The difference between a democracy and a republic is analagous to the difference between democrats and objectivist republicans. I specify “objectivist” because current republicans are not holding up to the republic ideal. Our founding fathers knew that a (constitutional) republic is supposed to restrict democracy with the reigns of inalienable rights, realizing, as can be read in The Federalist Papers, that a pure democracy can be dangerous in that it subsumes the minority to the will of the majority.
As many of you already know, today’s republicans don’t recognize these inalienable rights on social issues, nor do they take the principled laissez-faire stance that the defense of these rights is the only proper function of the government. While I have drifted in and out of the pessimistic belief that these setbacks are too great to change, I’m now ready to start some real discussion on how to get it done.
Betsy and a few others had a good discussion a while back on the prospects of “infiltrating” the republican party. Here’s a few specific ideas I have so far:
(1) Show that we are the true _republic_ans, that we represent the rational and principled ideas held by the Enlightenment intellectuals that founded this nation. That means we should spare no effort to quote them.
(2) Advocate the FairTax as a much-needed replacement of the income tax (and all the other taxes that clutter up our complex system). Repeal the 16th Ammendment and abolish the IRS in the process.
(3) Emphasize our strong stance on foreign policy by criticizing attempts from democrats and those of our own party to appease terrorists. Advocate military action against Iran.
(4) Join CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste) in criticizing the wasteful use of tax dollars in Congress.
What about general ways of associating objectivist ideas with republicanism? What current republican publications/clubs/websites have objectivist sympathies? Does everyone even agree that this is the best way for further Objectivism into politics?
The Republican Party taxes, yet conceeds tax cuts to the rich (top 1%).
If (hypothetically) we are moving towards less taxation and cutting government spending, is cutting the tax the rich pay, yet not the working/middle classes pay advisable? should not they both be reduced at an equal rate? or perhaps the cuts should hit the lower/middle classes first - freeing them from the restriction of heavy taxations - allowing more competition, a market with greater freedom?
It seems to me that the tax cuts the rich get (+ the huge amount they dont pay by hiring tax lawyers to evade tax) encourage unfair monopolies when everyone else is paying heavily.
Does everyone even agree that this is the best way for further Objectivism into politics?
I think that once Objectivism has enough cultural support and influence, then what you have identified would be a very viable way of inserting Objectivism into Politics. However, I think that any political insertion of Objectivism will necessarily fail with out that cultural backing. Culture is first, politics comes after. Where does Objectivism stand in its cultural status? Ask Betsy.
Also, I think it would be good to broaden this thread to a discusson about how far along Objectivism is in the culture, and at what point should there be a push for more political involvement.
I think that once Objectivism has enough cultural support and influence, then what you have identified would be a very viable way of inserting Objectivism into Politics.
I don’t think we need to spread Objectivism per se, in order for an Objectivist-sympathizer to get elected. Certainly we need to spread capitalism, but many of those ideas are already part of republican rhetoric: personal responsibility, private medical care, down with welfare, ‘why don’t we just bomb the bastards’, etc.
There is also another Republican club, called the Republican Majority for Choice, which is in support of abortion.
“The Republican Pro-Choice Coalition has changed its name to the Republican Majority for Choice to reaffirm the reality that 73% of Republicans believe that the right to choose should be a woman’s decision, not the government’s.”
73%??? Is this for real? How could I have been blinded for so long into thinking that the religious right held the majority.
Also, that group refers to themselves as ‘Moderate Republicans’. Is this how an Objectivist politician should go by?
The term moderate implies that you are still playing by their rules. Moderate is the middle of the left (communists) and the right (fascists). I am not an advocate of either of those views so could not be discribed as moderately communist or moderately fascist
The Republican Party taxes, yet conceeds tax cuts to the rich (top 1%).
If (hypothetically) we are moving towards less taxation and cutting government spending, is cutting the tax the rich pay, yet not the working/middle classes pay advisable? should not they both be reduced at an equal rate? or perhaps the cuts should hit the lower/middle classes first - freeing them from the restriction of heavy taxations - allowing more competition, a market with greater freedom?
It seems to me that the tax cuts the rich get (+ the huge amount they dont pay by hiring tax lawyers to evade tax) encourage unfair monopolies when everyone else is paying heavily.
Charles,
Under our current tax system the “rich” pay the majority of taxes. I believe the figure goes something like the top 5% pay 53% of all income taxes and earn 31% of all income. Of course Republicans aren’t going to cut taxes “equally” since our current system doesn’t equally tax people. If you pay more taxes, you should get a bigger across the board tax cut.
The problem with Republicans on economic issues is they seem to me like borderline Keynesians. Cutting taxes only for political purposes and economic stimulation, not because taxes are a violation of governmental power. Then again Democrats take on Keynes’ entire method of government spending and running deficits and surpluses. I can’t ever imagine myself voting Democrat. I’m happy to see Oakes bring up this issue for I’ve wrestled with it many times myself.
In addition to the 73% of Republicans who say that the choice should remain with the woman, 61% of GOP respondents said that while they themselves might not choose abortion, they would not take that right away from other women.
That makes 134% in total. It’s MORE than a majority!
Also, that group refers to themselves as ‘Moderate Republicans’. Is this how an Objectivist politician should go by?
Certainly not. An Objectivist politician should be a radical for capitalism. “Moderate Republican” means “I support a republican form of government, as long as I don’t have to do anything that makes anyone angry.”
Certainly not. An Objectivist politician should be a radical for capitalism. “Moderate Republican” means “I support a republican form of government, as long as I don’t have to do anything that makes anyone angry.”
But where can they be placed on party lines other than in some vague area between the far left and far right?
We oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. Our position is Neutral. This is the one issue where we are split. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.ca.rlc.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.
I, too, oppose government funding of abortion, but that is consistent with my position regarding federal funding for the sake of others.
If one is to truly defend individual rights, then one must include the right of female individuals to their bodies. There is no compromise here.
I reject the RLC as a representative of objectivism or capitalism.
Remember that the moderates refer to us capitalists as “absolutists.”
Then it is true that moderates tend to be compromisers. This isn’t something an Objectivist politician wants to be seen as, but nevertheless he will be accused of being a moderate republican, so I think he should constantly stress that he is a Capitalist first, Republican second. He has to come across as very principled, not compromising.
Then it is true that moderates tend to be compromisers. This isn’t something an Objectivist politician wants to be seen as, but nevertheless he will be accused of being a moderate republican
Hardly! A true Objectivist would be accused of being a “dangerous radical.”
Yep. The RLC has some pretty good candidates. As someone pointed out the candidates are not Objectivists, but have done some pretty good stuff.
One person in particular, Congressman Jeff Flake, has impressed me since back when I first read his articles on the Goldwater Institute website back in the early 90’s. Here is a little more information about him:
Overall his biggest positive is his ability to explain to voters why he takes stands on free trade and limited govt. He has also been a big supporter of military funding.
I am not aware of his voting record on abortion, but he is a Mormon so that part might not be stellar.
Hardly! A true Objectivist would be accused of being a “dangerous radical.”
But what if they just look at a list of his beliefs, keeping in mind that he calls himself a republican. They will see that he differs than the religious right on key issues like abortion, after which they will brand him a moderate.
Certainly, if he presents himself as a non-compromising capitalist, the opposite response will occur. But which image do you think has a greater chance of becoming prevalent?
