Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

Well, I wasn't talking so much about their personalities, as much as the way the respective parties look back on their leaders. But I definitely see your point.

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:

Moose, well my thinking has evolved over the course as well. When the statement first came out I was on the fence. I am still debating what and how a vote means and if Peikoff's directive is really the right way to use my vote. However, I after thinking through lots of variations, I have come to agree with his characterization of the situation completely.

They may be doing a terrible job fighting the war, but at least they recognize that it needs to be fought.

I will suggest that this is again real life divorced from ideas. I like the fact that they think it needs to be fought, but that does not forgive the fact that they will fail in fighting it. They do not recognize their fundamental error in ideas, which is two fold (1. failing to properly identify their enemy - islam and religion as such, and 2. Choosing only options to fight that fit a failed altruistic morality - the Just War Doctrine), but if you do, then you can predict the future. For major decisions like entering and winning this war, you have to have the whole package. If you don't then it is better that you do not start.

I know that Democrats advocate a pull out because they fundamentally hate America. It pains me to agree with them on anything, because I fundamentally love America.

But to be clear I advocate first figthing this war to win on proper principles and on proper strategy, and if that cannot be done, then we must not fight it at all, because we will fail without those principles. The middle road is the most dangerous because it sacrifices our soldiers, and leaves us less secure for the cost spent. It does not matter how much Repbulicans see the need. If they are not qualified lead us to the proper outcome, then we must admit that.

Col Ralph Peters, who is one of my favorite analysts of the current foreign policy (he gets the military strategy, and identification right) was on Medved this week (or last?). He pretty much took your position, that we must continue to support the administration. However in his military analysis of the "surge" policy, he almost as much as admitted that he did not believe this policy would work. You could tell that it pained him to do so, and he didn't come out and say it directly. You can get the tone of it in this op-ed. Now, if as he says, our commitment shouldn't be open ended, but our current strategy is doubtful to work, but we should continue the fight anyway - isn't this pure altruism? Isn't he really saying, "given the choice between defeat today, and defeat in 9 months, we should take defeat in 9 months." Is this what you're saying. Could you really stand face to face with a US soldier and tell him/her that Iraq will fail given its current course, but because you hate the Democrats so much, you will make sure that it fails in one year, not right now, and so risk his life for nothing? If we were purging the Iraqi constitution of Islam, and taking the fight to Iran, I'd have no compunction about proudly standing in front of that soldier and asking him to go. I can't pass the red face test on the current policy, though.

They may be moving this country towards socialism, but I think that they will progress it slower than the Democrats.

When you agree with the Democrats in principle that we have duties and responsibilities to society to take care of our weak and our poor in a compassionate manner, and differ only in the manner in which that is done, then you have disarmed yourself from putting up any major resistance, and the result will be only variations in how those principles come to fruition. Again, if you believe that ideas and reality have to be integrated, then the worst defenders you can find are the ones who abandon their ideas.

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.

But what if their Christian beliefs prevent them from properly determining the threat? and so successfully countering it. Again, it matters not to me if wrong actions come from partially correct ideas. No credit for getting it half right. Ideas matter because the resulting actions and their outcomes matter.

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.

If by RINO you mean half-hearted defenders of individual liberties and capitalism, then aren't most Republicans, RINO's? Somehow you want to exclude McCain from something when that something is such a hash that McCain really has no trouble fitting in himself. As SN said, you have fallen for the Republican brand, not it's true nature. RINO belongs in an age where there are Barry Goldwaters to be found in the party. Where are the Goldwater Republicans represented today?

As to censorship, do you really believe that the left has cornered the market?

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/censor-alert/806/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/...ain691106.shtml

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../NEWS/701260363

This is a tough nut, this connection between ideas and action, and how we should make moral judgements accordingly. 2 or 3 years ago I was where you are. But you know, as I read and re-read more Rand I find that she was NEVER where I was. She never seems to have held the "better of two evils" sort of position about the Republicans. Yes, she advocated votes for them in certain elections, but it was never on this basis, but always on something that was contextual.

In this thread I gave some early Rand quoted from a reprint in the Objectivist Forum. Also in that collection [December 1983 issue] are some notes from her journals on Atlas Shrugged, specifically dealing with Dagny and her refusal to join the strikers. Rand goes into much detail about the fundamental mistake that she makes, and it is telling about this very discussion as well. And she discusses how she ultimately is helping her own destroyers by in essence giving power to their actions.

