Leonard Peikoff, who is Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir, co-founder of the ARI and considered to be the head of the Objectivist political and philosophic movement has taken a stance in recent elections that has left it’s assumed " right wing " basis in bewilderment. In 2004, and perhaps beyond, Leonard Peikoff has chosen to vote Democrat, and advocates all proponents of reason and civilization to do the same. Dr. Peikoff’s rationale for this decision was because Kerry, while in no way an admirable politician, was in favor of a position that is essentially doomed to fail; Socialism. I myself was hesitant to come to this position to begin with, but accepted after debate with other Objectivists that Religion was a much more dangerous threat than Socialism was for the following reason.
The Kerry Democrats of the 2004 election were in favor of many despicable things, but what lied underneat it all was actually nothing. There was no vigorous moral or philosophic message of the Kerry campaign. The position was purely that Socialism will work for the betterment of individual Americans. This position by itself does not pose any kind of long-lasting threat to America. As it was with far-leftists before like Carter, America would quickly realize the ruin socialism brought to it and quickly elect someone who would fix the economic crisis of the Democrat administration.
However, a lethal dose of Religion into politics through reoccurring Republican presidencies would be, as a person I heard once describe it, an " existential nightmare ". Unlike the Kerry socialists, the fervent Religion of the Right was backed up with a strong philosophy. The essence of this argument is: tell people something will work, and when it doesn’t they will go back to how it was before. But if you get a figure such as God involved, and tug on the convictions of the foolish Religiouspopulation in America, and you’ve got yourself a system that can sustain itself through the fear of the Lord. Religion doesn’t promise that your life will be better, it only promises you that you will obey the mandates of the Bible, the Koran or whatever holy book is being used to justify tyranny.
It is no secret to the public that at least a few of the Supreme Court justices are more than conservatives, they are allies with the Religious right who advocate an end to the right of abortion, a blurring of the lines between state and church, amongst other horrific stances. You can find these positions expressed by the justices in another post on my blog The Dirty Kuffar.
But why have I shied away from the position of Peikoff and many Objectivists in this election? It is certainly not because John McCain is some kind of social liberal. He most certainly is not. He’s as good as Bush, which is to say not at all. If someone is as arcane and backwards to accept that a woman does not have a right to choose abortion, this person is not worth much consideration in the social department. McCain will elect more Religionists to the Supreme Court. He will do nothing for the personal freedoms of others, and very little for economic freedom; if anything.
The reason I reject the argument is because it is not valid in this election. The Socialism of Barack Obama is not the same brand we saw in former elections, and it is not far separated from Religion. As I explained in another earlier blog, Barack Obama is not afraid of mixing Christianity with politics. It is not the harsh, scary Religious fascism of the Right which will subjugate you to the church and God. It is taken from the Judea-Christian ideal of being your brother’s keeper, of giving away your money to others, of living for others rather than living for yourself.
However, it is not so much the Christian aspect itself that scares me here. Obama’s Socialism is not a shallow one. It is one that IS based in philosophy, in a morality that is contra individualism and egoism. It not only says that Socialism will work, but that serving others is a moral obligation, that it is as Michelle Obama puts it the true " American way ". The stars simply were not in the eyes of people during the Kerry campaign. That may be why he lost. But Obama has rallied, like a powerful preacher, many loyal followers who are behind not only a pragmatic political cause, but a moral one which asserts that all must pay their innate debt to society, whether you be rich or poor. This view of the Obama campaign has not been made by me alone, or just a few bloggers, but a myriad of media sources all recognize that what Obama has done in this election is nothing short of a cult of personality, and for a cult of personality to be effective one must have an intense moral fervor. Kerry was viewed by many as a zombie-like candidate, but George Bush had Christianity backing him. The 2004 election was one that revolved heavily around Religious social values, and this election will deal more with economic values. Barack’s values are the values of Jesus Christ, of Immanuel Kant, of Auguste Comte; Altruism. Obama has setup for Democrats what they have needed to maintain a stronghold on America: a Religion based in altruism, which perhaps may say that a woman has a right to choose, but also says that someone should pay for her choice, not because it will benefit you, but because it is your moral duty to that woman.
Do not take this as an endorsement for John " the Maverick " McCain from me. As of now, I am refraining from voting for a president in the upcoming election. I won’t choose between 2 types of ideologies that want to enslave me to God, or to my neighbor. Americans should not be accepting a lesser of two evils. A choice for a lesser evil, is a choice for evil nonetheless. Neither of our options are less malignant here. Both of the choices will lead us further down the path of an explicitly religious culture and government.