Obama and Why The Peikoff Argument Does Not Apply

Political Philosophy
21

I cant think of an argument that can make the case that turning the country over to Obama, Reed and Pelosi is a good idea. Since it seems certain that Reed and Pelosi will keep their leadership positions, the only rational choice in this election would be a vote for Mccain. Aside from keeping the ‘Axis of Evil’ from controlling of the US government, there are side benefits to a McCain victory that should not be overlooked. First, a Mccain victory will demonstrate to future Republicans that towing the line of the religious right is not the only path of success in politics. It will succeed in further marginalizing the role of Evangelicals in the Republican Party. A Mccain loss will do the opposite. Should he lose the election, his failure to woo the religious right will get the blame, thus only strengthening the hold of religion over the Republican Party.

As for the Democrats, an Obama loss might get them to conclude that nominating extreme left-wing candidates is a recipe for electoral disaster. That seems unlikely since they didnt seem to learn from the Clinton/DLC example, but instead continued along the path of defeat paved by Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and now, possibly Obama.

How does this calculus play out now that McCain has chosen a nutty creationist as his running mate?

22

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.

You make some excellent points, but I think you depart from reality in the above paragraph.

“Americans should not be accepting a lesser of two evils;” but, unfortunately, we will be required to do just that. So far, I have not heard any pronouncements, tacit or implied, that federal marshalls will be pounding on my door to drag me off to church. I have heard plenty of rhetoric which indicates that they will certainly be there for their pound of flesh should I be remiss in the proffer.

I am not a big fan of either candidate but I am a realist and will endeavor to choose the one who will leave me a shekel or two more than the other one. More important than that, we need a leader who deeply believes in this country and will ensure its survival. That is, after all, the primary responsibility of a government. If, as you suggest, both candidates will lead us down the same path, perhaps their devotion to this country should be a deciding factor.

I may misjudge; but I shall judge.

23

First, a Mccain victory will demonstrate to future Republicans that towing the line of the religious right is not the only path of success in politics. It will succeed in further marginalizing the role of Evangelicals in the Republican Party.

I’ll add some perspective.

US News & World Report: McCain Supports Efforts to Ban Gay Marraige. But, he also opposed Bush’s federal gay marriage-banning ammendment.

McCain quote via NPR: “I have stated time after time after time that Roe v Wade was a bad decision…”

WorldNetDaily: “‘We’ve both been very vocal about being pro-life,’ Palin told the Associated Press, speaking of herself and her husband, Todd.”

24

How does this calculus play out now that McCain has chosen a nutty creationist as his running mate?

The same. McCain is not the candidate of the religious right. That was made clear during the primaries as Huckabee garnered huge support as a protest vote. The choice of Palin was not made to appease the Evangelicals–although it may do so–it was made to satisfy the conservative base and appeal to women voters in the wake of Clinton’s defeat.

25

How does this calculus play out now that McCain has chosen a nutty creationist as his running mate?

I don’t know much about Palin other than the superficial stuff that the media have thrown out thus far. What is the evidence that she’s a “nutty creationist”? Just curious, is it possible to believe in creationism and not be a nut?

26

…, is it possible to believe in creationism and not be a nut?

It is a completely nutty view, that even the Pope disavows. At the very least it shows a person who is not intellectual. OTOH, of course people holding it can be rational in other areas of their lives, and of course they can be right on many things where Harvard graduates are wrong.

It’s definitely a negative against her. In terms of objective political importance, I think a lot depends on how much importance she gives to religious political activism, vis-a-vis other political action. For instance, will she ask to be given some rational job like exploiting ANWR, or will she want to influence the Justice department, in vetting people for their Christian credentials?

27

Is Sarah Palin a creationist? blog entries dated Friday, August 29, 2008.

The characterization of Gov. Sarah Palin as a “nutty creationist” is wrong. As normal, rural blue-collar background American who doesn’t really give a shit about abstract ideas and doesn’t let her belief in god get in the way of living a typical materialist pragmatic American life, permitting both evolution and creationism in the schools seems like a politician’s safe way out of a pointless debate. I agree. I was given a brief creationist presentation in high school and am none the worse for it, because it is obvious to students who care about ideas which of the two is plausible. I also learned phlogiston theory when introduced later to thermodynamics, and the flat earth theory in grade school at the beginning of geography. The contrast between opposing theories is a great way to learn to apply critical thinking skills. When schools are government financed, it is a form of censorship to permit only a single viewpoint to be presented when a large minority objects. The real way out of this conflict is to end government control of schools.

People who care about the truth will find it, those who do not care do not matter. When teaching evolution is banned, when freedom of speech is diminished, then we are in trouble.