By accepting [James]Taggart's decisions, which she knows to be wrong, then by helping him to carry out bad ideas well (such as putting her efficiency into an efficient delivery of "soybean freight" when it should never have been attempted at all), she only helps him to run the railroad badly and thus contradicts and defeats her own purpose, which was to run it well. She postpones the natural consequences of his bad decisions (which would be disastrous) and thus leaves him free and gives him the means to do more damage to the railroad by more bad decisions, and worse ones.

A bad thing well done is more dangerous and disasterous than a bad thing badly done. (Such as: an efficient robbery is worse for the victim than an inefficient one.) (Also: the fool Republicans who help the New Deal to enforce unworkable regulations destroy their own industries - because unworkable regulations inefficiently enforced would give the industries a better chance to function and survive.)

...

By definition here, I could not (like all the damn Republicans fools) say that I would accomplish my purpose in spite of such compromises: if I consider the outside suggestions [for edits to one of her books] bad, that means they are bad for my book and its purpose, therefore by accepting them I defeat my purpose. (Yet this is just what all men mixed by the "social" considerations are doing nowadays. And this, in more complex form, is what Dagny does.)

emphasis hers, spelling errors mine.

She attributes her error to her natural [Objectivist] optimism being improperly extended to those who do not deserve it, and she also says it is a subtle and difficult error to understand. I would suggest that part of this debate here may center on errors of that type.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall,

Nice post. I agree with what you say.

When I think about the political parties, I focus primarily on what they do. In terms of actions, the parties are identical on economic matters. In terms of religion, the Republicans are far more willing to violate the separation of church and state than the Democrats, despite whatever recent religious declarations the Democrats are making.

In terms of foreign policy, I agree with what you say, Kendall, that a war half-fought is worse than no war fought at all (pardon me, if I am mis-characterizing your position). In this sense, I am becoming convinced that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats on security matters. Let's look at what Republican President Bush has done so far. He ejected the Taliban from Afghanistan, only to see the Taliban regroup and regain their strength in off-limits Pakistan. He deposed Saddam Hussein from Iraq only to see a terrorist-affiliated Shiite religion-dominated government take hold there. The country is in a state of near-anarchy, and Iran is biding its time until it can take over the country completely or turn it into a vassal state.

So, at the end of the day, was our security heightened by Bush's timid, incomplete, and self-delimited actions in the Middle East?

Contrast this with a Democratic administration. I think a Democratic administration would do better for one principal reason. Democrats would be so afraid of appearing "soft" on terrorism, especially with a loud Republican opposition yelling in their ear (hopefully), that a Democratic administration likely would have taken more effective steps.

Consider this also. When it does come time to militarily confront Iran and remove the nuclear threat, it will be a Democratic administration that will accomplish this. Bush, who had the public will behind him in the first few years after 9/11, will leave office having failed to accomplish this most important of self-defense actions.

Focus on the actions, not so much on the words. If words could win a war, all of Bush's hot air for all these years would have already vaporized the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrast this with a Democratic administration. I think a Democratic administration would do better for one principal reason. Democrats would be so afraid of appearing "soft" on terrorism, especially with a loud Republican opposition yelling in their ear (hopefully), that a Democratic administration likely would have taken more effective steps.

Consider this also. When it does come time to militarily confront Iran and remove the nuclear threat, it will be a Democratic administration that will accomplish this. Bush, who had the public will behind him in the first few years after 9/11, will leave office having failed to accomplish this most important of self-defense actions.

well, GB, I'm afraid I can't agree with you there. If Viet Nam is any indicator, Democratic congresses are great at leaving our allies high and dry after our troops have been pulled out. I see nothing that would indicate to me that this would be any different.

An Iraqi civil war would be terrible for the Iraqi people, but it would also be a distraction and resource drain for those who would wish us harm. Since we're unwilling to actually take care of the problem it seems this is the only course left.

If Republicans don't have enough influence to get the proper policy executed when they are in power, I have no idea how they would be able to get it executed when they are out of power (which is essentially how I read your assertion). Almost by definition any sort of half measures will be more effective, not because they will do so much, but because they will cost so much less, than the current cash burn on a war that is not accomplishing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, GB, I'm afraid I can't agree with you there. If Viet Nam is any indicator, Democratic congresses are great at leaving our allies high and dry after our troops have been pulled out. I see nothing that would indicate to me that this would be any different.

