How is this thread steering you towards Kerry? What has George Bush done in the name of religion to scare you. Kerry is a Catholic and has said that he is a practicing catholic when questioned. Catholics are far more dogmatic than most protestants for the most part.
I can’t listen to Peikoff’s speech yet, because I’m working, but I do have some thoughts about this.
I would disagree that religious fundamentalism is a greater danger than socialism, for several reasons:
-
The elites in the US are overwhelmingly non-religious or hostile to religion. Numerous surveys over several years indicate that the news media, the entertainment industry and most college faculties are anything but religious. In the Information Age, the influence of these groups is much greater than the influence of religious organizations.
-
Even though many Americans say they believe in God, for the most part they only give lip service to religion. They like the idea that someone or something is watching over them, but they pick and choose which tenets of their chosen religion they follow. For example, the Catholic Church is continually frustrated by the actions of its American followers. Many of them only go to churches or synagogues for holidays and important events like weddings and funerals. Beyond that, most Americans don’t give their religion much thought.
-
Most of the conservatives are cowards. They are afraid to stand up for what they believe in. That’s why they have been unable to pass much of their agenda. They know welfare is wrong, but they dare not eliminate it. They vowed to shut down the government if President Clinton didn’t meet their budget demands, but they quickly caved when the media started criticizing them.
We are much, much closer to becoming a socialist state than we are to becoming a theocracy. That’s why John Kerry is not an option no matter what I think of Bush. If I don’t vote for Bush, I’ll either vote for the Libertarian or I won’t vote at all.
Kerry and many of supporters are prepared to cave right now. If the President – the Chief Executive – caves, nobody else can do anything about it. For evidence see how President Carter handled the Iran Hostage Crisis – and its consequences.
Bush caved a long time ago.
He has our troops bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, doing nothing but trying to deflect enemy fire, while the politicians attempt to bring “freedom” to Hell. Our soldiers are planted in the middle of a terrorist ambush, struggling to stay alive. They have no military objective anymore. They are a police force, dying for Iraqis and Afghanis.
Bush is doing nothing to stop the enemy ideology from spreading. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have started recruiting in Iraq. Bush opened up a new frontier for the enemy to exploit. That’s all.
We are so spineless that we have deemed ourselves mere backup support for the ineffective Iraqi army. We won’t even destroy Fallujah!
What proxy army are we going to use to fight Iran? What is Bush going to do now to protect us from anything? Do you think the people plotting attacks on America are in Iraq? We already let al Qaeda escape from Afghanistan. What are we still doing there? How is sitting on our thumbs in Iraq accomplishing anything?
9/11 killed 3,000 non-combatants. At the time our nation and military was pumped and ready to take out the “evildoers”.
But now, after 18 months of Bush’s compassionate “War on Terror”, the enemy has killed 950 soldiers and wounded 6,500 more. Our superpower nation and military is demoralized, clueless. How could we be losing to these people? Where do we point our guns?
Bush is accomplishing nothing but fantasy. All that is being accomplished in the Middle East is the gradual reduction of our military might. With Bush, our military literally suffers and gets weaker by the day, while the terrorists, through their actions alone, inspire countless Arabs to rise up against the West. And, in the eyes of the terrorists, that is progress.
I don’t see why the terrorists could possibly want Kerry in the White House, when Bush practically hands them soldiers to sacrifice and land to conquer.
Second, a dictatorship would emerge. People would not understand the cause of their woes, and a slick-talking Hitler type of man would emerge with strong rhetoric.
Maybe a theocracy would emerge?
I don’t see either one as possible – at least not in America – for the reasons given by Ayn Rand:
Only one thing is certain: a dictatorship cannot take hold in America today. This country, as yet, cannot be ruled – but it can explode. It can blow up into the helpless rage and blind violence of a civil war. It cannot be cowed into submission, passivity, malevolence, resignation. It cannot be “pushed around.” Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say “Yes, sir,” to the enforcers of ration coupons and cereal prices. Not yet.
Although I am not incredibly up to date on American politics, isn’t Kerry the one who is always preaching multilateral action, building alliances, and waiting for the UN and other countries to approve of the US defending itself? Is this a good strategy to embrace for the long run?
“The right, on the other hand, still retains and respects some American and Enlightenment ideals.”
Hooboy, Betsy, you should read what I’m reading… Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” (7th revised ed.) which illustrates how tenuous that retention really is.
Kirk, like William Buckley, represents the worst of the Old Right. That is not what I had in mind.
