In a few threads, and in the chat, I have come across one of the following two arguments:
Romney was the better candidate.
Both were just as bad as the other.
The third option (Obama was the better candidate) does not seem to exist in Objectivist circles. If Objectivism is meant to be about freedom, the most basic freedom one can have is the freedom to do what you will with your own body. Romney would deny women abortion. He is a religious nut job:
He specifically says in this video that he has always voted against choice and always will. HOW DARE ANYONE VOTE FOR SUCH A FASCIST! How dare you equivocate between economic and political freedoms, between the ideas of Obama and Romney. One is clearly worse. One would shackle women. In a choice between instigating higher taxes and instigating the shackling of women you choose to shackle women? How DARE you. It makes me sick to the stomach.
There is a reason why you feel able to equivocate: most of you are white males. So culturally you subconsciously see economic freedom as THE freedom, and downplay abuses of freedoms that effect women. This cultural bias probably results from most of you residing in rural areas, but that is just my opinion. I hope you can see why my anger is justified.
Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster. And anyway who abstained from voting is a moral monster. And anyway who says “oh but we shouldn’t have to make this choice” is a coward. The Objectivist community had to choose and it will be judged by it’s backward choice.
Has Obama ever been shown to be a liar? Probably a debatable point, it’s just nice to see that you at least find him to be forthright, you are assured there is no conceivable circumstance where Obama may act against his stated position.
I just wonder how long abortions will be available when the APCA kicks all the way in. By that I mean if rationing of medical expenditures comes to pass, will curtailing abortions be seen as a possible cost saving measure. I’m pretty sure they have already written off those over 70 yrs age as it concerns neurosurgery when intercranial bleeding indicates emergency surgery.
Second, notice that 8 years of Reagan and 12 of Bush couldn’t make a dent in the right to abortion. This is not to say that one shouldn’t be concerned about the religious conservative rhetoric, but there needs to be a sense of proportion.
Third, not all Objectivists supported Romney. A good number voted for Johnson, and I don’t doubt that some (very small) number even voted for Obama. My swing-state cast vote for Romney was motivated by his pledge to repeal Obamacare. How would you weigh the relative importance of one politician’s unfulfillable desire to deny one right, to another’s which is on the cusp of being implemented?
There is a reason why you feel able to equivocate: most of you are white males. So culturally you subconsciously see economic freedom as THE freedom, and downplay abuses of freedoms that effect women. This cultural bias probably results from most of you residing in rural areas, but that is just my opinion. I hope you can see why my anger is justified.
I don’t think that it’s an issue based in people being white and/or male. I know of many women and non-whites who place more importance on economic freedom in today’s world than on the abortion issue. The reason they place more importance on it is because government intrusion into economics is having a real and serious effect on their lives, where abortion is not. Basically, most people will never need to have the option of having an abortion, and the legality of abortion isn’t currently threatened. Even if Romney had won, abortion would have remained legal. So those who vote for economic freedom over abortion freedom are simply voting against the real loss of their economic freedoms rather than against the potential but highly unlikely loss of your abortion freedoms.
Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster. And anyway who abstained from voting is a moral monster. And anyway who says “oh but we shouldn’t have to make this choice” is a coward. The Objectivist community had to choose and it will be judged by it’s backward choice.
I disagree. I think that your condemnation of others – because they vote (or abstaining from voting) for the purpose of choosing to fight against the real government intrusions which affect them most, rather than choosing to fight against the merely potential and unlikely intrusions which affect you the most – is what is morally corrupt. Your expectation that they surrender their interest in their freedoms in the name of yours is what is morally “monstrous.”
Which Objectivist circles do you speak of? Based on your wording though, I suspect you’re not after a discussion, you’re just after venting anger. Personally, I have said Obama is marginally better, but his position on abortion is a reason I would say Obama is better than Romney in such a way that I didn’t even contemplate voting Romney.
Even then, your thread title isn’t what you’re talking about. Objectivism certainly advocates the right to have an abortion, so you *could* argue that voting for Romney is to contradict principles. That may be a discussion worth having. But not with anger involved.