28

Ominous Parallels:

Obama: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

John Galt’s speech, paragraph 3: “You have sacrificed justice to mercy.”

Obama: “This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.”

Galt: “You have sacrificed independence to unity.”

Obama: “We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth - so that we would use science to cure disease, and heal the sick, and save lives."

Galt: “You have sacrificed reason to faith.”

Obama: “We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible.”

Galt: “You have sacrificed wealth to need.”

Obama: “People are whupped. I’m whupped. My wife is whupped. Unless it’s your job to be curious, who really has the time to sit and ask questions and explore issues?"

Galt: “You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial.”

Obama: “Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.”

Galt: “You have sacrificed happiness to duty.”

29

^^^Interesting post. Thanks for that.

30

It is a completely nutty view, that even the Pope disavows. At the very least it shows a person who is not intellectual. OTOH, of course people holding it can be rational in other areas of their lives, and of course they can be right on many things where Harvard graduates are wrong.

It’s definitely a negative against her. In terms of objective political importance, I think a lot depends on how much importance she gives to religious political activism, vis-a-vis other political action. For instance, will she ask to be given some rational job like exploiting ANWR, or will she want to influence the Justice department, in vetting people for their Christian credentials?

Yes, I do agree that it’s a strike against her. On the other hand, as you say, if she doesn’t do things like attempt to force schools to teach it and she doesn’t establish religion as a litmus test for government positions, etc… then I don’t much care about her views on the subject.

31

Ominous Parallels:

Obama: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

John Galt’s speech, paragraph 3: “You have sacrificed justice to mercy.”

Obama: “This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.”

Galt: “You have sacrificed independence to unity.”

Obama: “We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth - so that we would use science to cure disease, and heal the sick, and save lives."

Galt: “You have sacrificed reason to faith.”

Obama: “We have an obligation and a responsibility to be investing in our students and our schools. We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible.”

Galt: “You have sacrificed wealth to need.”

Obama: “People are whupped. I’m whupped. My wife is whupped. Unless it’s your job to be curious, who really has the time to sit and ask questions and explore issues?"

Galt: “You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial.”

Obama: “Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.”

Galt: “You have sacrificed happiness to duty.”

How nice of you to leave out McCain.

32

Ayn Rand once wrote that in any ideological conflict the more consistent faction would win. Conservative’s attempt to integrate religion and capitalism is a contradiction which will eventually be defeated by the more consistent combination of religion and socialism. Religion and socialism will pop up on the Democratic side, not the Republican because the Conservatives already occupy the Republican party. Conservatism isn’t going to evolve, the socialist Democrats will. The more extreme religious elements currently associated with the Conservatives will migrate to the Democrats once they can find a place there.

Watch for the Democrats becoming more pro-life as a sign of this progression.

33

The contrast between opposing theories is a great way to learn to apply critical thinking skills. When schools are government financed, it is a form of censorship to permit only a single viewpoint to be presented when a large minority objects. The real way out of this conflict is to end government control of schools.

I agree. Teaching evolution and the evidence there is for that theory along side of creationism and the complete lack of evidence for that theory is actually good for children in my opinion for the very reason you mentioned. Frankly, I am more concerned about the environmental agenda being pushed in schools than the religious one. My daughter was introduced to the idea that man was destroying the planet in the 4th grade. And I dont expect to ever see a class extolling the virtues of capitalism or the greatness of America.

People who care about the truth will find it, those who do not care do not matter. When teaching evolution is banned, when freedom of speech is diminished, then we are in trouble.

From the Christian perspective, that last sentence would read: "When teaching creationism is banned, when freedom of speech is diminished, then we are in trouble."Just as the rise of Christian fundamentalism is a reaction to the social meltdown of the 60’s, the push for creationism in schools is a reaction to the injection of leftist social and political ideology into the classrooms over the last couple of decades. The solution, as you said, is the end of government schools. And in that regard, the religious right would make a formidable ally. They feel their beliefs are under assault by the left…and they are right about that. Schools have just become the latest battleground. The way to defeat the left is to dismantle the power of the state. In education, that means private schools. There is no reason to believe that the religious right cannot be swayed to this idea since there is not likely to be any other means for them to get their agenda into public schools.

34

Is Sarah Palin a creationist? blog entries dated Friday, August 29, 2008.