What I was referring to was the New Right – like Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA). While these people are religious and have very mixed premises, most of their good premises come from an American sense of life and many come directly from Ayn Rand. Both respect, admire, quote from, and recommend Ayn Rand. In fact, by reading from Galt’s Speech and prominently featuring Atlas Shrugged on his web site, Rush has probably promoted Ayn Rand almost as much as ARI has.
This, of course, was all in contrast to the John Kerry Democrats. While the Right may allow other-worldly considerations to affect their political judgements on occasion, the Dems LIVE in an alternate universe.
No capitalist in his right mind thinks religious conservatives are much more rational than their “opponents.”
As a capitalist, I consider myself an opponent of religious conservatism.
I am too.
But I am even more an opponent of secular liberals. Religious conservative get a lot of things wrong, while secular liberals get just about nothing right.
Another Carter would give this country a knockout punch. :yarr:
Carter would sell America to the enemy, hence his defeat in 1980.
Kerry would sell America to the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the UN who would sell America to the enemy, hence my working for his defeat in 2004.
Maybe a theocracy would emerge?
How about a Christian democracy?
Someone mentioned to me that Dr. Peikoff called Bush an M1.5. I think that might just make sense. He isn’t Dark Ages religious, but his religion isn’t just on the side, either.
That sounds about right.
I think Bush is not much of a thinker but he tries to make the best decisions he can by consulting Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the Bible.
So he’s batting .600 – which isn’t too bad considering who Kerry’s advisors are likely to be. :yarr:
Kerry would sell America to the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the UN who would sell America to the enemy, hence my working for his defeat in 2004.
Bush would skip all the intermediaries and sell us directly to the enemy.
Someone mentioned to me that Dr. Peikoff called Bush an M1.5. I think that might just make sense. He isn’t Dark Ages religious, but his religion isn’t just on the side, either.
I believe it was Harry Binswanger on HBL who called Bush an M1.5, not Leonard Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff believes, I’m pretty sure, that Bush is an M2. I am inclined to agree with Dr. Binswanger, assuming that he still believes Bush to be an M1.5.
What I was referring to was the New Right – like Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA). While these people are religious and have very mixed premises, most of their good premises come from an American sense of life and many come directly from Ayn Rand. Both respect, admire, quote from, and recommend Ayn Rand. In fact, by reading from Galt’s Speech and prominently featuring Atlas Shrugged on his web site, Rush has probably promoted Ayn Rand almost as much as ARI has.
As I wrote in a post on another thread, my conservative father turned me on to Ayn Rand. Of course, he hadn’t read her in a while and seemed to think she was a conservative too. Many conservatives like Ayn Rand, even though they don’t really understand her at the deepest levels. This is how one can explain Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher’s contention that his two favorite books are The Bible and Atlas Shrugged. It also explains…
Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was one of the people who got me interested in ideas, albeit primarily political (and, to a lesser extent, ethical) ideas. His love of America, his optimism, and his humor are entertaining and, to a degree, thought-provoking. I doubt he’s done as much to get AR out there as ARI has, but he has certainly done quite a bit. Had it not been for conservatives like Rush and my father, I would not be an Objectivist today.
Does anyone know any liberals who respect and recommend Ayn Rand?
While I recognize the (substantial) flaws in my father’s philosophy and in Rush Limbaugh’s, I do not think they want to destroy the country or turn it into a theocracy. What they want is simple: the continuation of America and the destruction of liberalism (i.e. leftism). Where they, and the rest of the right, fall short is their failure to understand exactly what the continuation of America and the discrediting of the left depends on philosophically. In short, the danger of the right, as I see it at the present time, is not that it will turn America into a theocracy but rather that it will be unable to withstand the left’s assault because it is philosophically disarmed. I think its embrace of religion is a sign of weakness and confusion, not of strength and certainty.
If Dr. Peikoff is right, and the nihilist left is on the way out historically, it means that the intellectual battle will be between Objectivists and religionists. If it is true that the majority of the American public is basically honest, our victory is inevitable. I think religion is quite simple to defeat, provided one has a rational morality to offer people in its place. We do.
If Dr. Peikoff is right, and the nihilist left is on the way out historically, it means that the intellectual battle will be between Objectivists and religionists. If it is true that the majority of the American public is basically honest, our victory is inevitable. I think religion is quite simple to defeat, provided one has a rational morality to offer people in its place. We do.
Objectivism has been gaining a considerable large audience lately. I myself have been spreading Rand’s ideas. I wish ARI was able to give students an abundance of Anthem and Fountainhead copies to hand out.
I think religion is quite simple to defeat, provided one has a rational morality to offer people in its place. We do.
What might a rational morality be? Religion is not predicated on reason and as such it cannot be affected by it. Where ever we find humans who think that emotions are most or all that matters then religion is here to stay. I would venture to say that that is the disposition of most human beings.
