Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Political Party

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not to rain on your parade, but you'd probably have more success working through the Republican party in our current system. Although they can have some influence, 3rd parties never amount to much.

The Republicans get upset when I don't join them in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the culture is not ready for an Objectivist party to be worthwhile. A lot of cultural overhaul needs to be done first.

The effort spent on participating in an Objectivist party, at this point, would be put to much better use writing letters to the editor, getting published in noteworthy publications, and placing Objectivist professors in universities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans get upset when I don't join them in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Haha, there's no doubt the Republican party is a mess and their views on the Pledge of Allegiance are the least of our worries. However, having worked in politics a bit when I was younger, I know that political change comes incrementally. This country didn't become a statist paradise overnight and it won't be converted back into a free, constitutionally limited republic in a couple of weeks or even a couple of years. That being the case, I would much rather win incremental victories through organizations that have actual power like the Republican party, than continue to sit on the outside and have virtually no influence while feeling (and being) morally superior in an obsure 3rd party.

Dondigitalia is also right in that you have to change the way people think first. When you've changed their philosophies, then wholesale changes in their politics will follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dondigitalia is also right in that you have to change the way people think first. When you've changed their philosophies, then wholesale changes in their politics will follow.

I find that a third party is an effective mechanism to promote your message. The Socialist Party was unsuccessful in getting its candidates elected but successful in getting its platform adopted. I found that my running as a Libertarian Party candidate gave me a forum I would not have had otherwise:

http://croftpress.com/david/politics/speeches/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think an Objectivist party has a chance to win any election: national, state, city? Or, do see a party as just another way to advertise Objectivism?

No to the former and yes to the latter.

Let me expand on that second bit and add that it is a means of becoming engaged without being compromised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I'd see it, I'd rather join an influential party with a philosophy that is close enough to mine, and one which I can influence in the right directions. That's why I'm a Republican.

Sitting on the sidelines all the time in your own little party, like the Libertarians, is just not much fun nor is it effective in bringing about much change, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I'd see it, I'd rather join an influential party with a philosophy that is close enough to mine, and one which I can influence in the right directions. That's why I'm a Republican.

How can you tolerate all that praying that goes on during their meetings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you tolerate all that praying that goes on during their meetings?

I'm not a knee-jerk reactionary against religion. If people pray, as long as it doesn't impact my freedom, let them. That's what the First Amendment is all about. If they believe in god, so be it. My parents and grandparents believe and still attend synnagogue, I don't reject them. Frankly, I am more repulsed by the left's attack on people of faith than the right's defense of them.

Plus, the Republican party is about more than just religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a knee-jerk reactionary against religion. If people pray, as long as it doesn't impact my freedom, let them. That's what the First Amendment is all about. If they believe in god, so be it. My parents and

When you're the only one not praying and pledging, don't you feel out of place? When they find out you're an atheist, don't they ostracize you? When it comes to issues like abortion and gay marriage, don't you feel like you're in the wrong party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this but I did not buy into it. The author suggests that the Objectivist political campaign either did more harm than good and/or that it was an inefficient use of resources. I'm not certain what evidence the author provides to support these claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not certain what evidence the author provides to support these claims.

That the candidate got a grand total of 274 votes.

You're missing the more important point that he raises which is that it associates Objectivism (if god forbid that is dragged into it) or freedom (if it is "Libertarian") with *crackpot-ism*.

We are trying to get Objectivism recognized as a serious philosophy and Ayn Rand as an important author. That message is undercut when it is associated with futile and Quixotic political campaigns - which btw vastly underestimates our growing influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you're the only one not praying and pledging, don't you feel out of place?

No. All though I don't have anything against the recitation of the pledge.

When they find out you're an atheist, don't they ostracize you?
Not thus far. You'll find if you respect other people's right to their religion, they will respect you. But if you rip on them because they are religious, you don't deserve their respect regardless.

When it comes to issues like abortion and gay marriage, don't you feel like you're in the wrong party?

No, since I find abortion abhorant (yes, I know the Objectivist POV on abortion, it doesn't make the procedure less disgusting to me) and don't particularly care for state-sanctioned (gay) marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That message is undercut when it is associated with futile and Quixotic political campaigns

How so?

No, since I find abortion abhorant (yes, I know the Objectivist POV on abortion, it doesn't make the procedure less disgusting to me) and don't particularly care for state-sanctioned (gay) marriage.

Well, I hope you can see how someone like me with the opposite position on these issues would not fit in with the Republican Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I'd see it, I'd rather join an influential party with a philosophy that is close enough to mine, and one which I can influence in the right directions. That's why I'm a Republican.