The characterization of Gov. Sarah Palin as a “nutty creationist” is wrong. As normal, rural blue-collar background American who doesn’t really give a shit about abstract ideas and doesn’t let her belief in god get in the way of living a typical materialist pragmatic American life, permitting both evolution and creationism in the schools seems like a politician’s safe way out of a pointless debate. I agree. I was given a brief creationist presentation in high school and am none the worse for it, because it is obvious to students who care about ideas which of the two is plausible. I also learned phlogiston theory when introduced later to thermodynamics, and the flat earth theory in grade school at the beginning of geography. The contrast between opposing theories is a great way to learn to apply critical thinking skills. When schools are government financed, it is a form of censorship to permit only a single viewpoint to be presented when a large minority objects. The real way out of this conflict is to end government control of schools.

People who care about the truth will find it, those who do not care do not matter. When teaching evolution is banned, when freedom of speech is diminished, then we are in trouble.

We live in an increasingly technological and science-based world.

I, personally, find the prospect of electing any leader that would let some bronze age texts trump the latest scientific investigations to be concerning - to say the least.

Are policies going to be based on the facts on the ground - good or bad, or theology?

The US is falling behind in biotech because of misguided policies by the present administration. This is one of the major future branches of research.

Where would the US be if some administration had outlawed investigation into the steam engine?

35

The US is falling behind in biotech because of misguided policies by the present administration. This is one of the major future branches of research.

And if the state controls the entire healthcare system, directing resources where the bureaucrats decide, what effect do you think that will have on future medical research?

36

I think the point was missed entirely here.

Why is “the left” embracing religion more? Maybe because for the past two decades there has been much clamor and noise made about “the left” a.k.a. the Democrats being totally godless, evil, out to take away your money, kill your children, let your children have sex, let people who want to harm your children run around, let people commit acts of sodomy that God destroys cities over, let people hurt you through terrorism… They hate this country, and everyone in it and they want you to suffer.

Why? Because they are godless! They don’t like this country because it was founded on Christian values, and “the left” hates Christians and Christian’s values and all values for that matter! They just want people to run around having tons of pre-marital and extra-marital sex, do drugs, say offensive things, make offensive art, teach our children ungodly things, and push their views down our throats by saying we shouldn’t use government force to put an end to their destructive rampage.

…

The dialogue is always centered on “the left” and it’s Culture War against Traditional White Protestant Christian American Values. All the problems in the country are blamed on the Democrats and their anti-Christian, anti-American view points.

This is why George W. Bush won in a landslide. People were and still are convinced that the Democrats are evil incarnate and are the worst possible thing to evil befall this great, God-fearing, flawless nation.

So this time the Democrats are trying to show they aren’t totally anti-Christian and anti-American and they are actually trying to make things better. They may have realized that they can’t get over the anti-Christian stigma and they have to pander in some way to the Christian majority in the country to even have any kind of hope of getting their candidate elected.

That’s the real issue here. The fact that the Christians make up such a large powerful majority that everyone in public office has to pander to their irrational, destructive whims and wishes to get anything done.

Does this worry anyone else?

Does it worry anyone else that if you aren’t part of this collectivist cult, you have barely a chance of participating in politics; in choosing how to spend your tax money, how much to take, how much to give back, how much to give away, who to take from, when to take it?

What about the laws? What is a proper punishment for crimes, how long should you spend in jail for a certain crime, and should you got to jail at all for an activity?

Does it worry anyone else that only Christians get to decide what’s just and what’s fair?

Does it worry anyone else that on fringes of this majority is the domain of the White Supremacists, the anti-science and anti-reason Creationists, the ones who advocate killing non-Christians, the ones who advocate propping up a Christian monarchy. We have a very specific majority here, and having a large group like this always leads down the road to fascism.

…

I’m sure some of you will vote in the 4th Reich if it meant that you have a few more pennies in your pocket. I’m sure some of you will even praise them. Praise their consistency in their policies and programs; praises their strength in slaughtering all those who oppose them. Praise their bravery, their loyalty and their patriotic sense of life in ensuring our country is number one in everything. Praise their honesty for pointing out the true enemies and the real problems. Praise their vigorous attempts to keep up their image…

… So long as they don’t touch that tax rate!

There is a possibility that I’m wrong about you. But I’m not seeing the evidence of that. I see people desperately trying to evade reality. When a Republican does wrong, there is a rush to apologize, shove the issue under the rug, make up excuses on behalf of the person; too call the injustices irrelevant, the remarks redundant and the policies “not a problem!” When a Democrat does wrong, there is a rush to condemn them in every facet of life, to proclaim the problem is much larger, more threatening and quite possibly the worst thing we’ve ever faced. The quotes fly out of context, the issues explode of out proportion, the judgments are based off of broken weights and the corollaries come out of thin air.