An Iraqi civil war would be terrible for the Iraqi people, but it would also be a distraction and resource drain for those who would wish us harm. Since we're unwilling to actually take care of the problem it seems this is the only course left.

If Republicans don't have enough influence to get the proper policy executed when they are in power, I have no idea how they would be able to get it executed when they are out of power (which is essentially how I read your assertion). Almost by definition any sort of half measures will be more effective, not because they will do so much, but because they will cost so much less, than the current cash burn on a war that is not accomplishing anything.

I could be wrong. I hope I'm not since the Democrats have a good chance of gaining the Presidency.

Regarding the issue of leaving allies high and dry, I do not think any political party has a monopoly on that. After all, Eisenhower left the Hungarians high and dry after initially supporting their rebellion against the Soviets. Pres. Bush Sr. left the Shiites and Kurds high and dry after publicly calling for them to rebel against Saddam Hussein.

Of course, the Democratic record is also very sordid in this area: the Nicaraguan rebels, the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs, etc.

As for Iraq, a civil war there does distract the enemy, but it also demoralizes Americans, and makes Americans less willing to confront true enemies such as Iran and North Korea. That is the lasting damage that is being done by the Republican half-war against the terrorists.

As for Democratic pacifism, I would argue that Republican timidity has actually emboldened it. Many Democrats initially supported a strong fight against the terrorists, but as the Republicans bungled the effort and failed to name and confront the larger enemies, the pacifist side of the Democrats gained strength. Would the Democrats retain such pacifism if they held the executive branch? That is the question I am considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your justification for this? Do the Republicans also fundamentally hate America?

hmmm. I would say the far left does literally "hate" America, that is, they believe America to be no different morally than say Nazi Germany or any other "dictatorship".

Maybe that is too strong a condemnation for all of the Democrats however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. I would say the far left does literally "hate" America, that is, they believe America to be no different morally than say Nazi Germany or any other "dictatorship".

Maybe that is too strong a condemnation for all of the Democrats however.

I would agree that the far left, that is people like Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill do hate America. As annoying as some of the party members can get, it seems very unjustified to claim that the Democratic Party (and as a corollary all of its members including Mark Warner, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Bill Nelson, Bill Bradley, etc.) fundamentally hate America. My interest in Objectivism would take a serious blow if Dr. Peikoff emphatically urged us all to uniformly support a party that fundamentally hates America.

Anyway, I otherwise thought that your posts on this thread have been nothing less than fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that the far left, that is people like Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill do hate America. As annoying as some of the party members can get, it seems very unjustified to claim that the Democratic Party (and as a corollary all of its members including Mark Warner, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Bill Nelson, Bill Bradley, etc.) fundamentally hate America. My interest in Objectivism would take a serious blow if Dr. Peikoff emphatically urged us all to uniformly support a party that fundamentally hates America.

I think this is a really good point. It shows where my original bias was (Republicans as better of two evils), doesn't it? I guess at times I can't help but continue to see D2's in the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shows where my original bias was (Republicans as better of two evils), doesn't it?

That is okay. I still sometimes struggle to not picture Dick Cheney and Karl Rove as trolls living under a bridge, threatening to ravenously devour any meek pedestrian that dares to cross. I suppose I "learned" these images as an undergraduate. :D

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Dr. Peikoff recognizes the culture war going on right now with the rise of Christian evangelism, and it being provoked both by conflict with science, and conflict between Islam. He's right on the money unless Ron Paul gets the republican nomination (ron paul being somewhat of a special case for the republican party). Ron Paul is the exact opposite from a vote for a theocracy, because his main platform is constitutionalism and limited government. It's unlikely that Ron Paul will get the republican nomination, but his popularity is growing very rapidly (winning several straw polls already). If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination I believe I will most likely be voting Democrat this time around.

Edited by Spaghettim0nst3r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Peikoff recognizes the culture war going on right now with the rise of Christian evangelism, and it being provoked both by conflict with science, and conflict between Islam. He's right on the money unless Ron Paul gets the republican nomination (ron paul being somewhat of a special case for the republican party). Ron Paul is the exact opposite from a vote for a theocracy, because his main platform is constitutionalism and limited government. It's unlikely that Ron Paul will get the republican nomination, but his popularity is growing very rapidly (winning several straw polls already). If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination I believe I will most likely be voting Democrat this time around.