I agree with your points that a vote for Romney is an endorsement of evil, but I don’t see your point about non-voting. You state that you don’t approve, but don’t say why. I suppose you are saying that not voting helps Romney?
Voting for Romney is a vote for ‘shackling women’? That’s a little dramatic- let’s keep things in perspective.
Even if Romney had won, abortion would have remained legal. So those who vote for economic freedom over abortion freedom are simply voting against the real loss of their economic freedoms rather than against the potential but highly unlikely loss of your abortion freedoms.
This is the most important point. We all know that Romney is against abortion. So is Ron Paul. So are tons of other government employees. But does the president have the power to outlaw abortion? Absolutely not. And can a president overturn Roe v. Wade? No way. What he CAN do to affect abortion rights is:
Regulate medicaid. The president can block Medicaid funding to certain states that refuse to give money to organizations like Planned Parenthood. Obama has done this, but Romney probably wouldn’t.
Affect funding for nonprofits that provide abortions overseas. Obama started this practice, but Romney would overturn it.
Pass federal abortion regulations (like the partial birth abortion ban act). Obama hasn’t passed any federal regulations. Would Romney?
Appoint supreme court justices. Romney would have been able to appoint 1 or 2 new justices. Would one more conservative justice be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade? I don’t think so. Only 2 justices (Scalia and Clarence Thomas) have made it clear they want to overturn Roe v. Wade because ‘there’s no right to abortion in the constitution.’
Overall, a Romney president would not have been able to make many changes in regards to abortion rights.
Appoint supreme court justices. Romney would have been able to appoint 1 or 2 new justices. Would one more conservative justice be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade? I don’t think so. Only 2 justices (Scalia and Clarence Thomas) have made it clear they want to overturn Roe v. Wade because ‘there’s no right to abortion in the constitution.’
And the odds are that Romney, in the name of reaching across the aisle, getting along, governing by consensus, kumbaya, etc., would have appointed moderate or even liberal justices rather than conservatives.
The third option (Obama was the better candidate) does not seem to exist in Objectivist circles. If Objectivism is meant to be about freedom, the most basic freedom one can have is the freedom to do what you will with your own body. Romney would deny women abortion. He is a religious nut job:
Your 3rd option is a non-starter in terms of basic freedoms. Obama’s individual mandate trumps anything you want to do with your own body, and to claim that forcing healthcare is preferable to withholding healthcare, is also equivocal.
In a few threads, and in the chat, I have come across one of the following two arguments:
Romney was the better candidate.
Both were just as bad as the other.
The third option (Obama was the better candidate) does not seem to exist in Objectivist circles. If Objectivism is meant to be about freedom, the most basic freedom one can have is the freedom to do what you will with your own body. Romney would deny women abortion. He is a religious nut job:
He specifically says in this video that he has always voted against choice and always will. HOW DARE ANYONE VOTE FOR SUCH A FASCIST! How dare you equivocate between economic and political freedoms, between the ideas of Obama and Romney. One is clearly worse. One would shackle women. In a choice between instigating higher taxes and instigating the shackling of women you choose to shackle women? How DARE you. It makes me sick to the stomach.
There is a reason why you feel able to equivocate: most of you are white males. So culturally you subconsciously see economic freedom as THE freedom, and downplay abuses of freedoms that effect women. This cultural bias probably results from most of you residing in rural areas, but that is just my opinion. I hope you can see why my anger is justified.
Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster. And anyway who abstained from voting is a moral monster. And anyway who says “oh but we shouldn’t have to make this choice” is a coward. The Objectivist community had to choose and it will be judged by it’s backward choice.
The above is wrong. Romney is wrong about abortion; Obama is wrong about the ENTIRE role of government. Summing up Obama, you get a potential communist dictator. Summing up Romney, you get a mixture of Capitalism and socialism. Obviously, Romney is the lesser evil.
You don’t judge a candidate on one issue; you judge them on how they stand on all the issues, and sum them up about how good or bad they are.
Objectivism isn’t backwards. The above statement is.
I find it amusing that the writer thinks Obama - who wants to shackle EVERYONE - men and women - the healthcare compulsion mandate is shackling everyone, men and women - is a better person than Romney, who wants to shackle women’s abortion rights (which is wrong too - but clearly not as bad as heading in the direction of controlling everything about everyone). The writer is not rational.
