Bible study sessions to attend while we wait for government-provided heart surgery. That way, when we die because we couldn't get the surgery in time, at least we can be sure to get into heaven!

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's something more to think about, then. A savvy Democrat may find a way to co-opt some religious ideas and manage to placate objections from their own party because of the same reasons as above: their brand makes people think they won't "take it to unreasonable limits" and because they won't get push-back from the GOP. So, with a politically savvy Democrat in place, theism could get an actual boost through more government support, with less protest than today. Fortunately, I don't think any of the current crop of Democrat top-folk can pull it off; but if they get their equivalent of a Reagan, it could happen.

I've noticed for a while now that the religious left is on the rise. It may not happen in the next few years, but I think that it could eventually supplant the religious right. This is another reason why I can't find any justification for being less frightened by the Democrats.

And I think that Bill Clinton was the Democrat's Reagan. They look on him with the same nostalgia with which Republicans look on Reagan. Though I'm not a Republican, I must confess to a definite admiration for that man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I think that Bill Clinton was the Democrat's Reagan.
I don't think so. I understand that Democrats look back a bit wistfully at Clinton's ability to walk a kind of middle-road, and not fall prey to the "Disintegrated" value-rejecters in the party. However, Clinton never had an "Integrative" approach of his own. One can look back and say in general what Reagan stood for; something one cannot really do for Clinton. For the Democrats, the question is how long it will take for their internal "D's" to lose against their internal "I's". For this to happen, someone in the Democrat party has to take a risk and espouse a philosophy, instead of merely trying to say how bad the GOP is.
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...