I recall Dr. Peikoff (rightly) condemning Paul in a YouTube interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall Dr. Peikoff (rightly) condemning Paul in a YouTube interview.

If Peikoffs argument to vote for democrats is to vote for the lesser of two evils than what is his argument against Ron Paul? In my opinion Ron Paul is the best candidate, he certainly has issues, but far less than anyone else.

I will, and always will, vote for individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember him mentioning much specifically, except that Paul is a Libertarian (the interview to which I refer took place on something called the Abinav show, which used to be on YouTube).

As I've said previously, Paul's position on the war makes him terrible, even if he has other virtues. His positions on abortion (opposed) and immigration (opposed) are also horrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said previously, Paul's position on the war makes him terrible, even if he has other virtues. His positions on abortion (opposed) and immigration (opposed) are also horrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

I find Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance especially problematic, because it cuts to the deepest level of property rights and the denial thereof. Anyone who doesn't think individuals should make decisions about their own bodies really has no place considering himself an advocate for property rights.

ETA: I just read on that link that he opposed adoption by gays. How on earth is this guy even getting by on a "Libertarian" card? :worry:

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall Dr. Peikoff condemning Paul in a YouTube interview.

Link? Searched for 10 minutes solid... nothing.

If Peikoffs argument to vote for democrats is to vote for the lesser of two evils than what is his argument against Ron Paul? In my opinion Ron Paul is the best candidate, he certainly has issues, but far less than anyone else.

Exactly, if you can't recognize that a libertarian is "less evil" than a neo-con you've lost it.

As I've said previously, Paul's position on the war makes him terrible,

Which position?

His position stating that we ought to actually declare war?

Or his position stating that we ought to fight, and end it as quickly as possible?

His position about avoiding entangling alliances?

Nonintervention, Containment, or Diplomacy?

even if he has other virtues.

Yea you should actively not try to discover what they are... because voting on a single issue makes you "an informed voter."

...amirite?

I find Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance especially problematic, because it cuts to the deepest level of property rights and the denial thereof. Anyone who doesn't think individuals should make decisions about their own bodies really has no place considering himself an advocate for property rights.

It's true, however it's irrelevant for a few reasons.

1) Ron Paul (and indeed no president) can single handedly change that. Were he capable our faithhead president would have done it already. So you have nothing to worry about. IT'S A NON-ISSUE.

2) The apparent favorite on this board is no better, he encourage the state to tax you to fund the abortions of other people.

*** Mod's note: Some Ron Paul -specific responses have been moved to the Ron Paul thread. -sN ***

Edited by softwareNerd
Added "responses-moved" note.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link? Searched for 10 minutes solid... nothing.

Exactly, if you can't recognize that a libertarian is "less evil" than a neo-con you've lost it.

You can't find anything because it probably has been taken down. Saying that Dr. Peikoff has "lost it" is completely inappropriate, as is your snide "informed voter" remark.

I must say I entered this discussion with you with hesitancy, given your views of 9/11. I don't see any value for me in continuing the discussion, so I'm withdrawing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will, and always will, vote for individuals.

Does Ron Paul think as an individual and stand on his own principles? Or does he cater to the Libertarian bloggers?

Politicians are only puppets attached to the voting public. In a democracy you're voting for who is pulling the strings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will, and always will, vote for individuals.

I think you need to clarify.

Solely judging candidates as individuals without considering the current political apparatus is a form of Intrincism and it is a blatant denial of the heavily partisan nature of U.S. politics.

For example, Hillary Clinton, as a Democrat who is significantly more likely to take an aggressive stance against foreign enemies relative to the other major Democratic candidates, would be a better choice than a clone of her who might hypothetically run on the Republican ticket. As Commander in Chief, Hillary Clinton will likely get the Democrats in Congress to be fairly cooperative with a war effort while the Republicans in Congress will surely be screaming at her for not being hawkish enough. If the Commander in Chief is competent, this would be a better scenario to combat Islamic Fundamentalism.