The subject of this thread is crystal clear evidence of this. Of the rationalization regime that’s reigning around here. That is the “Democrats=Bad in everything” while “Republicans=Mostly good, but a little misguided on some minor, excusable issues” mindset. Leonard Peikoff’s stance on voting for the Democrats (as of the latest remarks on the issue) flies in the face of this mindset and its obvious how much it irks you people. So you begin to come up excuse after rationalizing excuse to ignore or challenge this stance. Sure, challenging someone’s claim and debating it is a proper and moral thing to do, but that’s not what’s being done here. The issue in question is ignored – the threat Evangelicals and Christians pose to American’s individual rights.

It’s obvious who embodies, embraces and empathizes with this threat the most. It’s also obvious that some of you are a few sentences and rationalizations away from becoming full-on cheerleaders for this threat; it’s a logical upgrade from the apologists you are already are or are becoming.

Why can’t we look for hope? Why can’t we promote change? Why can’t we find the good and elevate it over the bad, instead of finding the bad and ignoring the good? Why can’t it be our country right when it’s right and condemning it when it’s wrong? It’s reasonable to do these things, it’s possible and practical too.

37

Uhm, the Democrat-Republican change in this country has been pretty steady. If you didn’t realize, we had a Democrat in office 8 years ago, and we currently have a Democrat majority in the house. Before 1994, once again, we had a house controlled by Dems. They aren’t some oppressed political party for Christ’s sake.

Your entire post is filled with absolutely ridiculous claims that don’t apply to most people in this topic.

38

Uhm, the Democrat-Republican change in this country has been pretty steady. If you didn’t realize, we had a Democrat in office 8 years ago, and we currently have a Democrat majority in the house. Before 1994, once again, we had a house controlled by Dems. They aren’t some oppressed political party for Christ’s sake.

Your entire post is filled with absolutely ridiculous claims that don’t apply to most people in this topic.

I don’t know if he is saying the democrats are oppressed.

The fact is though is that in the past 28 years alone, only 8 of those were years in which a democrat was president, a president who never earned a majority vote.

39

Does it worry anyone else that on fringes of this majority is the domain of the White Supremacists, the anti-science and anti-reason Creationists, the ones who advocate killing non-Christians, the ones who advocate propping up a Christian monarchy. We have a very specific majority here, and having a large group like this always leads down the road to fascism.

I suppose it would probably help the discussion if you could name someone openly advocating "killing non Christians, " While you are at it, tell me who it is that is looking to set up a “Christian monarchy.” There are legitimate reasons to object to theism, so there is no need to make up more.

The issue in question is ignored – the threat Evangelicals and Christians pose to American’s individual rights.

I havent ignored it, I just dont agree with it. Many on the right accept that individual rights are endowed upon man by his Creator. Thats fine with me. The left has successfully pulled the old switcharoo and have substituted economic rights for political rights. Thats a problem.

Why can’t we look for hope? Why can’t we promote change? Why can’t we find the good and elevate it over the bad, instead of finding the bad and ignoring the good? Why can’t it be our country right when it’s right and condemning it when it’s wrong? It’s reasonable to do these things, it’s possible and practical too.

Sounds like someone is under the Great Teleprompter Readers spell.

40

Does it worry anyone else that on fringes of this majority is the domain of the White Supremacists, the anti-science and anti-reason Creationists, the ones who advocate killing non-Christians, the ones who advocate propping up a Christian monarchy. We have a very specific majority here, and having a large group like this always leads down the road to fascism.

This country has been majority christian since it was colonized. The Constitution and its amendments were written by christians. If this country ever turns fascist, it will be because some other ideological element combines with christianity.

The issue in question is ignored – the threat Evangelicals and Christians pose to American’s individual rights.

Individual rights were written into the constitution by christians. Why would they work to remove them? If they do, is it specifically the christianity that moves them or something else, something new?

Why can’t we look for hope? Why can’t we promote change? Why can’t we find the good and elevate it over the bad, instead of finding the bad and ignoring the good? Why can’t it be our country right when it’s right and condemning it when it’s wrong? It’s reasonable to do these things, it’s possible and practical too.

Change to what, lurch toward socialism instead of religion? This is no improvement, and can be a lot more dangerous.

What I don’t understand is the source of this anti-christian hate. If I had the opportunity to choose which oppressive religious majority to be born and live under, I would definitely pick these American style christians. Have some perspective and keep your sanity. As an Objectivist, you are in a minority. America is a great place to be in a minority. We should work to become a majority, but that will take time. The socialists are still more of an immediate threat than the religionists. Contra Piekoff, the socialists themselves are still here, still working for socialism, and don’t have the epistemology to appreciate the fact that they have been refuted by facts, logic and history.

The first amendment provides a strong barrier between the federal gov’t and religion. Constitutional barriers to enacting a socialist economic agenda are much weaker. This is why the socialists are still a bigger danger than the religionists.