Is Objectivism's political philosophy subsumed by Right-Politics.

Political Philosophy
1

So, a few comments on the board in separate topics have got me wondering; do you consider Objectivism’s political philosophy to be “right wing”?

I’ve already stated why this is not so. I’d like to add that Rand never, to my knowledge, aligned herself with the right wing. She mocked the libertarians as the hippies of the Right, and made precisely clear her feelings toward conservatives as being far worse than the modern liberals. I couldn’t possibly align myself with 90% of the people on the Right of politics, and the 10% remaining would have to be weeded through.

2

What is this, like, the Objectivist Purity Test? If you answer Yes, everyone laughs at you?

3

Given that the term “right wing politics” falls somewhere between vague and undefinable I literally do not know what this question is asking. So I won’t be casting a vote.

4

That’s really the point. Left/Right is meaningless. It’d be meaningless to define Objectivism as either being Left or Right.

5

That’s really the point. Left/Right is meaningless. It’d be meaningless to define Objectivism as either being Left or Right.

Exactly. In a true Left/Right scale I would place Objectivism dead center, due to it’s liberal stance on social issues, its capitalist roots and defence f individual rights.

6

What is this, like, the Objectivist Purity Test? If you answer Yes, everyone laughs at you?

I think the relevant context is the thread Harry Binswanger On Glenn Beck where Binswanger says the political right is about freedom and individualism.

7

I would place Objectivism dead center, due to it’s liberal stance on social issues…

Can you clarify what liberal stance on social issues there are? Or are you placing “right” under “religious right”?

8

I voted “Other,” which was the closest option my actual opinion: “I think this is a stupid question.”

9

Can you clarify what liberal stance on social issues there are? Or are you placing “right” under “religious right”?

I’m not sure what you are asking. Liberal in the sense I used it means free to choose. We do not seek to tell people what they can and can not do in their personal lives and that is, or was the idea behind liberalism.

Classic liberalism is a very different beast than today’s reform liberalism which seeks to equalize outcomes.

10

Also putting things in terms of Liberal/Conservative is just as ridiculous. Liberals can’t even consider themselves social liberals anymore, except for a pro-choice stance and maybe being for gay marriage. And conservatives masquerade far too much as supporters of the Capitalist system, which is rather laughable.

Yes, this stemmed mainly from Binswanger’s comments which I found a bit troubling. If the Right is all about individualism and freedom, then clearly Objectivism could be said to be on the Right side of politics. But the Right isn’t that, and the Right really isn’t anything at all.

11

As far as I can tell, for the past half year ARI has been downplaying the fact that Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy. Nearly all their press releases have been very much in line with right-wing politics, and despite the fact that ARI staff have been appearing on conservative media such as FOX News and PJTV repeatedly for the past few months, they have never voiced any criticism of religion besides Islam – certainly not of Christianity, besides indirectly through altruism. Perhaps it’s because they see this as a golden opportunity to influence the Republican Party, and moderate their criticism of Christianity so that they aren’t outright rejected by conservatives, figuring they might come around to atheism themselves if introduced to other parts of Objectivism first.

12

Erik, Objectivist political philosophy has little to do with it’s atheism. One ought to oppose religious tyranny even if one were, say, a Deist or a Christian. Objectivism’s opposition to conservatives doesn’t stem primarily from the fact that a large majority believe in God, but that they are adherents to the Judea-Christian ethic of self-sacrifice. That can never, ever be reconciled with any political stance Objectivists have. We can only align ourselves with the Conservatives or liberals so far as they reject what makes them essentially them.

13

I answered yes. Right meaning in favor of, in the classical liberal sense, individualism, liberty, laissez-faire Capitalism, and individual rights.

14

I answered yes. Right meaning in favor of, in the classical liberal sense, individualism, liberty, laissez-faire Capitalism, and individual rights.

Even if you take it to mean that, I don’t think Objectivism is fully subsumed under it. The key aspect of Objectivist politics is its moral basis of egoism, which is not present in any other school of political thought.

15

Even if you take it to mean that, I don’t think Objectivism is fully subsumed under it. The key aspect of Objectivist politics is its moral basis of egoism, which is not present in any other school of political thought.

100%. I disagree with the use of “subsumed” in the question.

16

I’m not sure what you are asking. Liberal in the sense I used it means free to choose. We do not seek to tell people what they can and can not do in their personal lives and that is, or was the idea behind liberalism.

Classic liberalism is a very different beast than today’s reform liberalism which seeks to equalize outcomes.

Ok, I’m opening Pandora’s Box, but I guess I’d put Marxism, Communism, and Socialism in liberalism. You see it differently?