QUOTE (Bearster @ Aug 5 2004 @ 10:20 PM)
I don’t see either one as possible – at least not in America – for the reasons given by Ayn Rand:
Betsy, the context was quite clear. I was talking about what happens *after* a catastrophic, cataclysmic, terrorist holocaust. I was talking about America in the aftermath of a terrorist nuclear strike against the largest US cities in the same instant.
Your cite isn’t relevant–and you know it. I don’t believe that you lost track of the context I was addressing. You cited Rand by rote, because who could argue with Ayn Rand herself, right?
The fact is, Rand was talking about the US in the what, 1960’s? That was a different culture than what will be if the terrorists nuke 100,000,000 Americans. Don’t you agree?
Second, a dictatorship would emerge. People would not understand the cause of their woes, and a slick-talking Hitler type of man would emerge with strong rhetoric.
Maybe a theocracy would emerge?
I don’t see either one as possible – at least not in America – for the reasons given by Ayn Rand:
Betsy, the context was quite clear. I was talking about what happens *after* a catastrophic, cataclysmic, terrorist holocaust. I was talking about America in the aftermath of a terrorist nuclear strike against the largest US cities in the same instant.
So was I.
Your cite isn’t relevant–and you know it.
I do?? Can you read my mind better than I can? How do you manage to do that? 
I don’t believe that you lost track of the context I was addressing. You cited Rand by rote, because who could argue with Ayn Rand herself, right?
I cited that particular quotation from Ayn Rand because she gave reasons why a dictatorship was unlikely to take over in the US which was the point under discussion. Observe that I cited “the REASONS given by Ayn Rand” and not simply that Ayn Rand said it. The purpose was to direct the discussion to those reasons and not to chastise anyone for disagreeing with Ayn Rand.
The fact is, Rand was talking about the US in the what, 1960’s? That was a different culture than what will be if the terrorists nuke 100,000,000 Americans. Don’t you agree?
NO!
In fact, I think the American culture is BETTER now than in the 1960’s due to the growing influence of Objectivism and Objectivists. The reasons Ayn Rand gave for believing that a dictatorship is not possible are as true as ever – maybe moreso.
If you disagree with Ayn Rand or hold that her arguments and reasons are no longer relevant, please explain WHY. Deal with the message and not the messenger. Accusing me of context dropping, having devious motives, or quoting “by rote” is no substitute for a rational argument.
What might a rational morality be?
Objectivism, of course.
Religion is not predicated on reason and as such it cannot be affected by it.
Religion is predicated on the fact that men need values in order to live. Up until now, religion has been the sole supplier or values.
Where ever we find humans who think that emotions are most or all that matters then religion is here to stay. I would venture to say that that is the disposition of most human beings.
I wouldn’t.
I know many, many people who accept religion as the only way they know to defend values and be good people. I show them how to defend values with facts instead of faith and win them over for Objectivism. It’s a very easy sell if you pick the right people.
I believe Peikoff is merely making the mistake Ayn Rand did when she concluded her thoughts on Reagan.
Betsy and others:
The issue of censorship alone is why I would not vote for Bush. (I am Canadian so I can’t vote anyway)
Once freedom of speech goes (see how the FCC has been empowered and expanded under Bush’s watch), then a free nation is really under threat. Objectivism and therefore positive social change has a chance only when freedom of speech exists. Bush means religious business. He is not a pragmatist like most US Presidents over the years but a fundamantalist Christian who is on an ideological mission to reshape America.
The concrete effects of his ideas and those of the religious right slowly are emerging: FCC, stemcell restrictions, corporate restictions, proposals to ban same-sex marriage etc.
If the Ann Couters or David Frums were indeed running the world, I would not be too concerned–as they share many valid ideas about the fundamentals of a free society. But Bush is no Neo-Con–he is a religious zelot with censorship as his major weapon against anything non Christian. Sounds alot like theocracies like Iran or dictarships like North Korea?
America is not a theocracy yet but with a strong religious base empowered by Bush and his regulators, the first freedom to go will be censorship and THEN we are down a slippery slope that America has NEVER travelled before. I am afraid that in the years to come under Bush, America is under threat to become a christanized state. In US history, secularism has always won out over Christianity despite the wide acceptance and practice of Christianity by its leaders and people. The American “sprit” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has endured Christrian altruism in part because US institutions were established based on reason and rights–institutions that reinforced philosophical ideas that ran contrary to Christianity and were supported by its leaders. But for the first time, those very institutions are under direct attack by the commander and chief and his staff. And for the first time, I support the democrats.