On the other hand, a Republican counterpart to Senator Clinton would generally have the cooperation of the Republicans in Congress while the Democrats would insist on a reduction in military effort and an increase in diplomatic effort. Such is not the proper foreign policy towards Islamic Fundamentalism.

Whichever party the next President will be from, the legislators from the other party will invariably be contrarian and uncooperative. We cannot ignore this fact when voting for a President.

Hopefully the Republicans will not nominate a clone of Hillary Clinton.

1) Ron Paul (and indeed no president) can single handedly change [abortion rights]. Were he capable our faithhead president would have done it already. So you have nothing to worry about. IT'S A NON-ISSUE.

Actually, it is an issue. The current President has appointed two of the four sitting Supreme Court Justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) who will almost surely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when the opportunity arises. If the next President replaces John Paul Stevens, who is presently a venerable 87 years of age, with another justice who opposes abortion rights on principle, we very well can see Roe v. Wade overturned and several states subsequently outlawing abortion.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

If anyone is interested, Dr. Peikoff is sounding pretty anti-Democratic party these days. He seems to be arguing against Mexican immigration (and legalization of illegal immigrants) primarily based on his estimate that it will give the Democratic party an unshakable majority.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both him and Yaron Brook argue about saving the country within a time frame... or else. First, or else what? And second, why is there a time frame at all? As far as I can see, any time frame relates only to the immediate one to five years or so of government policy and then maybe a little bit to general attitudes. But people don't change their long held beliefs easily or quickly, and if they do it takes many years of mulling it over in the background of their minds. It takes many years even if you mull it over regularly and on purpose. So, any change that happens is set in motion long before it manifests in policies and public outcries.

A particular political party may yield different short term results (though that seems less so lately), but I don't see why an emphasis is given to a time frame -- and as if it would be possible to predict anyway.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly my typical conclusions--that trying to effect political change before a full philosophical revolution are futile and counterproductive--are depressing ones.

 

LP probably wants to see significant political change in his lifetime. I personally don't think I'll see it in my lifetime (I was 19 when I met LP and he was already an old man already so that gives you an idea). The solution is to make the best of what you have, not to beat your head against reality. While the world isn't great philosophically, we live in a pretty good time as times go, and even though the world aren't objectivists, you are, and that helps a lot.

 

Another angle might be that LP thinks that there's only a certain amount of time before Armageddon. Could be, but I just don't see it. I see a lot of irrational people in the world that suddenly get very rational when their paycheck is threatened.

 

Update:

 

I listened to that talk. Holy shit, LP actually said he's for excluding anybody from our country who might vote Democrat. He is convinced that Hispanics are going to come here and take over the country.

 

This audio also betrayed an LP who was certainly not his sharpest self, uncharacteristically inaccurate and sloppy.

 

As somebody who's listened to just about all of LPs lectures... I find this a sad, sad ending...

Edited by CrowEpistemologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to Peikoff, this format invites more mistakes than a prepared lecture with no back-and-forth discussion. I still don't agree with him. I thought his attitude toward German emigres to Wisconsin was kind of funny, as that sums up pretty much all of my traceable ancestry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With any luck he was under the weather--maybe on medication, etc. I've heard talks like these before and they had been much much sharper.

 

The premises though... just awful. Where do you even begin? So many things... wrong...

 

At the highest level, a meta-criticism I've made of LP before: he's talking tactics here, not philosophy. He's making predictions of what people today might do. In short, he's wading into a realm where he has no business wading and he makes himself sound like an idiot.

 

A deeper problem though--and one which will undermine any potential philosophical revolution--is this: imagine you are a policy maker and you believe LP's advice here, and you want to act accordingly. So... you... stand on a stage and rile up your base by telling them that undocumented immigrants should all be deported because they might vote Democrat? Of course not. The only way this doesn't get laughed right off the stage is for the politician in question to base his entire argument on a lie. He will cite reasonable-sounding studies that are mathematically flawed; he will make invalid logical leaps; he will basically be completely full of shit, hiding his true motivation. He will be accused of hiding a conspiracy theory and those accusations will be correct.

 

In other words, he'll attack reason as such since it will be setup beforehand as his enemy.

 

Adding more of this to the political discussion in the USA is far, far more destructive than any potential Democrats who might scale our Southern walls (apparently Mexicans don't possess volition like other humans... like I said, don't get me started...).

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...