Whatever the expression means, you do not present an argument that it applies to Objectivism (or for that matter, to Objectivists who supported Romney).
So why some were willing to overlook Romney’s position on abortion? I think one reason is that they see it as a bumper-sticker issue - one that’s good for firing up the hard core and shaking money out of them but which has no prospect of enactment. In the 50s and 60s Taft-Hartley repeal was such an issue for the Democrats. Proposed constitutional amendments are often of this nature: the ERA (after the first year or two), abortion, flag-burning, same-sex marriage and messing with the first amendment would all be cases in point. Thus a lot of people, including Objectivists, were able to overcome their dislike of Romney’s position on abortion because they figured nothing would come of it.
Most of you are all confirming your cultural biases to me. For those under the delusion that abortion rights were not at risk - http://tpmdc.talking…preme-court.php One more conservative judge would have tipped the scales.
The above is wrong. Romney is wrong about abortion; Obama is wrong about the ENTIRE role of government. Summing up Obama, you get a potential communist dictator. Summing up Romney, you get a mixture of Capitalism and socialism. Obviously, Romney is the lesser evil.
Will an Objectivist here please confirm to Darrell how absurd this statement is. First of all, learn what communism is. What Fox News calls communism isn’t communism. Obama is not a communist. Obama is a centrist, and he supports a mixed economy. Romney is centre right and supports a mixed economy.
I find it amusing that the writer thinks Obama - who wants to shackle EVERYONE - men and women - the healthcare compulsion mandate is shackling everyone, men and women - is a better person than Romney, who wants to shackle women’s abortion rights (which is wrong too - but clearly not as bad as heading in the direction of controlling everything about everyone). The writer is not rational.
Perhaps your most absurd paragraph. Obamacare was Romney’s policy that he enacted in MA. There is a reason people refer to it as Obamneycare. In fact originally, the policy was dreamt up by the Heritage Institute a well known free market supporter.
Most of you are all confirming your cultural biases to me.
What are you talking about? No one has confirmed any cultural biases. You’ve only gone out looking for cultural biases and have decided to find them whether they exist or not.
For those under the delusion that abortion rights were not at risk - http://tpmdc.talking…preme-court.php One more conservative judge would have tipped the scales.
Why should we assign any weight to the predictions and opinions of Sahil Kapur and the Talking Points Memo?
Anyway, I’m currently being taxed and mandated under Obama. You’re currently not being denied the right to have an abortion. Understand? In voting for Obama, you have sanctioned the confiscation of my wealth. In not voting for Obama, I have not sanctioned state control over your body.
Will an Objectivist here please confirm to Darrell how absurd this statement is. First of all, learn what communism is. What Fox News calls communism isn’t communism. Obama is not a communist. Obama is a centrist, and he supports a mixed economy.
I don’t think that’s true. Obama sometimes talks centrism to certain audiences, but I think ultimately, he’d prefer complete government ownership and control of everything.
Hmmm…. Let’s see. Do I vote for the man who wanted to control one kind of medical procedure, or do I vote for the man who already has indicated he wants the government to control ALL medical procedures and has signed into law the process of forcing people into that kind of system.
Hmmm… Protect one tree while watching the forest burn or protect the forest and return to the single tree to play defense once that tree and every other one has been saved?
Are rural and urban actually relevent terms in the modern sense? At some point historians will probably refer to the common era as the age of dissemination instead of information. Those terms connote the difference between the cosmopolitan nature of cities with access and dissemination of information at a rate higher than in rural populations given the inability of access to the ‘newsest’ information. Given current technological advances those distinctions seem moot.
Actually Romney would be a communist and Obama would be a Stalinist given the poster’s reasoning. A communist (marxist) would leave the capitalists to their druthers in the hope they would impliment the apex of industrialization to then allow the proliteriat to eventually take over, of course after the state was done showing the workers how to survive after the point where it would be ok for the state to wither away.
Obama is more a Stalinist in that he feels it would be better to throttle the current capitalists and then I guess basically do whatever he felt like ,justified by whatever social engineering theory seemed appropriate.