17

As far as I can tell, for the past half year ARI has been downplaying the fact that Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy. Nearly all their press releases have been very much in line with right-wing politics, and despite the fact that ARI staff have been appearing on conservative media such as FOX News and PJTV repeatedly for the past few months, they have never voiced any criticism of religion besides Islam – certainly not of Christianity, besides indirectly through altruism. Perhaps it’s because they see this as a golden opportunity to influence the Republican Party, and moderate their criticism of Christianity so that they aren’t outright rejected by conservatives, figuring they might come around to atheism themselves if introduced to other parts of Objectivism first.

Really, I think your point is important.

Specifically, from my recognition of conservativism, I see the rule of law, individual rights, smaller government, less intrusion from government, and so on. What I see that drives religious right conservatives to act on the basis more on some of their religious beliefs is when social action is taken in society that moves them to become neo cons in their attempt to counter act government action that they feel robs them of their individual rights. Really, I think that all follows some of the Cloward Piven Strategy overloads government with a “flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse”. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupPr…asp?grpid=6967

This leaves two groups “liberals” and “conservatives” bashing each other and blaming each other for losses of individual rights that they champion in some form or another. Meanwhile, progressive statists move their agenda forward continually. Corporate welfare for some. Variations in taxation. Claims that capitalism didn’t work in free market system that wasn’t free. But those that aren’t as aware just don’t recognize that they are being played upon by radicals.

Thoughts?

18

As far as I can tell, for the past half year ARI has been downplaying the fact that Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy.

I checked the ARI site, to see what press-releases they’ve put out on religion and (more importantly) on issues where religious folk want to push their view on others. here is what I found from 2007 till today:

The Easter Masquerade (Saturday, March 22, 2008) By: Keith Lockitch

After Ten Years, States Still Resist Assisted Suicide (Friday, November 2, 2007) By: Thomas Bowden

The Right to Assisted Suicide (Wednesday, May 30, 2007) By: Thomas Bowden

The Religious Right’s Culture of Living Death (Thursday, April 19, 2007) By: Alex Epstein

These Op-eds are often “shopped around” constantly, year after year. For instance, around Thanksgiving time each year, some papers pick up their op-ed that attacks altruism. Around Christmas, a few papers usually pick up their “Christmas should be Commercial” op-ed. Attacking Christmas and the so-called Christmas spirit is pretty anti-religious.

Apart from the Op-eds, there are the press-releases that they do. Here are some:

Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven (Saturday, November 1, 2008) By: Yaron Brook

Capitalism Without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom (Thursday, October 9, 2008) By: Yaron Brook

Religious Discrimination Laws vs. Free Speech (Tuesday, September 23, 2008) By: Don Watkins

Vatican Doesn’t Deserve a Statue of Galileo (Monday, September 8, 2008) By: Keith Lockitch

Expelled Gets an F (Friday, April 18, 2008) By: Keith Lockitch

As you can, they cover quite a range of issues, even things that some might think are over-the-top attacks…like refusing to accept the Vatican’s statue of Galileo.

You need to understand that the business of activism is not driven purely by supply (of op-eds and press-releases). A huge (perhaps primary) drive) is the demand side: the newspapers and TV stations. These people demand opinions. They will usually look for a wide variety of opinions, but they will decide the broad topic. Some years ago, some Objectivists were saying that ARI was issuing so much material on the Iraq war, and sacrificing other topics; today, the focus has shifted to the state of the economy. However, this simply reflects the demand side. If one wants to be on TV and in the press one cannot completely ignore their demand. Just try writing letters to the editor on topics that the newspaper is not currently interested in, and you’ll see what I mean. You have to understand the gatekeepers and use their self-interest to your benefit. This means one cannot always choose one’s agenda down to the proportions one would like it to have in some hypothetical world.

Do not assume that if ARI chooses not to do an interview on the economy, that they will be able to substitute this for an interview on religion. That is not how it works. If you have some creative ideas on how ARI can be more in control, I’m sure the folks at ARI would love to hear them.

19

I think a lot of this depends on how right and left politics are defined. After all, if we’re trying to be traditional, we would consider classical liberals (the old political right) as being the ones defending individual liberties, freedom, and capitalism all at once. Murray Rothbard, Barry Goldwater, and that whole ilk. If we’re looking at the new political left and right, we’d be looking at pretty much two of the same party, and then it would be pretty much impossible to play Objectivist political views on any such line. This is because, unlike the new political left and right, Objectivist political views are substantiated in defense of a particular moral code, and political principle - both things that are nonexistent in mainstream political thought.

20

Ok, I’m opening Pandora’s Box, but I guess I’d put Marxism, Communism, and Socialism in liberalism. You see it differently?

Yes, I see it differently.

Even if you take this big tent idea liberalism does not include the main ideologies you listed. Liberalism is the ideology in favor of individual rights and reform liberalism is interested in equality of opportunity as opposed to communism and Marxism which strive for equality of outcome.

Socialism might fit at the lunatic fringe of reform liberalism but personally I consider it nothing more than a pragmatists launching pad for communism. Any respect it gives individual liberty is fleeting because those individualistic ideals will be crushed by the evil of “the greater good”.