It is not appropriate to join ANY political party, association, or group any more; due to the degree of political corruption that exists, you would be giving explicit sanction to some form of evil no matter what you did. If you become a Republican, you are not supporting capitalism: you are offering support to the religious right. If you become a Democrat, you are not supporting personal freedoms, you are offering support to communists and viros. If you become a Libertarian, you are not supporting liberty, you are offering support to anarchists, statists, and NAMBLA. You can support the good things on your own, without a party. They cannot support their agenda without good people that are willing to tolerate the lesser of <insert number here> evils.

What you CAN do is join with Republicans or Democrats or even, heh, Libertarians to realize specific, concrete, delineated goals, such as campaigning against a new levy.

Do as Heinlein suggests, and vote AGAINST. Voting FOR anyone is like walking on broken glass in a minefield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... yes .. Let me expand on that ... and add that it is a means of becoming engaged without being compromised.
Getting engaged is a worthy cause. However, why would a political party be the best way to become engaged? A party is a group of people trying to influence politics and to get elected. If your group is at a stage where getting elected is an impossibility, then why not simply stick to what is feasible: influencing politics. Rather than being shrugged off as one of those tiny parties that nobody has ever heard of, build a brand that will get some people to take a second look. For instance, take the "Center for Science in the Public Interest". Do you think their news-releases would be reported as much if they came from (say) the Green Party?

If you want to convince people of a broad slew of Objectivist ideas, you have no hope of doing so today unless you take a fundamental, philosophical approach because most people will be against a sufficiently large chunk of your positions: whether on abortion, immigration, business control, porn, war in Iraq, etc. You have little hope of attracting a non-Objectivist with a broadly Objectivist agenda unless you can convert the person to Objectivism.

Converting people to philosophy may seem too long drawn out. You want action now! Well, then, if you advocate a narrower position (i.e. on a specific topic), you will be able to garner more support on that position because there will probably be people who disagree with other things you believe, but are happy to cooperate with you on a specific position. Indeed, even in a narrowly-focussed area of politics (health-care, or school-choice), broad, sweeping changes have little chance of winning. The fights are small and incremental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things occur to me after reading SoftwareNerd's post above.

First, why not an "intellectual activist" organization whose primary purpose is to try to influence politicans' votes on critical issues? Analyzing who the undecided swing votes are (if it's very divided) is a whole "science" in itself now, apparently - that could be used to focus efforts.

Second, if the organization could get significant funding it could be seen as a significant lobbyist in Washington. An unconventional one - the lobbyist for Individual Rights, and American self interest militarily ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not appropriate to join ANY political party, association, or group any more; due to the degree of political corruption that exists, you would be giving explicit sanction to some form of evil no matter what you did.

What about "joining" a party so as to get elected? Before responding, I ask you to please consider the entirety of my remarks here so I'm not misunderstood.

When I say "join," I mean merely registering under a particular party. I do not mean lying about any of your views on the campaign trail or anywhere else. For example, when asked by a reporter if it was true that I thought all taxation should be ended, an honest response for me would be:

"Yes, I do. I think taxation is immoral because it makes slaves of people by stealing from them what they have earned through their own hard work and effort. However, I think that wholesale elimination of taxation is unlikely to be politically feasible at any point in the near future. After all, if elected, I will be working with representatives who would resist complete elimination. [political speakometer--engage!] But I think that even those who resist complete elimination agree that financial responsibility and accountability in government are good things. That's why I'm confident we can pass modest measures that put a little bit back into the pockets of all Nebraska citizens without throwing the state budget into upheaval. For example, specific tax cut proposal X . . . . This can easily be accomplished with reduction in government waste Y or specific spending cut proposal Z . . . ."

At this point, I must confess my ignorance of something about politics. Must a candidate, to run as a ___, endorse the ___ platform, or is he only required to be registered as a ___? [Edited to add that I do know that in Nebraska the state legislature elections are nonpartisan. I'm asking about federal and state elections in other states.] If he is required to endorse a platform, then I think that running would be wrong. However, if he is not required to expressly endorse a platform, the last remaining question that I see is whether his endorsement of a position is implied by his being registered as a ___.

I do not think that being registered in a party is an endorsement of the views of that party. Anyone who pays an iota of attention to politics knows that there are differing views on many topics within members of the same party. There are "pro-choice" Republicans and "pro-life" Democrats, for example. The only person who would impute endorsement of a position to someone based on party membership is a person who had done no investigation whatsoever. That person, the "party-liner" I'll call him, acts at his own peril.

Edited by Groovenstein
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...